Goals of Care Documentation: Insights from A Pilot Implementation Study

ContextThe Life Sustaining Treatment Decision Initiative is a national effort by the Veterans Health Administration to ensure goals of care documentation occurs among all patients at high risk of life-threatening events. ObjectivesExamine likelihood to receive goals of care documentation and explore associations between documentation and perceived patient care experience at the individual and site level. MethodsRetrospective, quality improvement analysis of initiative pilot data from four geographically diverse Veterans Affairs (VA) sites (Fall 2014-Winter 2016) before national roll-out. Goals of care documentation according to gender, marital status, urban/rural status, race/ethnicity, age, serious health condition, and Care Assessment Needs scores. Association between goals of care documentation and perceived patient care experience analyzed based on Bereaved Family Survey outcomes of overall care, communication, and support. ResultsVeterans were more likely to have goals of care documentation if widowed, urban residents, and of white race. Patients older than 65-years and those with a higher Care Assessment Needs score were twice as likely as a frail patient to have goals of care documented. One pilot site demonstrated a positive association between documentation and perceived support. Pilot site was a statistically significant predictor of the occurrence of goals of care documentation and Bereaved Family Survey scores. ConclusionOlder and seriously ill patients were most likely to have goals of care documented. Association between a documented goals of care conversation and perceived patient care experience were largely unsupported. Site-level largely contributed to understanding the likelihood of documentation and care experience

Provider Perspectives of Battlefield Acupuncture

ObjectivesNonpharmacological options to treat pain are in demand, in part to address the opioid crisis. One such option is acupuncture. Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) is an auricular needling protocol currently used to treat pain in the Veterans Health Administration. We aimed to identify the advantages and disadvantages of BFA from providers' perspectives.MethodsWe rely on an inductive qualitative approach to explore provider perceptions through thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with 43 BFA providers across the nation.ResultsWe identified the following themes. Disadvantages included: (1) clinical guidelines are insufficient; (2) patients often request multiple BFA visits from providers; (3) BFA can be uncomfortable; (4) BFA may not be an effective treatment option unless it can be provided "on demand"; and (5) BFA can promote euphoria, which can have deleterious consequences for patient self-care. Perceived advantages included: (1) BFA can simultaneously effectively control pain while reducing opioid use; (2) BFA may alleviate the pain that has been unsuccessfully treated by conventional methods; (3) BFA gives providers a treatment option to offer patients with substance use disorder; (4) BFA helps build a trusting patient-provider relationship; (5) BFA can create the opportunity for hope.ConclusionsProviders perceive BFA to have many benefits, both clinical and relational, including ways in which it may have utility in addressing the current opioid crisis. BFA is easy to deliver and has potential clinical and relational utility. Efforts to better understand effectiveness are warranted

Teamlet Structure and Early Experiences of Medical Home Implementation for Veterans

BackgroundHigh functioning interdisciplinary primary care teams are a critical component of the patient-centered medical home. In 2010, the Veterans Administration (VA) implemented a medical home model termed the Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT), with reorganization of staff into small teams ("teamlets") as a core feature.ObjectiveTo examine the early experiences of primary care personnel as they assumed new roles through reorganization into teamlets.DesignConvergent mixed methods study design involving semi-structured interviews and a survey; data were collected in 2011 and 2012.ParticipantsWe interviewed 41 frontline teamlet members (i.e., primary care physicians and staff) from three practices that were part of a PACT demonstration laboratory and examined clinician and staff survey data from 22 practices.Main measuresSemi-structured interview guide and clinician and staff survey questions covering the following domains: teamlet formation and structure, within-teamlet communication, cross-coverage, role changes, teamlet training, impact on Veterans, and leadership facilitation and support.Key resultsRespondents had limited input into teamlet structure and indicated limited training on the PACT initiative. Guidelines delineating each teamlet member's roles and responsibilities were emphasized as important needs. Chronic understaffing also contributed to implementation challenges and territorial attitudes surfaced when cross-coverage was not clear. In addition, several core features of VA's medical home transformation were not fully implemented by teamlet members. Most also reported limited guidance and feedback from leadership. Despite these challenges, teamlet-based care was perceived to have a positive impact on Veterans' experiences of primary care and also resulted in improved communication among staff.ConclusionsThe PACT teamlet model holds much promise for improving primary care at the VA. However, more comprehensive training, improving the stability of teamlets, developing clear cross-coverage policies, and better defined teamlet member responsibilities are important areas in need of attention by VA leadership

Expanding the role of clinical pharmacists on interdisciplinary primary care teams for chronic pain and opioid management

Abstract Background Facilitating appropriate and safe prescribing of opioid medications for chronic pain management in primary care is a pressing public health concern. Interdisciplinary team-based models of primary care are exploring the expansion of clinical pharmacist roles to support disease management for chronic conditions, e.g. pain. Our study aims to 1) identify roles clinical pharmacists can assume in primary care team based chronic pain care processes and 2) understand the barriers to assuming these expanded roles. Methods Setting: Veterans Health Administration (VA) has implemented an interdisciplinary team-based model for primary care which includes clinical pharmacists. Design: We employed an inductive two part qualitative approach including focus groups and semi-structured interviews with key informants. Participants: 60 members of VA primary care teams in two states participated in nine preliminary interdisciplinary focus groups where a semi-structured interview guide elucidated provider experiences with screening for and managing chronic pain. To follow up on emergent themes relating to clinical pharmacist roles, an additional 14 primary care providers and clinical pharmacists were interviewed individually. We evaluated focus group and interview transcripts using the method of constant comparison and produced mutually agreed upon themes. Results Clinical pharmacists were identified by primary care providers as playing a central role with the ongoing management of opioid therapy including review of the state prescription drug monitoring program, managing laboratory screening, providing medication education, promoting naloxone use, and opioid tapering. Specific barriers to clinical pharmacists role expansion around pain care include: limitations of scopes of practice, insufficient institutional support (low staffing, dedicated time, insufficient training, lack of interdisciplinary leadership support), and challenges and opportunities for disseminating clinical pharmacists’ expanded roles. Conclusions Expanding the role of the clinical pharmacist to collaborate with providers around primary care based chronic pain management is a promising strategy for improving pain management on an interdisciplinary primary care team. However, expanded roles have to be balanced with competing responsibilities relating to other conditions. Interdisciplinary leadership is needed to facilitate training, resources, adequate staffing, as well as to prepare both clinical pharmacists and the providers they support, about expanded clinical pharmacists’ scopes of practice and capabilities

Challenges and Strategies for Implementing Battlefield Acupuncture in the Veterans Administration: A Qualitative Study of Provider Perspectives

Objective: Battlefield Acupuncture (BFA) is an auricular needling protocol for pain. More than 1300 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinicians have been trained in BFA delivery. However, little is known about how well BFA has been implemented at the VHA. The aim of this research was to identify the challenges providers experience in implementing BFA and to look for any successful strategies used to overcome these challenges. Materials and Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted from June 2017 to January 2018, using an interview guide informed by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework to address several implementation domains: knowledge and attitudes about BFA; professional roles and training in BFA; organization of BFA delivery and resources to provide BFA; and implementation challenges and strategies to address challenges. The interviews were analyzed, using a grounded theory-informed approach. This research was conducted at 20 VHA facilities and involved 23 VHA BFA providers nationwide. Results: Nine main implementation themes were identified: (1) providers organizing BFA delivery in various ways; (2) insufficient time to provide BFA to meet patient demand; (3) beliefs and knowledge about BFA; (4) lack of BFA indication guidelines or effectiveness data; (5) self-efficacy; (6) time delay between training and practice; (7) limited access to resources; (8) key role of leadership and administrative buy-in, and (9) written consent an unwarranted documentation burden. Providers offered some possible strategies to address these issues. Conclusions: System- and provider-level challenges can impede BFA implementation. However, several providers discovered strategies to address some challenges that can be used within and outside the VHA, which, in turn, might improve access to this potentially promising pain-management intervention

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis

Objective Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM.Design Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.Setting Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions.Participants Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA.Intervention A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.Outcome measures (a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain.Results Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned.Conclusions Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams