Comparing strategies for United States veterans' mortality ascertainment

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine optimal strategies for complete mortality ascertainment comparing death certificates and United States (US) Veterans Administration (VA) records. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of California veterans who died in fiscal year (FY) 2000 and used VA services the year before death. We determined decedent status using California death certificates linked to VA utilization data and the VA Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator System (BIRLS) death file. We compared the characteristics of decedents who would not have been identified by either single source (e.g., VA BIRLS alone or California death certificates alone) with the rest of the cohort. RESULTS: A total of 8,813 veteran decedents were identified from both VA decedent files and death certificates. Of all decedents, 5,698 / 8,813 (65%) veterans were identified in both source files, but 2,426 / 8,813 (28%) decedents were not identified in VA BIRLS, and 689 / 8,813 (8%) were not identified in death certificates. Compared to the rest of the cohort, decedents whose mortality status was ascertained through either single source differed by race / ethnicity, marital status, and California residence. Clinically, veterans identified from either single source had less comorbidity and were less likely to have been users of VA inpatient or long term care, but equally or more likely to have been users of VA outpatient services. CONCLUSION: As single sources, VA decedent files and death certificates each provided an incomplete record, and death ascertainment was improved by using both source files. Potential bias may vary depending on analytic interest

Prevalence and Correlates of Smoking Status among Patients with Depression in VA Primary Care

The author presented findings from a study that aimed to determine the prevalence of smoking among Veterans with major depression in primary care and to identify demographic, psychiatric, psychosocial, and health care use correlates of smoking status

Electronic Population-Based Depression Detection and Management Through Universal Screening in the Veterans Health Administration

ImportanceIn 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force newly recommended universal screening for depression, with the expectation that screening would be associated with appropriate treatment. Few studies have been able to assess the population-based trajectory from screening to receipt of follow-up and treatment for individuals with depression.ObjectiveTo examine adherence to guidelines for follow-up and treatment among primary care patients who newly screened positive for depression in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used VA electronic data to identify patients who newly screened positive for depression on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire at 82 primary care VA clinics in California, Arizona, and New Mexico between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to August 2021.Main outcomes and measuresReceipt of guideline-concordant care for screen-positive patients who were determined by clinicians as having depression was assessed. Timely follow-up (within 84 days of screening) was defined as receiving 3 or more mental health specialty visits, 3 or more psychotherapy visits, or 3 or more primary care visits with a depression diagnosis according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Completing at least minimal treatment (within 12 months) was defined as having 60 days or more of antidepressant prescriptions filled, 4 or more mental health specialty visits, or 3 or more psychotherapy visits.ResultsThe final cohort included 607 730 veterans (mean [SD] age, 59.4 [18.2] years; 546 516 men [89.9%]; 339 811 non-Hispanic White [55.9%]); 8%, or 82 998 of 997 185 person-years, newly screened positive for depression. Clinicians identified fewer than half with depression (15 155 patients), of whom 32% (5034 of 15 650 person-years) met treatment guidelines for timely follow-up and 77% (12 026 of 15 650 person-years) completed at least minimal treatment. Younger age (odds ratio, 0.990; 95% CI, 0.986-0.993; P < .001), Black race (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, CI 1.05-1.34; P = .01), and having comorbid psychiatric diagnoses were significantly associated with timely follow-up. Individual quality metric components (eg, medication or psychotherapy) were associated differently with overall quality results among patient groups, except for age.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, most patients met the guidelines for completing at least minimal treatment, but only a minority received timely follow-up after screening positive and being identified as having depression. More research is needed to understand whether the discrepancy between patients who screened positive and patients identified as having depression reflects a gap in recognition of needed care

Assessing Organizational Readiness for Depression Care Quality Improvement: Relative Commitment and Implementation Capability

Background: Depression is a major cause of morbidity and cost in primary care patient populations. Successful depression improvement models, however, are complex. Based on organizational readiness theory, a practice’s commitment to change and its capability to carry out the change are both important predictors of initiating improvement. We empirically explored the links between relative commitment (i.e., the intention to move forward within the following year) and implementation capability. Methods: The DIAMOND initiative administered organizational surveys to medical and quality improvement leaders from each of 83 primary care practices in Minnesota. Surveys preceded initiation of activities directed at implementation of a collaborative care model for improving depression care. To assess implementation capability, we developed composites of survey items for five types of organizational factors postulated to be collaborative care barriers and facilitators. To assess relative commitment for each practice, we averaged leader ratings on an identical survey question assessing practice priorities. We used multivariable regression analyses to assess the extent to which implementation capability predicted relative commitment. We explored whether relative commitment or implementation capability measures were associated with earlier initiation of DIAMOND improvements. Results: All five implementation capability measures independently predicted practice leaders’ relative commitment to improving depression care in the following year. These included the following: quality improvement culture and attitudes (p = 0.003), depression culture and attitudes (p \u3c0.001), prior depression quality improvement activities (p \u3c0.001), advanced access and tracking capabilities (p = 0.03), and depression collaborative care features in place (p = 0.03). Higher relative commitment (p = 0.002) and prior depression quality improvement activities appeared to be associated with earlier participation in the DIAMOND initiative. Conclusions: The study supports the concept of organizational readiness to improve quality of care and the use of practice leader surveys to assess it. Practice leaders’ relative commitment to depression care improvement may be a useful measure of the likelihood that a practice is ready to initiate evidence-based depression care changes. A comprehensive organizational assessment of implementation capability for depression care improvement may identify specific barriers or facilitators to readiness that require targeted attention from implementers

A Patient-Centered Primary Care Practice Approach Using Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: Rationale, Methods, and Early Assessment of Implementation

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and their primary care practices are redesigning to achieve goals identified in Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) models such as Veterans Affairs (VA)’s Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). Implementation of these models, however, requires major transformation. Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) is a multi-level approach for supporting organizational change and innovation spread. OBJECTIVE: To describe EBQI as an approach for promoting VA’s PACT and to assess initial implementation of planned EBQI elements. DESIGN: Descriptive. PARTICIPANTS: Regional and local interdisciplinary clinical leaders, patient representatives, Quality Council Coordinators, practicing primary care clinicians and staff, and researchers from six demonstration site practices in three local healthcare systems in one VA region. INTERVENTION: EBQI promotes bottom-up local innovation and spread within top-down organizational priorities. EBQI innovations are supported by a research-clinical partnership, use continuous quality improvement methods, and are developed in regional demonstration sites. APPROACH: We developed a logic model for EBQI for PACT (EBQI-PACT) with inputs, outputs, and expected outcomes. We describe implementation of logic model outputs over 18 months, using qualitative data from 84 key stakeholders (104 interviews from two waves) and review of study documents. RESULTS: Nearly all implementation elements of the EBQI-PACT logic model were fully or partially implemented. Elements not fully achieved included patient engagement in Quality Councils (4/6) and consistent local primary care practice interdisciplinary leadership (4/6). Fourteen of 15 regionally approved innovation projects have been completed, three have undergone initial spread, five are prepared to spread, and two have completed toolkits that have been pretested in two to three sites and are now ready for external spread. DISCUSSION: EBQI-PACT has been feasible to implement in three participating healthcare systems in one VA region. Further development of methods for engaging patients in care design and for promoting interdisciplinary leadership is needed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2703-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Identifying continuous quality improvement publications: what makes an improvement intervention ‘CQI’?

Background: The term continuous quality improvement (CQI) is often used to refer to a method for improving care, but no consensus statement exists on the definition of CQI. Evidence reviews are critical for advancing science, and depend on reliable definitions for article selection. Methods: As a preliminary step towards improving CQI evidence reviews, this study aimed to use expert panel methods to identify key CQI definitional features and develop and test a screening instrument for reliably identifying articles with the key features. We used a previously published method to identify 106 articles meeting the general definition of a quality improvement intervention (QII) from 9427 electronically identified articles from PubMed. Two raters then applied a six-item CQI screen to the 106 articles. Results: Per cent agreement ranged from 55.7% to 75.5% for the six items, and reviewer-adjusted intra-class correlation ranged from 0.43 to 0.62. ‘Feedback of systematically collected data’ was the most common feature (64%), followed by being at least ‘somewhat’ adapted to local conditions (61%), feedback at meetings involving participant leaders (46%), using an iterative development process (40%), being at least ‘somewhat’ data driven (34%), and using a recognised change method (28%). All six features were present in 14.2% of QII articles. Conclusions: We conclude that CQI features can be extracted from QII articles with reasonable reliability, but only a small proportion of QII articles include all features. Further consensus development is needed to support meaningful use of the term CQI for scientific communication