Sarah Krein, PhD, RN

Diagnostic error—defined as a failure to establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient’s health problem—is an important source of patient harm.¹ Data suggest that all patients will experience at least 1 diagnostic error in their lifetime.^2-4 Not surprisingly, diagnostic errors are among the leading categories of paid malpractice claims in the United States.⁵

Despite diagnostic errors being morbid and sometimes deadly in the hospital,^6,7 little is known about how residents and learners approach diagnostic decision making. Errors in diagnosis are believed to stem from cognitive or system failures,⁸ with errors in cognition believed to occur due to rapid, reflexive thinking operating in the absence of a more analytical, deliberate process. System-based problems (eg, lack of expert availability, technology barriers, and access to data) have also been cited as contributors.⁹ However, whether and how these apply to trainees is not known.

Therefore, we conducted a focused ethnography of inpatient medicine teams (ie, attendings, residents, interns, and medical students) in 2 affiliated teaching hospitals, aiming to (a) observe the process of diagnosis by trainees and (b) identify methods to improve the diagnostic process and prevent errors.

We designed a multimethod, focused ethnographic study to examine diagnostic decision making in hospital settings.^10,11 In contrast to anthropologic ethnographies that study entire fields using open-ended questions, our study was designed to examine the process of diagnosis from the perspective of clinicians engaged in this activity.¹¹ This approach allowed us to capture diagnostic decisions and cognitive and system-based factors in a manner currently lacking in the literature.¹²

Setting and Participants

Between January 2016 and May 2016, we observed the members of four inpatient internal medicine teaching teams at 2 affiliated teaching hospitals. We purposefully selected teaching teams for observation because they are the primary model of care in academic settings and we have expertise in carrying out similar studies.^13,14 Teaching teams typically consisted of a medical attending (senior-level physician), 1 senior resident (a second- or third-year postgraduate trainee), two interns (a trainee in their first postgraduate year), and two to four  medical students. Teams were selected at random using existing schedules and followed Monday to Friday so as to permit observation of work on call and noncall days. Owing to manpower limitations, weekend and night shifts were not observed. However, overnight events were captured during morning rounds.

Most of the teams began rounds at 8:30 AM. Typically, rounds lasted for 90–120 min and concluded with a recap (ie, “running the list”) with a review of explicit plans for patients after they had been evaluated by the attending. This discussion often occurred in the team rooms, with the attending leading the discussion with the trainees.

Data Collection

A multidisciplinary team, including clinicians (eg, physicians, nurses), nonclinicians (eg, qualitative researchers, social scientists), and healthcare engineers, conducted the observations. We observed preround activities of interns and residents before arrival of the attending (7:00 AM - 8:30 AM), followed by morning rounds with the entire team, and afternoon work that included senior residents, interns, and students.

To capture multiple aspects of the diagnostic process, we collected data using field notes modeled on components of the National Academy of Science model for diagnosis (Appendix).^1,15 This model encompasses phases of the diagnostic process (eg, data gathering, integration, formulation of a working diagnosis, treatment delivery, and outcomes) and the work system (team members, organization, technology and tools, physical environment, tasks).

Focus Groups and Interviews

At the end of weekly observations, we conducted focus groups with the residents and one-on- one interviews with the attendings. Focus groups with the residents were conducted to encourage a group discussion about the diagnostic process. Separate interviews with the attendings were performed to ensure that power differentials did not influence discussions. During focus groups, we specifically asked about challenges and possible solutions to improve diagnosis. Experienced qualitative methodologists (J.F., M.H., M.Q.) used semistructured interview guides for discussions (Appendix).

Data Analysis

After aggregating and reading the data, three reviewers (V.C., S.K., S.S.) began inductive analysis by handwriting notes and initial reflective thoughts to create preliminary codes. Multiple team members then reread the original field notes and the focus group/interview data to refine the preliminary codes and develop additional codes. Next, relationships between codes were identified and used to develop key themes. Triangulation of data collected from observations and interview/focus group sessions was carried out to compare data that we surmised with data that were verbalized by the team. The developed themes were discussed as a group to ensure consistency of major findings.

Ethical and Regulatory Oversight

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Michigan Health System (HUM-00106657) and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (1-2016-010040).

Four teaching teams (4 attendings, 4 senior residents, 9 interns, and 14 medical students) were observed over 33 distinct shifts and 168 hours. Observations included morning rounds (96 h), postround call days (52 h), and postround non-call days (20 h). Morning rounds lasted an average of 127 min (range: 48-232 min) and included an average of 9 patients (range: 4-16 patients).

Themes Regarding the Diagnostic Process

We identified the following 4 primary themes related to the diagnostic process in teaching hospitals: (1) diagnosis is a social phenomenon; (2) data necessary to make diagnoses are fragmented; (3) distractions undermine the diagnostic process; and (4) time pressures interfere with diagnostic decision making (Appendix Table 1).

(1) Diagnosis is a Social Phenomenon.

Team members viewed the process of diagnosis as a social exchange of facts, findings, and strategies within a defined structure. The opportunity to discuss impressions with others was valued as a means to share, test, and process assumptions.

“Rounds are the most important part of the process. That is where we make most decisions in a collective, collaborative way with the attending present. We bounce ideas off each other.” (Intern)

Typical of social processes, variations based on time of day and schedule were observed. For instance, during call days, learners gathered data and formed working diagnosis and treatment plans with minimal attending interaction. This separation of roles and responsibilities introduced a hierarchy within diagnosis as follows:

“The interns would not call me first; they would talk to the senior resident and then if the senior thought he should chat with me, then they would call. But for the most part, they gather information and come up with the plan.” (Attending).

The work system was suited to facilitate social interactions. For instance, designated rooms (with team members informally assigned to a computer) provided physical proximity of the resident to interns and medical students. In this space, numerous informal discussions between team members (eg, “What do you think about this test?” “I’m not sure what to do about this finding.” “Should I call a [consult] on this patient?”) were observed. Although proximity to each other was viewed as beneficial, dangers to the social nature of diagnosis in the form of anchoring (ie, a cognitive bias where emphasis is placed on the first piece of data)¹⁶ were also mentioned. Similarly, the paradox associated with social proof (ie, the pressure to assume conformity within a group) was also observed as disagreement between team members and attendings rarely occurred during observations.

“I mean, they’re the attending, right? It’s hard to argue with them when they want a test or something done. When I do push back, it’s rare that others will support me–so it’s usually me and the attending.” (Resident)

“I would push back if I think it’s really bad for the patient or could cause harm–but the truth is, it doesn’t happen much.” (Intern)

(2) Data Necessary to Make Diagnoses are Fragmented

Team members universally cited fragmentation in data delivery, retrieval, and processing as a barrier to diagnosis. Team members indicated that test results might not be looked at or acted upon in a timely manner, and participants pointed to the electronic medical record as a source of this challenge.

“Before I knew about [the app for Epic], I would literally sit on the computer to get all the information we would need on rounds. Its key to making decisions. We often say we will do something, only to find the test result doesn’t support it–and then we’re back to square 1.” (Intern)

Information used by teams came from myriad sources (eg, patients, family members, electronic records) and from various settings (eg, emergency department, patient rooms, discussions with consultants). Additionally, test results often appeared without warning. Thus, availability of information was poorly aligned with clinical duties.

“They (the lab) will call us when a blood culture is positive or something is off. That is very helpful but it often comes later in the day, when we’re done with rounds.” (Resident)

The work system was highlighted as a key contributor to data fragmentation. Peculiarities of our electronic medical record (EMR) and how data were collected, stored, or presented were described as “frustrating,” and “unsafe,” by team members. Correspondingly, we frequently observed interns asking for assistance for tasks such as ordering tests or finding information despite being “trained” to use the EMR.

“People have to learn how to filter, how to recognize the most important points and link data streams together in terms of causality. But we assume they know where to find that information. It’s actually a very hard thing to do, for both the house staff and me.” (Attending)

(3) Distractions Undermine the Diagnostic Process

Distractions often created cognitive difficulties. For example, ambient noise and interruptions from neighbors working on other teams were cited as barriers to diagnosis. In addition, we observed several team members using headphones to drown out ambient noise while working on the computer.

“I know I shouldn’t do it (wear headphones), but I have no other way of turning down the noise so I can concentrate.” (Intern)

Similarly, the unpredictable nature and the volume of pages often interrupted thinking about diagnosis.

“Sometimes the pager just goes off all the time and (after making sure its not an urgent issue), I will just ignore it for a bit, especially if I am in the middle of something. It would be great if I could finish my thought process knowing I would not be interrupted.” (Resident)

To mitigate this problem, 1 attending described how he would proactively seek out nurses caring for his patients to “head off” questions (eg, “I will renew the restraints and medications this morning,” and “Is there anything you need in terms of orders for this patient that I can take care of now?”) that might lead to pages. Another resident described his approach as follows:

“I make it a point to tell the nurses where I will be hanging out and where they can find me if they have any questions. I tell them to come talk to me rather than page me since that will be less distracting.” (Resident).

Most of the interns described documentation work such as writing admission and progress notes in negative terms (“an academic exercise,” “part of the billing activity”). However, in the context of interruptions, some described this as helpful.

“The most valuable part of the thinking process was writing the assessment and plan because that’s actually my schema for all problems. It literally is the only time where I can sit and collect my thoughts to formulate a diagnosis and plan.” (Intern)

(4) Time Pressures Interfere With Diagnostic Decision Making

All team members spoke about the challenge of finding time for diagnosis during the workday. Often, they had to skip learning sessions for this purpose.

“They tell us we should go to morning report or noon conference but when I’m running around trying to get things done. I hate having to choose between my education and doing what’s best for the patient–but that’s often what it comes down to.” (Intern)

When specifically asked whether setting aside dedicated time to specifically review and formulate diagnoses would be valuable, respondents were uniformly enthusiastic. Team members described attentional conflicts as being the worst when “cross covering” other teams on call days, as their patient load effectively doubled during this time. Of note, cross-covering occurred when teams were also on call—and thus took them away from important diagnostic activities such as data gathering or synthesis for patients they were admitting.

“If you were to ever design a system where errors were likely–this is how you would design it: take a team with little supervision, double their patient load, keep them busy with new challenging cases and then ask questions about patients they know little about.” (Resident)

Although diagnostic errors have been called “the next frontier for patient safety,”¹⁷ little is known about the process, barriers, and facilitators to diagnosis in teaching hospitals. In this focused ethnography conducted at 2 academic medical centers, we identified multiple cognitive and system-level challenges and potential strategies to improve diagnosis from trainees engaged in this activity. Key themes identified by those we observed included the social nature of diagnosis, fragmented information delivery, constant distractions and interruptions, and time pressures. In turn, these insights allow us to generate strategies that can be applied to improve the diagnostic process in teaching hospitals.

Our study underscores the importance of social interactions in diagnosis. In contrast, most of the interventions to prevent diagnostic errors target individual providers through practices such as metacognition and “thinking about thinking.”^18-20 These interventions are based on Daniel Kahnemann’s work on dual thought process. Type 1 thought processes are fast, subconscious, reflexive, largely intuitive, and more vulnerable to error. In contrast, Type 2 processes are slower, deliberate, analytic, and less prone to error.²¹ Although an individual’s Type 2 thought capacity is limited, a major goal of cognitive interventions is to encourage Type 2 over Type 1 thinking, an approach termed “de-biasing.”^22-24 Unfortunately, cognitive interventions testing such approaches have suffered mixed results–perhaps because of lack of focus on collective wisdom or group thinking, which may be key to diagnosis from our findings.^9,25 In this sense, morning rounds were a social gathering used to strategize and develop care plans, but with limited time to think about diagnosis.²⁶ Introduction of defined periods for individuals to engage in diagnostic activities such as de-biasing (ie, asking “what else could this be)²⁷ before or after rounds may provide an opportunity for reflection and improving diagnosis. In addition, embedding tools such as diagnosis expanders and checklists within these defined time slots^28,29 may prove to be useful in reflecting on diagnosis and preventing diagnostic errors.

An unexpected yet important finding from this study were the challenges posed by distractions and the physical environment. Potentially maladaptive workarounds to these interruptions included use of headphones; more productive strategies included updating nurses with plans to avert pages and creating a list of activities to ensure that key tasks were not forgotten.^30,31 Applying lessons from aviation, a focused effort to limit distractions during key portions of the day, might be worth considering for diagnostic safety.³² Similarly, improving the environment in which diagnosis occurs—including creating spaces that are quiet, orderly, and optimized for thinking—may be valuable.³³Our study has limitations. First, our findings are limited to direct observations; we are thus unable to comment on how unobserved aspects of care (eg, cognitive processes) might have influenced our findings. Our observations of clinical care might also have introduced a Hawthorne effect. However, because we were closely integrated with teams and conducted focus groups to corroborate our assessments, we believe that this was not the case. Second, we did not identify diagnostic errors or link processes we observed to errors. Third, our approach is limited to 2 teaching centers, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings. Relatedly, we were only able to conduct observations during weekdays; differences in weekend and night resources might affect our insights.

The cognitive and system-based barriers faced by clinicians in teaching hospitals suggest that new methods to improve diagnosis are needed. Future interventions such as defined “time-outs” for diagnosis, strategies focused on limiting distractions, and methods to improve communication between team members are novel and have parallels in other industries. As challenges to quantify diagnostic errors abound,³⁴ improving cognitive- and system-based factors via reflection through communication, concentration, and organization is necessary to improve medical decision making in academic medical centers.

Disclosures

None declared for all coauthors.

Funding

This project was supported by grant number P30HS024385 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funding source played no role in study design, data acquisition, analysis or decision to report these data. Dr. Chopra is supported by a career development award from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (1-K08-HS022835-01). Dr. Krein is supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222). Dr. Singh is partially supported by Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13-413). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Diagnostic error—defined as a failure to establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient’s health problem—is an important source of patient harm.¹ Data suggest that all patients will experience at least 1 diagnostic error in their lifetime.^2-4 Not surprisingly, diagnostic errors are among the leading categories of paid malpractice claims in the United States.⁵

Despite diagnostic errors being morbid and sometimes deadly in the hospital,^6,7 little is known about how residents and learners approach diagnostic decision making. Errors in diagnosis are believed to stem from cognitive or system failures,⁸ with errors in cognition believed to occur due to rapid, reflexive thinking operating in the absence of a more analytical, deliberate process. System-based problems (eg, lack of expert availability, technology barriers, and access to data) have also been cited as contributors.⁹ However, whether and how these apply to trainees is not known.

Therefore, we conducted a focused ethnography of inpatient medicine teams (ie, attendings, residents, interns, and medical students) in 2 affiliated teaching hospitals, aiming to (a) observe the process of diagnosis by trainees and (b) identify methods to improve the diagnostic process and prevent errors.

We designed a multimethod, focused ethnographic study to examine diagnostic decision making in hospital settings.^10,11 In contrast to anthropologic ethnographies that study entire fields using open-ended questions, our study was designed to examine the process of diagnosis from the perspective of clinicians engaged in this activity.¹¹ This approach allowed us to capture diagnostic decisions and cognitive and system-based factors in a manner currently lacking in the literature.¹²

Setting and Participants

Between January 2016 and May 2016, we observed the members of four inpatient internal medicine teaching teams at 2 affiliated teaching hospitals. We purposefully selected teaching teams for observation because they are the primary model of care in academic settings and we have expertise in carrying out similar studies.^13,14 Teaching teams typically consisted of a medical attending (senior-level physician), 1 senior resident (a second- or third-year postgraduate trainee), two interns (a trainee in their first postgraduate year), and two to four  medical students. Teams were selected at random using existing schedules and followed Monday to Friday so as to permit observation of work on call and noncall days. Owing to manpower limitations, weekend and night shifts were not observed. However, overnight events were captured during morning rounds.

Most of the teams began rounds at 8:30 AM. Typically, rounds lasted for 90–120 min and concluded with a recap (ie, “running the list”) with a review of explicit plans for patients after they had been evaluated by the attending. This discussion often occurred in the team rooms, with the attending leading the discussion with the trainees.

Data Collection

A multidisciplinary team, including clinicians (eg, physicians, nurses), nonclinicians (eg, qualitative researchers, social scientists), and healthcare engineers, conducted the observations. We observed preround activities of interns and residents before arrival of the attending (7:00 AM - 8:30 AM), followed by morning rounds with the entire team, and afternoon work that included senior residents, interns, and students.

To capture multiple aspects of the diagnostic process, we collected data using field notes modeled on components of the National Academy of Science model for diagnosis (Appendix).^1,15 This model encompasses phases of the diagnostic process (eg, data gathering, integration, formulation of a working diagnosis, treatment delivery, and outcomes) and the work system (team members, organization, technology and tools, physical environment, tasks).

Focus Groups and Interviews

At the end of weekly observations, we conducted focus groups with the residents and one-on- one interviews with the attendings. Focus groups with the residents were conducted to encourage a group discussion about the diagnostic process. Separate interviews with the attendings were performed to ensure that power differentials did not influence discussions. During focus groups, we specifically asked about challenges and possible solutions to improve diagnosis. Experienced qualitative methodologists (J.F., M.H., M.Q.) used semistructured interview guides for discussions (Appendix).

Data Analysis

After aggregating and reading the data, three reviewers (V.C., S.K., S.S.) began inductive analysis by handwriting notes and initial reflective thoughts to create preliminary codes. Multiple team members then reread the original field notes and the focus group/interview data to refine the preliminary codes and develop additional codes. Next, relationships between codes were identified and used to develop key themes. Triangulation of data collected from observations and interview/focus group sessions was carried out to compare data that we surmised with data that were verbalized by the team. The developed themes were discussed as a group to ensure consistency of major findings.

Ethical and Regulatory Oversight

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Michigan Health System (HUM-00106657) and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (1-2016-010040).

Four teaching teams (4 attendings, 4 senior residents, 9 interns, and 14 medical students) were observed over 33 distinct shifts and 168 hours. Observations included morning rounds (96 h), postround call days (52 h), and postround non-call days (20 h). Morning rounds lasted an average of 127 min (range: 48-232 min) and included an average of 9 patients (range: 4-16 patients).

Themes Regarding the Diagnostic Process

We identified the following 4 primary themes related to the diagnostic process in teaching hospitals: (1) diagnosis is a social phenomenon; (2) data necessary to make diagnoses are fragmented; (3) distractions undermine the diagnostic process; and (4) time pressures interfere with diagnostic decision making (Appendix Table 1).

(1) Diagnosis is a Social Phenomenon.

Team members viewed the process of diagnosis as a social exchange of facts, findings, and strategies within a defined structure. The opportunity to discuss impressions with others was valued as a means to share, test, and process assumptions.

“Rounds are the most important part of the process. That is where we make most decisions in a collective, collaborative way with the attending present. We bounce ideas off each other.” (Intern)

Typical of social processes, variations based on time of day and schedule were observed. For instance, during call days, learners gathered data and formed working diagnosis and treatment plans with minimal attending interaction. This separation of roles and responsibilities introduced a hierarchy within diagnosis as follows:

“The interns would not call me first; they would talk to the senior resident and then if the senior thought he should chat with me, then they would call. But for the most part, they gather information and come up with the plan.” (Attending).

The work system was suited to facilitate social interactions. For instance, designated rooms (with team members informally assigned to a computer) provided physical proximity of the resident to interns and medical students. In this space, numerous informal discussions between team members (eg, “What do you think about this test?” “I’m not sure what to do about this finding.” “Should I call a [consult] on this patient?”) were observed. Although proximity to each other was viewed as beneficial, dangers to the social nature of diagnosis in the form of anchoring (ie, a cognitive bias where emphasis is placed on the first piece of data)¹⁶ were also mentioned. Similarly, the paradox associated with social proof (ie, the pressure to assume conformity within a group) was also observed as disagreement between team members and attendings rarely occurred during observations.

“I mean, they’re the attending, right? It’s hard to argue with them when they want a test or something done. When I do push back, it’s rare that others will support me–so it’s usually me and the attending.” (Resident)

“I would push back if I think it’s really bad for the patient or could cause harm–but the truth is, it doesn’t happen much.” (Intern)

(2) Data Necessary to Make Diagnoses are Fragmented

Team members universally cited fragmentation in data delivery, retrieval, and processing as a barrier to diagnosis. Team members indicated that test results might not be looked at or acted upon in a timely manner, and participants pointed to the electronic medical record as a source of this challenge.

“Before I knew about [the app for Epic], I would literally sit on the computer to get all the information we would need on rounds. Its key to making decisions. We often say we will do something, only to find the test result doesn’t support it–and then we’re back to square 1.” (Intern)

Information used by teams came from myriad sources (eg, patients, family members, electronic records) and from various settings (eg, emergency department, patient rooms, discussions with consultants). Additionally, test results often appeared without warning. Thus, availability of information was poorly aligned with clinical duties.

“They (the lab) will call us when a blood culture is positive or something is off. That is very helpful but it often comes later in the day, when we’re done with rounds.” (Resident)

The work system was highlighted as a key contributor to data fragmentation. Peculiarities of our electronic medical record (EMR) and how data were collected, stored, or presented were described as “frustrating,” and “unsafe,” by team members. Correspondingly, we frequently observed interns asking for assistance for tasks such as ordering tests or finding information despite being “trained” to use the EMR.

“People have to learn how to filter, how to recognize the most important points and link data streams together in terms of causality. But we assume they know where to find that information. It’s actually a very hard thing to do, for both the house staff and me.” (Attending)

(3) Distractions Undermine the Diagnostic Process

Distractions often created cognitive difficulties. For example, ambient noise and interruptions from neighbors working on other teams were cited as barriers to diagnosis. In addition, we observed several team members using headphones to drown out ambient noise while working on the computer.

“I know I shouldn’t do it (wear headphones), but I have no other way of turning down the noise so I can concentrate.” (Intern)

Similarly, the unpredictable nature and the volume of pages often interrupted thinking about diagnosis.

“Sometimes the pager just goes off all the time and (after making sure its not an urgent issue), I will just ignore it for a bit, especially if I am in the middle of something. It would be great if I could finish my thought process knowing I would not be interrupted.” (Resident)

To mitigate this problem, 1 attending described how he would proactively seek out nurses caring for his patients to “head off” questions (eg, “I will renew the restraints and medications this morning,” and “Is there anything you need in terms of orders for this patient that I can take care of now?”) that might lead to pages. Another resident described his approach as follows:

“I make it a point to tell the nurses where I will be hanging out and where they can find me if they have any questions. I tell them to come talk to me rather than page me since that will be less distracting.” (Resident).

Most of the interns described documentation work such as writing admission and progress notes in negative terms (“an academic exercise,” “part of the billing activity”). However, in the context of interruptions, some described this as helpful.

“The most valuable part of the thinking process was writing the assessment and plan because that’s actually my schema for all problems. It literally is the only time where I can sit and collect my thoughts to formulate a diagnosis and plan.” (Intern)

(4) Time Pressures Interfere With Diagnostic Decision Making

All team members spoke about the challenge of finding time for diagnosis during the workday. Often, they had to skip learning sessions for this purpose.

“They tell us we should go to morning report or noon conference but when I’m running around trying to get things done. I hate having to choose between my education and doing what’s best for the patient–but that’s often what it comes down to.” (Intern)

When specifically asked whether setting aside dedicated time to specifically review and formulate diagnoses would be valuable, respondents were uniformly enthusiastic. Team members described attentional conflicts as being the worst when “cross covering” other teams on call days, as their patient load effectively doubled during this time. Of note, cross-covering occurred when teams were also on call—and thus took them away from important diagnostic activities such as data gathering or synthesis for patients they were admitting.

“If you were to ever design a system where errors were likely–this is how you would design it: take a team with little supervision, double their patient load, keep them busy with new challenging cases and then ask questions about patients they know little about.” (Resident)

Although diagnostic errors have been called “the next frontier for patient safety,”¹⁷ little is known about the process, barriers, and facilitators to diagnosis in teaching hospitals. In this focused ethnography conducted at 2 academic medical centers, we identified multiple cognitive and system-level challenges and potential strategies to improve diagnosis from trainees engaged in this activity. Key themes identified by those we observed included the social nature of diagnosis, fragmented information delivery, constant distractions and interruptions, and time pressures. In turn, these insights allow us to generate strategies that can be applied to improve the diagnostic process in teaching hospitals.

Our study underscores the importance of social interactions in diagnosis. In contrast, most of the interventions to prevent diagnostic errors target individual providers through practices such as metacognition and “thinking about thinking.”^18-20 These interventions are based on Daniel Kahnemann’s work on dual thought process. Type 1 thought processes are fast, subconscious, reflexive, largely intuitive, and more vulnerable to error. In contrast, Type 2 processes are slower, deliberate, analytic, and less prone to error.²¹ Although an individual’s Type 2 thought capacity is limited, a major goal of cognitive interventions is to encourage Type 2 over Type 1 thinking, an approach termed “de-biasing.”^22-24 Unfortunately, cognitive interventions testing such approaches have suffered mixed results–perhaps because of lack of focus on collective wisdom or group thinking, which may be key to diagnosis from our findings.^9,25 In this sense, morning rounds were a social gathering used to strategize and develop care plans, but with limited time to think about diagnosis.²⁶ Introduction of defined periods for individuals to engage in diagnostic activities such as de-biasing (ie, asking “what else could this be)²⁷ before or after rounds may provide an opportunity for reflection and improving diagnosis. In addition, embedding tools such as diagnosis expanders and checklists within these defined time slots^28,29 may prove to be useful in reflecting on diagnosis and preventing diagnostic errors.

An unexpected yet important finding from this study were the challenges posed by distractions and the physical environment. Potentially maladaptive workarounds to these interruptions included use of headphones; more productive strategies included updating nurses with plans to avert pages and creating a list of activities to ensure that key tasks were not forgotten.^30,31 Applying lessons from aviation, a focused effort to limit distractions during key portions of the day, might be worth considering for diagnostic safety.³² Similarly, improving the environment in which diagnosis occurs—including creating spaces that are quiet, orderly, and optimized for thinking—may be valuable.³³Our study has limitations. First, our findings are limited to direct observations; we are thus unable to comment on how unobserved aspects of care (eg, cognitive processes) might have influenced our findings. Our observations of clinical care might also have introduced a Hawthorne effect. However, because we were closely integrated with teams and conducted focus groups to corroborate our assessments, we believe that this was not the case. Second, we did not identify diagnostic errors or link processes we observed to errors. Third, our approach is limited to 2 teaching centers, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings. Relatedly, we were only able to conduct observations during weekdays; differences in weekend and night resources might affect our insights.

The cognitive and system-based barriers faced by clinicians in teaching hospitals suggest that new methods to improve diagnosis are needed. Future interventions such as defined “time-outs” for diagnosis, strategies focused on limiting distractions, and methods to improve communication between team members are novel and have parallels in other industries. As challenges to quantify diagnostic errors abound,³⁴ improving cognitive- and system-based factors via reflection through communication, concentration, and organization is necessary to improve medical decision making in academic medical centers.

Disclosures

None declared for all coauthors.

Funding

This project was supported by grant number P30HS024385 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funding source played no role in study design, data acquisition, analysis or decision to report these data. Dr. Chopra is supported by a career development award from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (1-K08-HS022835-01). Dr. Krein is supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222). Dr. Singh is partially supported by Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13-413). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Diagnostic error—defined as a failure to establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient’s health problem—is an important source of patient harm.¹ Data suggest that all patients will experience at least 1 diagnostic error in their lifetime.^2-4 Not surprisingly, diagnostic errors are among the leading categories of paid malpractice claims in the United States.⁵

Despite diagnostic errors being morbid and sometimes deadly in the hospital,^6,7 little is known about how residents and learners approach diagnostic decision making. Errors in diagnosis are believed to stem from cognitive or system failures,⁸ with errors in cognition believed to occur due to rapid, reflexive thinking operating in the absence of a more analytical, deliberate process. System-based problems (eg, lack of expert availability, technology barriers, and access to data) have also been cited as contributors.⁹ However, whether and how these apply to trainees is not known.

Therefore, we conducted a focused ethnography of inpatient medicine teams (ie, attendings, residents, interns, and medical students) in 2 affiliated teaching hospitals, aiming to (a) observe the process of diagnosis by trainees and (b) identify methods to improve the diagnostic process and prevent errors.

We designed a multimethod, focused ethnographic study to examine diagnostic decision making in hospital settings.^10,11 In contrast to anthropologic ethnographies that study entire fields using open-ended questions, our study was designed to examine the process of diagnosis from the perspective of clinicians engaged in this activity.¹¹ This approach allowed us to capture diagnostic decisions and cognitive and system-based factors in a manner currently lacking in the literature.¹²

Setting and Participants

Between January 2016 and May 2016, we observed the members of four inpatient internal medicine teaching teams at 2 affiliated teaching hospitals. We purposefully selected teaching teams for observation because they are the primary model of care in academic settings and we have expertise in carrying out similar studies.^13,14 Teaching teams typically consisted of a medical attending (senior-level physician), 1 senior resident (a second- or third-year postgraduate trainee), two interns (a trainee in their first postgraduate year), and two to four  medical students. Teams were selected at random using existing schedules and followed Monday to Friday so as to permit observation of work on call and noncall days. Owing to manpower limitations, weekend and night shifts were not observed. However, overnight events were captured during morning rounds.

Most of the teams began rounds at 8:30 AM. Typically, rounds lasted for 90–120 min and concluded with a recap (ie, “running the list”) with a review of explicit plans for patients after they had been evaluated by the attending. This discussion often occurred in the team rooms, with the attending leading the discussion with the trainees.

Data Collection

A multidisciplinary team, including clinicians (eg, physicians, nurses), nonclinicians (eg, qualitative researchers, social scientists), and healthcare engineers, conducted the observations. We observed preround activities of interns and residents before arrival of the attending (7:00 AM - 8:30 AM), followed by morning rounds with the entire team, and afternoon work that included senior residents, interns, and students.

To capture multiple aspects of the diagnostic process, we collected data using field notes modeled on components of the National Academy of Science model for diagnosis (Appendix).^1,15 This model encompasses phases of the diagnostic process (eg, data gathering, integration, formulation of a working diagnosis, treatment delivery, and outcomes) and the work system (team members, organization, technology and tools, physical environment, tasks).

Focus Groups and Interviews

At the end of weekly observations, we conducted focus groups with the residents and one-on- one interviews with the attendings. Focus groups with the residents were conducted to encourage a group discussion about the diagnostic process. Separate interviews with the attendings were performed to ensure that power differentials did not influence discussions. During focus groups, we specifically asked about challenges and possible solutions to improve diagnosis. Experienced qualitative methodologists (J.F., M.H., M.Q.) used semistructured interview guides for discussions (Appendix).

Data Analysis

After aggregating and reading the data, three reviewers (V.C., S.K., S.S.) began inductive analysis by handwriting notes and initial reflective thoughts to create preliminary codes. Multiple team members then reread the original field notes and the focus group/interview data to refine the preliminary codes and develop additional codes. Next, relationships between codes were identified and used to develop key themes. Triangulation of data collected from observations and interview/focus group sessions was carried out to compare data that we surmised with data that were verbalized by the team. The developed themes were discussed as a group to ensure consistency of major findings.

Ethical and Regulatory Oversight

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the University of Michigan Health System (HUM-00106657) and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (1-2016-010040).

Four teaching teams (4 attendings, 4 senior residents, 9 interns, and 14 medical students) were observed over 33 distinct shifts and 168 hours. Observations included morning rounds (96 h), postround call days (52 h), and postround non-call days (20 h). Morning rounds lasted an average of 127 min (range: 48-232 min) and included an average of 9 patients (range: 4-16 patients).

Themes Regarding the Diagnostic Process

We identified the following 4 primary themes related to the diagnostic process in teaching hospitals: (1) diagnosis is a social phenomenon; (2) data necessary to make diagnoses are fragmented; (3) distractions undermine the diagnostic process; and (4) time pressures interfere with diagnostic decision making (Appendix Table 1).

(1) Diagnosis is a Social Phenomenon.

Team members viewed the process of diagnosis as a social exchange of facts, findings, and strategies within a defined structure. The opportunity to discuss impressions with others was valued as a means to share, test, and process assumptions.

“Rounds are the most important part of the process. That is where we make most decisions in a collective, collaborative way with the attending present. We bounce ideas off each other.” (Intern)

Typical of social processes, variations based on time of day and schedule were observed. For instance, during call days, learners gathered data and formed working diagnosis and treatment plans with minimal attending interaction. This separation of roles and responsibilities introduced a hierarchy within diagnosis as follows:

“The interns would not call me first; they would talk to the senior resident and then if the senior thought he should chat with me, then they would call. But for the most part, they gather information and come up with the plan.” (Attending).

The work system was suited to facilitate social interactions. For instance, designated rooms (with team members informally assigned to a computer) provided physical proximity of the resident to interns and medical students. In this space, numerous informal discussions between team members (eg, “What do you think about this test?” “I’m not sure what to do about this finding.” “Should I call a [consult] on this patient?”) were observed. Although proximity to each other was viewed as beneficial, dangers to the social nature of diagnosis in the form of anchoring (ie, a cognitive bias where emphasis is placed on the first piece of data)¹⁶ were also mentioned. Similarly, the paradox associated with social proof (ie, the pressure to assume conformity within a group) was also observed as disagreement between team members and attendings rarely occurred during observations.

“I mean, they’re the attending, right? It’s hard to argue with them when they want a test or something done. When I do push back, it’s rare that others will support me–so it’s usually me and the attending.” (Resident)

“I would push back if I think it’s really bad for the patient or could cause harm–but the truth is, it doesn’t happen much.” (Intern)

(2) Data Necessary to Make Diagnoses are Fragmented

Team members universally cited fragmentation in data delivery, retrieval, and processing as a barrier to diagnosis. Team members indicated that test results might not be looked at or acted upon in a timely manner, and participants pointed to the electronic medical record as a source of this challenge.

“Before I knew about [the app for Epic], I would literally sit on the computer to get all the information we would need on rounds. Its key to making decisions. We often say we will do something, only to find the test result doesn’t support it–and then we’re back to square 1.” (Intern)

Information used by teams came from myriad sources (eg, patients, family members, electronic records) and from various settings (eg, emergency department, patient rooms, discussions with consultants). Additionally, test results often appeared without warning. Thus, availability of information was poorly aligned with clinical duties.

“They (the lab) will call us when a blood culture is positive or something is off. That is very helpful but it often comes later in the day, when we’re done with rounds.” (Resident)

The work system was highlighted as a key contributor to data fragmentation. Peculiarities of our electronic medical record (EMR) and how data were collected, stored, or presented were described as “frustrating,” and “unsafe,” by team members. Correspondingly, we frequently observed interns asking for assistance for tasks such as ordering tests or finding information despite being “trained” to use the EMR.

“People have to learn how to filter, how to recognize the most important points and link data streams together in terms of causality. But we assume they know where to find that information. It’s actually a very hard thing to do, for both the house staff and me.” (Attending)

(3) Distractions Undermine the Diagnostic Process

Distractions often created cognitive difficulties. For example, ambient noise and interruptions from neighbors working on other teams were cited as barriers to diagnosis. In addition, we observed several team members using headphones to drown out ambient noise while working on the computer.

“I know I shouldn’t do it (wear headphones), but I have no other way of turning down the noise so I can concentrate.” (Intern)

Similarly, the unpredictable nature and the volume of pages often interrupted thinking about diagnosis.

“Sometimes the pager just goes off all the time and (after making sure its not an urgent issue), I will just ignore it for a bit, especially if I am in the middle of something. It would be great if I could finish my thought process knowing I would not be interrupted.” (Resident)

To mitigate this problem, 1 attending described how he would proactively seek out nurses caring for his patients to “head off” questions (eg, “I will renew the restraints and medications this morning,” and “Is there anything you need in terms of orders for this patient that I can take care of now?”) that might lead to pages. Another resident described his approach as follows:

“I make it a point to tell the nurses where I will be hanging out and where they can find me if they have any questions. I tell them to come talk to me rather than page me since that will be less distracting.” (Resident).

Most of the interns described documentation work such as writing admission and progress notes in negative terms (“an academic exercise,” “part of the billing activity”). However, in the context of interruptions, some described this as helpful.

“The most valuable part of the thinking process was writing the assessment and plan because that’s actually my schema for all problems. It literally is the only time where I can sit and collect my thoughts to formulate a diagnosis and plan.” (Intern)

(4) Time Pressures Interfere With Diagnostic Decision Making

All team members spoke about the challenge of finding time for diagnosis during the workday. Often, they had to skip learning sessions for this purpose.

“They tell us we should go to morning report or noon conference but when I’m running around trying to get things done. I hate having to choose between my education and doing what’s best for the patient–but that’s often what it comes down to.” (Intern)

When specifically asked whether setting aside dedicated time to specifically review and formulate diagnoses would be valuable, respondents were uniformly enthusiastic. Team members described attentional conflicts as being the worst when “cross covering” other teams on call days, as their patient load effectively doubled during this time. Of note, cross-covering occurred when teams were also on call—and thus took them away from important diagnostic activities such as data gathering or synthesis for patients they were admitting.

“If you were to ever design a system where errors were likely–this is how you would design it: take a team with little supervision, double their patient load, keep them busy with new challenging cases and then ask questions about patients they know little about.” (Resident)

Although diagnostic errors have been called “the next frontier for patient safety,”¹⁷ little is known about the process, barriers, and facilitators to diagnosis in teaching hospitals. In this focused ethnography conducted at 2 academic medical centers, we identified multiple cognitive and system-level challenges and potential strategies to improve diagnosis from trainees engaged in this activity. Key themes identified by those we observed included the social nature of diagnosis, fragmented information delivery, constant distractions and interruptions, and time pressures. In turn, these insights allow us to generate strategies that can be applied to improve the diagnostic process in teaching hospitals.

Our study underscores the importance of social interactions in diagnosis. In contrast, most of the interventions to prevent diagnostic errors target individual providers through practices such as metacognition and “thinking about thinking.”^18-20 These interventions are based on Daniel Kahnemann’s work on dual thought process. Type 1 thought processes are fast, subconscious, reflexive, largely intuitive, and more vulnerable to error. In contrast, Type 2 processes are slower, deliberate, analytic, and less prone to error.²¹ Although an individual’s Type 2 thought capacity is limited, a major goal of cognitive interventions is to encourage Type 2 over Type 1 thinking, an approach termed “de-biasing.”^22-24 Unfortunately, cognitive interventions testing such approaches have suffered mixed results–perhaps because of lack of focus on collective wisdom or group thinking, which may be key to diagnosis from our findings.^9,25 In this sense, morning rounds were a social gathering used to strategize and develop care plans, but with limited time to think about diagnosis.²⁶ Introduction of defined periods for individuals to engage in diagnostic activities such as de-biasing (ie, asking “what else could this be)²⁷ before or after rounds may provide an opportunity for reflection and improving diagnosis. In addition, embedding tools such as diagnosis expanders and checklists within these defined time slots^28,29 may prove to be useful in reflecting on diagnosis and preventing diagnostic errors.

An unexpected yet important finding from this study were the challenges posed by distractions and the physical environment. Potentially maladaptive workarounds to these interruptions included use of headphones; more productive strategies included updating nurses with plans to avert pages and creating a list of activities to ensure that key tasks were not forgotten.^30,31 Applying lessons from aviation, a focused effort to limit distractions during key portions of the day, might be worth considering for diagnostic safety.³² Similarly, improving the environment in which diagnosis occurs—including creating spaces that are quiet, orderly, and optimized for thinking—may be valuable.³³Our study has limitations. First, our findings are limited to direct observations; we are thus unable to comment on how unobserved aspects of care (eg, cognitive processes) might have influenced our findings. Our observations of clinical care might also have introduced a Hawthorne effect. However, because we were closely integrated with teams and conducted focus groups to corroborate our assessments, we believe that this was not the case. Second, we did not identify diagnostic errors or link processes we observed to errors. Third, our approach is limited to 2 teaching centers, thereby limiting the generalizability of findings. Relatedly, we were only able to conduct observations during weekdays; differences in weekend and night resources might affect our insights.

The cognitive and system-based barriers faced by clinicians in teaching hospitals suggest that new methods to improve diagnosis are needed. Future interventions such as defined “time-outs” for diagnosis, strategies focused on limiting distractions, and methods to improve communication between team members are novel and have parallels in other industries. As challenges to quantify diagnostic errors abound,³⁴ improving cognitive- and system-based factors via reflection through communication, concentration, and organization is necessary to improve medical decision making in academic medical centers.

Disclosures

None declared for all coauthors.

Funding

This project was supported by grant number P30HS024385 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funding source played no role in study design, data acquisition, analysis or decision to report these data. Dr. Chopra is supported by a career development award from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (1-K08-HS022835-01). Dr. Krein is supported by a VA Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222). Dr. Singh is partially supported by Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13-413). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Chronic pain is a common health care problem that remains a significant burden for the VHA.^1,2 Some reports indicate that nearly 50% of VA patients report chronic pain.^3,4 Both within and outside the VHA, primary care providers (PCPs) generally manage patients with chronic pain.^5,6 Historically, a biomedical approach to chronic pain also included the use of opioid medications, which may have contributed to increased opioid-related morbidity and mortality especially among the veteran patient population.^7-9 The use of opioids also is controversial due to concerns about adverse effects (AEs), long-term efficacy, functional outcomes, and the potential for drug abuse and addiction.¹⁰ Consequently, alternative treatment options that incorporate an interdisciplinary approach have gained significant interest among pain care providers.¹¹ Interdisciplinary programs have been shown to improve functional status and psychological well-being and to reduce pain severity and opioid use.^12-14 These benefits may persist for a decade or longer.¹⁵

Background

The Stepped Care Model for Pain Management (SCM-PM) is a specific pain treatment approach promoted by the VA National Pain Management Directive.¹⁶ This systematically adjusted approach is associated with improved patient satisfaction and health outcomes for pain and depression.^17,18 At its core, the model promotes engaging patients as active participants in their care along with a team of doctors who can offer an integrated, evidence-based, multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment plan.

To successfully implement this strategy at the VA, patient aligned care teams (PACT) assess and manage patients with common pain conditions through collaboration with mental health, complementary and integrative health services, physical therapy, and other programs, such as opioid renewal clinics and pain schools.¹⁹ This collaborative care approach, which the PCP initiates, is step 1 of the SCM-PM. If initial treatment is not successful and patients are not improving as expected, specialty care consultation and collaborative comanagement through interdisciplinary pain specialty teams are sought (step 2). Finally, step 3 involves tertiary, interdisciplinary care, including access to advanced diagnostic and pain rehabilitation programs accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).

Although the advantages of interdisciplinary pain programs are clear, resource limitations as well as challenges related to competencies of the PCPs, nurses, and associated health care professionals in pain assessment and management can make implementation of these programs, including the SCM-PM, difficult for many clinics and facilities. Thus, identifying effective chronic pain models and strategies, incorporating the philosophy and key elements of interdisciplinary programs, and accounting for facility resources and capacity are all important.

At the Ann Arbor VAMC, development of a comprehensive interdisciplinary team started with the implementation of joint sessions with a clinical pharmacist and health psychologist embedded in primary care to enhance access to behavioral pain management interventions.²⁰ This program was subsequently expanded to include a pain physician, 2 pain-focused physical therapists (PTs) and a pain nurse.

This article describes a novel team approach for providing more comprehensive, interdisciplinary care for patients with chronic pain along with the initial results for the patients who were part of an outpatient pain group program (OPGP).

Methods

Developing a more interdisciplinary pain management program included integrating different services and creating a strategy for comprehensive evaluation and management of patients with chronic pain. After patients were referred to the interdisciplinary pain clinic by their PCP, they received a systematically structured multidimensional assessment. The primary focus of this assessment was to create an individually directed treatment approach based on the patient’s responses to previous treatments and information collected from several questionnaires administered prior to evaluation. This information helped guide individual patient decision making and actively engaged patients in their care, thus following one of the central tenants of the SCM-PM model. Moreover, functional restoration was at the core of each patient’s evaluation and management. The primary focus was on nonpharmacologic treatment options that included psychological, physical, and occupational therapy; self-management; education; and complementary and alternative therapies. These modalities were offered either individually or in a group setting.

The first step after referral was an evaluation that followed the main core principles for complex disease management described by Tauben and Theodore.²¹ All new patients were asked to complete a 2-question pain intensity and pain interference measure, the 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), 4-question Primary Care-PTSD screening tool (PC-PTSD), and the STOP-BANG questionnaire to assess the risk for obstructive sleep apnea.^22-24 Each measure allowed the physician to identify specific problem areas and formulate a treatment plan that would incorporate PTs or occupational therapists, psychologists and/or clinical specialists, and pharmacists if needed.

Patients who were found to have or expressed significant disability because of pain and who wished to learn pain self-management strategies could participate in an 8-week OPGP. This program included the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) strategies along with group physical therapy classes. Some patients also received individual therapies concurrently with the 8-week OPGP. Patients were excluded from participating in the OPGP only if their current medical or psychiatric status precluded them from full engagement and maximum benefit as determined by the pain physician and psychologist.

Participants and Intervention

Program participants were patients with a chronic pain diagnosis who enrolled in the interdisciplinary pain team OPGP between April 2016 and April 2017. Most patients were referred by their PCPs due to chronic low back, neck, joint or neuropathic pain, although many presented with multiple pain areas. The onset of pain often was a result of a service-related injury or overuse, or the etiology was unknown.

A board-certified pain physician, licensed clinical psychologist, 2 licensed PTs, and a clinical pharmacist led the OPGP sessions. The program was composed of 3-hour-long sessions held weekly for 8 consecutive weeks. Each week, a member of the team covered a specific topic (Table 1).

These sessions focused on the importance of exercise, movement, and physical therapy; appropriate use of medications for managing chronic pain; pacing activities and body mechanics; and the medical approach to managing chronic pain. In addition to didactic presentations, interaction and therapeutic dialogue was encouraged among patients. The education portion of each weekly session lasted about 90 minutes, including a short break. Then, following another short break, patients proceeded to the physical therapy area and engaged in an individualized, monitored exercise program, conducted by the team PTs. Patients also were issued pedometers and encouraged to track their steps each day. Education in improving posture and body mechanics was a key component of the exercise portion of the program so patients could resume their normal daily activities and regain enjoyment in their life. Pain outcomemeasures were collected at admission and immediately before discharge.

Medication management also was an important part of the program for some patients and included tapering off opioids and other drugs and implementing trials of adjuvant pain medications shown to help chronic pain. For some patients, this medication management continued after the patient completed the program.

Measures

The Pain Outcome Questionnaire (POQ) is a 19-item, self-report measure of pain treatment outcomes. Pain rating, mobility, activities of daily living, vitality, negative effect, and fear are the functioning domains evaluated, and the subscale scores are added to produce a total score. The POQ was developed from samples of veterans undergoing inpatient or outpatient pain treatment at VA facilities. For each of the subscales and the total score, higher values indicate poorer outcomes. In normative outpatient VA samples, a total score of 71 is at the 25th percentile, and 120 is at the 75th percentile. The POQ has been shown to have good reliability and validity among veterans in an outpatient setting.²⁵

The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a 13-item scale designed to measure various levels of pain catastrophizing.²⁶ Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time). The PCS consists of 3 subscale domains: rumination, 4 items; magnification, 3 items; and helplessness, 6 items. Responses to all items also can be added to produce a total score from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating a higher level of catastrophic thinking related to pain. This project evaluated both the total score and the 3 subscale scores.

The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses confidence in an individual’s ability to cope or to perform activities despite the pain.²⁷ The PSEQ covers a range of functions, including household chores, socializing, work, as well as coping with pain without medications. Each question has a 7-point Likert scale response: 0 = not at all confident, and 7 = completely confident, to produce a total score from 0 to 60. Higher scores indicate stronger pain self-efficacy, which has been shown to be associated with return to work and maintenance of functional gains.

The Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) is a 4-item instrument used to screen for depression and anxiety in outpatient medical settings.²² Patients indicate how often they have been bothered by certain problems on a 4-point Likert scale, from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The PHQ-4 provides a total score (0-12) with scores of 6 to 8 indicating moderate and 9 to 12 indicating severe psychological distress; 2 subscale scores, 1 for anxiety (2 questions) and 1 for depression (2 questions). For this analysis, the total PHQ-4 score has been dichotomized with 1 indicating a score in the moderate or severe range vs 0 for a score of mild or no psychological distress. Likewise, each of the subscale scores have been dichotomized with 1 indicating a score of 3 or greater, which is considered a positive screen.

The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) measures the distance (in feet) an individual can walk over a total of 6 minutes on a hard, flat surface.²⁸ Even though the individual can walk at a self-selected pace and rest if needed during the test, the goal is for the patient to walk as far as possible over the course of 6 minutes. The 6MWT provides information regarding functional capacity, response to therapy, and prognosis across a range of chronic conditions, including pain.

Data Analysis

Data analysis included the use of both descriptive and comparative statistics. A descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the characteristics of patients who did and did not complete the OPGP. Specific outcomes for those individuals who completed the program, and thus had complete pre- and post-OPGP information, then were compared. Paired t tests were used to compare differences in continuous measures between baseline (pre-OPGP) and the 8-week follow-up (post-OPGP). Comparisons involving dichotomous measures were made using the Fisher exact test. A 2-sided α with a P value .05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 14.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

A total of 36 patients enrolled, and 28 (77%) completed the OPGP. Patients who did not complete the program (n = 8) either self-discharged due to lack of interest or had difficulty in consistently making their appointments and decided not to continue (Table 2).

Outcomes for OPGP Completers

Improvements were observed for all outcome domains among patients who completed the program (eTable).

Discussion

This report describes the novel model for improving delivery of chronic pain management services implemented at the Ann Arbor VAMC through the development of a multidisciplinary pain PACT. The program included using a systematically structured multidimensional approach to identify appropriate treatments and delivery of interdisciplinary care for patients with chronic pain through an OPGP. The authors’ findings establish the feasibility and acceptability of the OPGP. More than 75% of those enrolled completed the program, indicating the promising potential of this approach with significant improvements observed for several pain-related outcomes among those who completed the 8-week program.

Stepped care is a well-established approach to managing complex chronic pain conditions. The approach adds increased levels of treatment intensity when there is no improvement after initial, simple measures are instituted (eg, over-the-counter pain medications, physical therapy, life style changes). Understanding the complexity of the pain experience while treating the patient and not simply the pain has the highest likelihood of helping patients with chronic pain. Given the prevalence of chronic pain among patients in primary care nationally, measurement-based pain care potentially could result in an earlier referral to appropriate care well before pain becomes intractable and chronic.

Growing evidence shows that multidisciplinary treatments reduce pain symptoms and intensity, medication, health care provider use, and improve quality of life.^11-15,29,30 A systematic review by van Tulder and colleagues, for example, noted improvements in physical parameters, such as range of motion and flexibility and behavioral health parameters, including anxiety, depression, and cognition.²⁹ Similarly, the cohort of patients who participated in the OPGP showed statistically significant improvements in several domains of pain-related distress and functioning following treatment, including pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, and the multicomponent pain outcomes questionnaires. Functional improvement also was observed by comparing the distance walked in 6 minutes before and after program completion.

There is significant variation in duration of rehabilitation programs lasting from 2 weeks to 12 weeks or longer. These sessions consist of half days, daily sessions, weekly sessions, and monthly sessions. Inconsistencies also exist among programs that use 3 to 280 professional contact hours. Although it has been shown that programs with more than 100 hours of professional contact tended to have better outcomes than did those with less than 30 hours of contact, Stratton and colleagues reported that a 6-week group program was equivalent or better than a 12- and 10-week group program among veterans.^11,31 These findings along with staffing and resource constraints led to the implementation of the 8-week OPGP with fewer than 30 hours of contact time per group. These results have important practical implications, as shorter treatments may offer comparable therapeutic impact than do longer, more time-intensive protocols.

Limitations

These findings were derived from a quality improvement project within one institution, and several limitations exist. Although the broader purpose of the article was to show how the fundamentals of creating a cohesive multidisciplinary chronic pain team can be implemented within the VA setting, the highlighted outcomes were primarily from participants in the OPGP Since this was not a controlled or experimental study and given potential sample size and selections issues as well as the lack of longer-term follow-up information, further study is needed to draw definitive conclusions about program effectiveness, despite promising preliminary results. In addition, medication use, such as opioids either before or after completion of the program, was not included as part of this evaluation. As previously discussed, medication management for some patients continued beyond the 8-week time frame of the OPGP. Nonetheless, understanding the impact of this team approach on opioid use also is an important topic for future research.

Despite these limitations, the described model could be a feasible option for improving pain management in outpatient practices not only within the VA but in community settings.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the use of short-term, structured therapeutic protocols could be a potentially effective strategy for the behavioral treatment of chronic pain conditions among veterans. The development and implementation of effective, innovative, evidence-based practice to address the needs of patients with chronic pain is an important priority for maximizing clinical service delivery and meeting the needs of the nation’s veterans.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the previous Associate Chief of Staff, Ambulatory Care, Clinton Greenstone, MD, and Director of Primary Care Adam Tremblay, MD, for their vision, leadership, and support of the team and its efforts.

This work was supported in part through a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222) awarded to Sarah Krein, PhD.

Chronic pain is a common health care problem that remains a significant burden for the VHA.^1,2 Some reports indicate that nearly 50% of VA patients report chronic pain.^3,4 Both within and outside the VHA, primary care providers (PCPs) generally manage patients with chronic pain.^5,6 Historically, a biomedical approach to chronic pain also included the use of opioid medications, which may have contributed to increased opioid-related morbidity and mortality especially among the veteran patient population.^7-9 The use of opioids also is controversial due to concerns about adverse effects (AEs), long-term efficacy, functional outcomes, and the potential for drug abuse and addiction.¹⁰ Consequently, alternative treatment options that incorporate an interdisciplinary approach have gained significant interest among pain care providers.¹¹ Interdisciplinary programs have been shown to improve functional status and psychological well-being and to reduce pain severity and opioid use.^12-14 These benefits may persist for a decade or longer.¹⁵

Background

The Stepped Care Model for Pain Management (SCM-PM) is a specific pain treatment approach promoted by the VA National Pain Management Directive.¹⁶ This systematically adjusted approach is associated with improved patient satisfaction and health outcomes for pain and depression.^17,18 At its core, the model promotes engaging patients as active participants in their care along with a team of doctors who can offer an integrated, evidence-based, multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment plan.

To successfully implement this strategy at the VA, patient aligned care teams (PACT) assess and manage patients with common pain conditions through collaboration with mental health, complementary and integrative health services, physical therapy, and other programs, such as opioid renewal clinics and pain schools.¹⁹ This collaborative care approach, which the PCP initiates, is step 1 of the SCM-PM. If initial treatment is not successful and patients are not improving as expected, specialty care consultation and collaborative comanagement through interdisciplinary pain specialty teams are sought (step 2). Finally, step 3 involves tertiary, interdisciplinary care, including access to advanced diagnostic and pain rehabilitation programs accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).

Although the advantages of interdisciplinary pain programs are clear, resource limitations as well as challenges related to competencies of the PCPs, nurses, and associated health care professionals in pain assessment and management can make implementation of these programs, including the SCM-PM, difficult for many clinics and facilities. Thus, identifying effective chronic pain models and strategies, incorporating the philosophy and key elements of interdisciplinary programs, and accounting for facility resources and capacity are all important.

At the Ann Arbor VAMC, development of a comprehensive interdisciplinary team started with the implementation of joint sessions with a clinical pharmacist and health psychologist embedded in primary care to enhance access to behavioral pain management interventions.²⁰ This program was subsequently expanded to include a pain physician, 2 pain-focused physical therapists (PTs) and a pain nurse.

This article describes a novel team approach for providing more comprehensive, interdisciplinary care for patients with chronic pain along with the initial results for the patients who were part of an outpatient pain group program (OPGP).

Methods

Developing a more interdisciplinary pain management program included integrating different services and creating a strategy for comprehensive evaluation and management of patients with chronic pain. After patients were referred to the interdisciplinary pain clinic by their PCP, they received a systematically structured multidimensional assessment. The primary focus of this assessment was to create an individually directed treatment approach based on the patient’s responses to previous treatments and information collected from several questionnaires administered prior to evaluation. This information helped guide individual patient decision making and actively engaged patients in their care, thus following one of the central tenants of the SCM-PM model. Moreover, functional restoration was at the core of each patient’s evaluation and management. The primary focus was on nonpharmacologic treatment options that included psychological, physical, and occupational therapy; self-management; education; and complementary and alternative therapies. These modalities were offered either individually or in a group setting.

The first step after referral was an evaluation that followed the main core principles for complex disease management described by Tauben and Theodore.²¹ All new patients were asked to complete a 2-question pain intensity and pain interference measure, the 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), 4-question Primary Care-PTSD screening tool (PC-PTSD), and the STOP-BANG questionnaire to assess the risk for obstructive sleep apnea.^22-24 Each measure allowed the physician to identify specific problem areas and formulate a treatment plan that would incorporate PTs or occupational therapists, psychologists and/or clinical specialists, and pharmacists if needed.

Patients who were found to have or expressed significant disability because of pain and who wished to learn pain self-management strategies could participate in an 8-week OPGP. This program included the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) strategies along with group physical therapy classes. Some patients also received individual therapies concurrently with the 8-week OPGP. Patients were excluded from participating in the OPGP only if their current medical or psychiatric status precluded them from full engagement and maximum benefit as determined by the pain physician and psychologist.

Participants and Intervention

Program participants were patients with a chronic pain diagnosis who enrolled in the interdisciplinary pain team OPGP between April 2016 and April 2017. Most patients were referred by their PCPs due to chronic low back, neck, joint or neuropathic pain, although many presented with multiple pain areas. The onset of pain often was a result of a service-related injury or overuse, or the etiology was unknown.

A board-certified pain physician, licensed clinical psychologist, 2 licensed PTs, and a clinical pharmacist led the OPGP sessions. The program was composed of 3-hour-long sessions held weekly for 8 consecutive weeks. Each week, a member of the team covered a specific topic (Table 1).

These sessions focused on the importance of exercise, movement, and physical therapy; appropriate use of medications for managing chronic pain; pacing activities and body mechanics; and the medical approach to managing chronic pain. In addition to didactic presentations, interaction and therapeutic dialogue was encouraged among patients. The education portion of each weekly session lasted about 90 minutes, including a short break. Then, following another short break, patients proceeded to the physical therapy area and engaged in an individualized, monitored exercise program, conducted by the team PTs. Patients also were issued pedometers and encouraged to track their steps each day. Education in improving posture and body mechanics was a key component of the exercise portion of the program so patients could resume their normal daily activities and regain enjoyment in their life. Pain outcomemeasures were collected at admission and immediately before discharge.

Medication management also was an important part of the program for some patients and included tapering off opioids and other drugs and implementing trials of adjuvant pain medications shown to help chronic pain. For some patients, this medication management continued after the patient completed the program.

Measures

The Pain Outcome Questionnaire (POQ) is a 19-item, self-report measure of pain treatment outcomes. Pain rating, mobility, activities of daily living, vitality, negative effect, and fear are the functioning domains evaluated, and the subscale scores are added to produce a total score. The POQ was developed from samples of veterans undergoing inpatient or outpatient pain treatment at VA facilities. For each of the subscales and the total score, higher values indicate poorer outcomes. In normative outpatient VA samples, a total score of 71 is at the 25th percentile, and 120 is at the 75th percentile. The POQ has been shown to have good reliability and validity among veterans in an outpatient setting.²⁵

The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a 13-item scale designed to measure various levels of pain catastrophizing.²⁶ Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time). The PCS consists of 3 subscale domains: rumination, 4 items; magnification, 3 items; and helplessness, 6 items. Responses to all items also can be added to produce a total score from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating a higher level of catastrophic thinking related to pain. This project evaluated both the total score and the 3 subscale scores.

The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses confidence in an individual’s ability to cope or to perform activities despite the pain.²⁷ The PSEQ covers a range of functions, including household chores, socializing, work, as well as coping with pain without medications. Each question has a 7-point Likert scale response: 0 = not at all confident, and 7 = completely confident, to produce a total score from 0 to 60. Higher scores indicate stronger pain self-efficacy, which has been shown to be associated with return to work and maintenance of functional gains.

The Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) is a 4-item instrument used to screen for depression and anxiety in outpatient medical settings.²² Patients indicate how often they have been bothered by certain problems on a 4-point Likert scale, from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The PHQ-4 provides a total score (0-12) with scores of 6 to 8 indicating moderate and 9 to 12 indicating severe psychological distress; 2 subscale scores, 1 for anxiety (2 questions) and 1 for depression (2 questions). For this analysis, the total PHQ-4 score has been dichotomized with 1 indicating a score in the moderate or severe range vs 0 for a score of mild or no psychological distress. Likewise, each of the subscale scores have been dichotomized with 1 indicating a score of 3 or greater, which is considered a positive screen.

The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) measures the distance (in feet) an individual can walk over a total of 6 minutes on a hard, flat surface.²⁸ Even though the individual can walk at a self-selected pace and rest if needed during the test, the goal is for the patient to walk as far as possible over the course of 6 minutes. The 6MWT provides information regarding functional capacity, response to therapy, and prognosis across a range of chronic conditions, including pain.

Data Analysis

Data analysis included the use of both descriptive and comparative statistics. A descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the characteristics of patients who did and did not complete the OPGP. Specific outcomes for those individuals who completed the program, and thus had complete pre- and post-OPGP information, then were compared. Paired t tests were used to compare differences in continuous measures between baseline (pre-OPGP) and the 8-week follow-up (post-OPGP). Comparisons involving dichotomous measures were made using the Fisher exact test. A 2-sided α with a P value .05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 14.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

A total of 36 patients enrolled, and 28 (77%) completed the OPGP. Patients who did not complete the program (n = 8) either self-discharged due to lack of interest or had difficulty in consistently making their appointments and decided not to continue (Table 2).

Outcomes for OPGP Completers

Improvements were observed for all outcome domains among patients who completed the program (eTable).

Discussion

This report describes the novel model for improving delivery of chronic pain management services implemented at the Ann Arbor VAMC through the development of a multidisciplinary pain PACT. The program included using a systematically structured multidimensional approach to identify appropriate treatments and delivery of interdisciplinary care for patients with chronic pain through an OPGP. The authors’ findings establish the feasibility and acceptability of the OPGP. More than 75% of those enrolled completed the program, indicating the promising potential of this approach with significant improvements observed for several pain-related outcomes among those who completed the 8-week program.

Stepped care is a well-established approach to managing complex chronic pain conditions. The approach adds increased levels of treatment intensity when there is no improvement after initial, simple measures are instituted (eg, over-the-counter pain medications, physical therapy, life style changes). Understanding the complexity of the pain experience while treating the patient and not simply the pain has the highest likelihood of helping patients with chronic pain. Given the prevalence of chronic pain among patients in primary care nationally, measurement-based pain care potentially could result in an earlier referral to appropriate care well before pain becomes intractable and chronic.

Growing evidence shows that multidisciplinary treatments reduce pain symptoms and intensity, medication, health care provider use, and improve quality of life.^11-15,29,30 A systematic review by van Tulder and colleagues, for example, noted improvements in physical parameters, such as range of motion and flexibility and behavioral health parameters, including anxiety, depression, and cognition.²⁹ Similarly, the cohort of patients who participated in the OPGP showed statistically significant improvements in several domains of pain-related distress and functioning following treatment, including pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, and the multicomponent pain outcomes questionnaires. Functional improvement also was observed by comparing the distance walked in 6 minutes before and after program completion.

There is significant variation in duration of rehabilitation programs lasting from 2 weeks to 12 weeks or longer. These sessions consist of half days, daily sessions, weekly sessions, and monthly sessions. Inconsistencies also exist among programs that use 3 to 280 professional contact hours. Although it has been shown that programs with more than 100 hours of professional contact tended to have better outcomes than did those with less than 30 hours of contact, Stratton and colleagues reported that a 6-week group program was equivalent or better than a 12- and 10-week group program among veterans.^11,31 These findings along with staffing and resource constraints led to the implementation of the 8-week OPGP with fewer than 30 hours of contact time per group. These results have important practical implications, as shorter treatments may offer comparable therapeutic impact than do longer, more time-intensive protocols.

Limitations

These findings were derived from a quality improvement project within one institution, and several limitations exist. Although the broader purpose of the article was to show how the fundamentals of creating a cohesive multidisciplinary chronic pain team can be implemented within the VA setting, the highlighted outcomes were primarily from participants in the OPGP Since this was not a controlled or experimental study and given potential sample size and selections issues as well as the lack of longer-term follow-up information, further study is needed to draw definitive conclusions about program effectiveness, despite promising preliminary results. In addition, medication use, such as opioids either before or after completion of the program, was not included as part of this evaluation. As previously discussed, medication management for some patients continued beyond the 8-week time frame of the OPGP. Nonetheless, understanding the impact of this team approach on opioid use also is an important topic for future research.

Despite these limitations, the described model could be a feasible option for improving pain management in outpatient practices not only within the VA but in community settings.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the use of short-term, structured therapeutic protocols could be a potentially effective strategy for the behavioral treatment of chronic pain conditions among veterans. The development and implementation of effective, innovative, evidence-based practice to address the needs of patients with chronic pain is an important priority for maximizing clinical service delivery and meeting the needs of the nation’s veterans.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the previous Associate Chief of Staff, Ambulatory Care, Clinton Greenstone, MD, and Director of Primary Care Adam Tremblay, MD, for their vision, leadership, and support of the team and its efforts.

This work was supported in part through a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222) awarded to Sarah Krein, PhD.

Chronic pain is a common health care problem that remains a significant burden for the VHA.^1,2 Some reports indicate that nearly 50% of VA patients report chronic pain.^3,4 Both within and outside the VHA, primary care providers (PCPs) generally manage patients with chronic pain.^5,6 Historically, a biomedical approach to chronic pain also included the use of opioid medications, which may have contributed to increased opioid-related morbidity and mortality especially among the veteran patient population.^7-9 The use of opioids also is controversial due to concerns about adverse effects (AEs), long-term efficacy, functional outcomes, and the potential for drug abuse and addiction.¹⁰ Consequently, alternative treatment options that incorporate an interdisciplinary approach have gained significant interest among pain care providers.¹¹ Interdisciplinary programs have been shown to improve functional status and psychological well-being and to reduce pain severity and opioid use.^12-14 These benefits may persist for a decade or longer.¹⁵

Background

The Stepped Care Model for Pain Management (SCM-PM) is a specific pain treatment approach promoted by the VA National Pain Management Directive.¹⁶ This systematically adjusted approach is associated with improved patient satisfaction and health outcomes for pain and depression.^17,18 At its core, the model promotes engaging patients as active participants in their care along with a team of doctors who can offer an integrated, evidence-based, multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment plan.

To successfully implement this strategy at the VA, patient aligned care teams (PACT) assess and manage patients with common pain conditions through collaboration with mental health, complementary and integrative health services, physical therapy, and other programs, such as opioid renewal clinics and pain schools.¹⁹ This collaborative care approach, which the PCP initiates, is step 1 of the SCM-PM. If initial treatment is not successful and patients are not improving as expected, specialty care consultation and collaborative comanagement through interdisciplinary pain specialty teams are sought (step 2). Finally, step 3 involves tertiary, interdisciplinary care, including access to advanced diagnostic and pain rehabilitation programs accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).

Although the advantages of interdisciplinary pain programs are clear, resource limitations as well as challenges related to competencies of the PCPs, nurses, and associated health care professionals in pain assessment and management can make implementation of these programs, including the SCM-PM, difficult for many clinics and facilities. Thus, identifying effective chronic pain models and strategies, incorporating the philosophy and key elements of interdisciplinary programs, and accounting for facility resources and capacity are all important.

At the Ann Arbor VAMC, development of a comprehensive interdisciplinary team started with the implementation of joint sessions with a clinical pharmacist and health psychologist embedded in primary care to enhance access to behavioral pain management interventions.²⁰ This program was subsequently expanded to include a pain physician, 2 pain-focused physical therapists (PTs) and a pain nurse.

This article describes a novel team approach for providing more comprehensive, interdisciplinary care for patients with chronic pain along with the initial results for the patients who were part of an outpatient pain group program (OPGP).

Methods

Developing a more interdisciplinary pain management program included integrating different services and creating a strategy for comprehensive evaluation and management of patients with chronic pain. After patients were referred to the interdisciplinary pain clinic by their PCP, they received a systematically structured multidimensional assessment. The primary focus of this assessment was to create an individually directed treatment approach based on the patient’s responses to previous treatments and information collected from several questionnaires administered prior to evaluation. This information helped guide individual patient decision making and actively engaged patients in their care, thus following one of the central tenants of the SCM-PM model. Moreover, functional restoration was at the core of each patient’s evaluation and management. The primary focus was on nonpharmacologic treatment options that included psychological, physical, and occupational therapy; self-management; education; and complementary and alternative therapies. These modalities were offered either individually or in a group setting.

The first step after referral was an evaluation that followed the main core principles for complex disease management described by Tauben and Theodore.²¹ All new patients were asked to complete a 2-question pain intensity and pain interference measure, the 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), 4-question Primary Care-PTSD screening tool (PC-PTSD), and the STOP-BANG questionnaire to assess the risk for obstructive sleep apnea.^22-24 Each measure allowed the physician to identify specific problem areas and formulate a treatment plan that would incorporate PTs or occupational therapists, psychologists and/or clinical specialists, and pharmacists if needed.

Patients who were found to have or expressed significant disability because of pain and who wished to learn pain self-management strategies could participate in an 8-week OPGP. This program included the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) strategies along with group physical therapy classes. Some patients also received individual therapies concurrently with the 8-week OPGP. Patients were excluded from participating in the OPGP only if their current medical or psychiatric status precluded them from full engagement and maximum benefit as determined by the pain physician and psychologist.

Participants and Intervention

Program participants were patients with a chronic pain diagnosis who enrolled in the interdisciplinary pain team OPGP between April 2016 and April 2017. Most patients were referred by their PCPs due to chronic low back, neck, joint or neuropathic pain, although many presented with multiple pain areas. The onset of pain often was a result of a service-related injury or overuse, or the etiology was unknown.

A board-certified pain physician, licensed clinical psychologist, 2 licensed PTs, and a clinical pharmacist led the OPGP sessions. The program was composed of 3-hour-long sessions held weekly for 8 consecutive weeks. Each week, a member of the team covered a specific topic (Table 1).

These sessions focused on the importance of exercise, movement, and physical therapy; appropriate use of medications for managing chronic pain; pacing activities and body mechanics; and the medical approach to managing chronic pain. In addition to didactic presentations, interaction and therapeutic dialogue was encouraged among patients. The education portion of each weekly session lasted about 90 minutes, including a short break. Then, following another short break, patients proceeded to the physical therapy area and engaged in an individualized, monitored exercise program, conducted by the team PTs. Patients also were issued pedometers and encouraged to track their steps each day. Education in improving posture and body mechanics was a key component of the exercise portion of the program so patients could resume their normal daily activities and regain enjoyment in their life. Pain outcomemeasures were collected at admission and immediately before discharge.

Medication management also was an important part of the program for some patients and included tapering off opioids and other drugs and implementing trials of adjuvant pain medications shown to help chronic pain. For some patients, this medication management continued after the patient completed the program.

Measures

The Pain Outcome Questionnaire (POQ) is a 19-item, self-report measure of pain treatment outcomes. Pain rating, mobility, activities of daily living, vitality, negative effect, and fear are the functioning domains evaluated, and the subscale scores are added to produce a total score. The POQ was developed from samples of veterans undergoing inpatient or outpatient pain treatment at VA facilities. For each of the subscales and the total score, higher values indicate poorer outcomes. In normative outpatient VA samples, a total score of 71 is at the 25th percentile, and 120 is at the 75th percentile. The POQ has been shown to have good reliability and validity among veterans in an outpatient setting.²⁵

The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a 13-item scale designed to measure various levels of pain catastrophizing.²⁶ Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 0 (not at all) to 4 (all the time). The PCS consists of 3 subscale domains: rumination, 4 items; magnification, 3 items; and helplessness, 6 items. Responses to all items also can be added to produce a total score from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating a higher level of catastrophic thinking related to pain. This project evaluated both the total score and the 3 subscale scores.

The Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses confidence in an individual’s ability to cope or to perform activities despite the pain.²⁷ The PSEQ covers a range of functions, including household chores, socializing, work, as well as coping with pain without medications. Each question has a 7-point Likert scale response: 0 = not at all confident, and 7 = completely confident, to produce a total score from 0 to 60. Higher scores indicate stronger pain self-efficacy, which has been shown to be associated with return to work and maintenance of functional gains.

The Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) is a 4-item instrument used to screen for depression and anxiety in outpatient medical settings.²² Patients indicate how often they have been bothered by certain problems on a 4-point Likert scale, from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). The PHQ-4 provides a total score (0-12) with scores of 6 to 8 indicating moderate and 9 to 12 indicating severe psychological distress; 2 subscale scores, 1 for anxiety (2 questions) and 1 for depression (2 questions). For this analysis, the total PHQ-4 score has been dichotomized with 1 indicating a score in the moderate or severe range vs 0 for a score of mild or no psychological distress. Likewise, each of the subscale scores have been dichotomized with 1 indicating a score of 3 or greater, which is considered a positive screen.

The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) measures the distance (in feet) an individual can walk over a total of 6 minutes on a hard, flat surface.²⁸ Even though the individual can walk at a self-selected pace and rest if needed during the test, the goal is for the patient to walk as far as possible over the course of 6 minutes. The 6MWT provides information regarding functional capacity, response to therapy, and prognosis across a range of chronic conditions, including pain.

Data Analysis

Data analysis included the use of both descriptive and comparative statistics. A descriptive analysis was conducted to examine the characteristics of patients who did and did not complete the OPGP. Specific outcomes for those individuals who completed the program, and thus had complete pre- and post-OPGP information, then were compared. Paired t tests were used to compare differences in continuous measures between baseline (pre-OPGP) and the 8-week follow-up (post-OPGP). Comparisons involving dichotomous measures were made using the Fisher exact test. A 2-sided α with a P value .05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 14.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

A total of 36 patients enrolled, and 28 (77%) completed the OPGP. Patients who did not complete the program (n = 8) either self-discharged due to lack of interest or had difficulty in consistently making their appointments and decided not to continue (Table 2).

Outcomes for OPGP Completers

Improvements were observed for all outcome domains among patients who completed the program (eTable).

Discussion

This report describes the novel model for improving delivery of chronic pain management services implemented at the Ann Arbor VAMC through the development of a multidisciplinary pain PACT. The program included using a systematically structured multidimensional approach to identify appropriate treatments and delivery of interdisciplinary care for patients with chronic pain through an OPGP. The authors’ findings establish the feasibility and acceptability of the OPGP. More than 75% of those enrolled completed the program, indicating the promising potential of this approach with significant improvements observed for several pain-related outcomes among those who completed the 8-week program.

Stepped care is a well-established approach to managing complex chronic pain conditions. The approach adds increased levels of treatment intensity when there is no improvement after initial, simple measures are instituted (eg, over-the-counter pain medications, physical therapy, life style changes). Understanding the complexity of the pain experience while treating the patient and not simply the pain has the highest likelihood of helping patients with chronic pain. Given the prevalence of chronic pain among patients in primary care nationally, measurement-based pain care potentially could result in an earlier referral to appropriate care well before pain becomes intractable and chronic.

Growing evidence shows that multidisciplinary treatments reduce pain symptoms and intensity, medication, health care provider use, and improve quality of life.^11-15,29,30 A systematic review by van Tulder and colleagues, for example, noted improvements in physical parameters, such as range of motion and flexibility and behavioral health parameters, including anxiety, depression, and cognition.²⁹ Similarly, the cohort of patients who participated in the OPGP showed statistically significant improvements in several domains of pain-related distress and functioning following treatment, including pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, and the multicomponent pain outcomes questionnaires. Functional improvement also was observed by comparing the distance walked in 6 minutes before and after program completion.

There is significant variation in duration of rehabilitation programs lasting from 2 weeks to 12 weeks or longer. These sessions consist of half days, daily sessions, weekly sessions, and monthly sessions. Inconsistencies also exist among programs that use 3 to 280 professional contact hours. Although it has been shown that programs with more than 100 hours of professional contact tended to have better outcomes than did those with less than 30 hours of contact, Stratton and colleagues reported that a 6-week group program was equivalent or better than a 12- and 10-week group program among veterans.^11,31 These findings along with staffing and resource constraints led to the implementation of the 8-week OPGP with fewer than 30 hours of contact time per group. These results have important practical implications, as shorter treatments may offer comparable therapeutic impact than do longer, more time-intensive protocols.

Limitations

These findings were derived from a quality improvement project within one institution, and several limitations exist. Although the broader purpose of the article was to show how the fundamentals of creating a cohesive multidisciplinary chronic pain team can be implemented within the VA setting, the highlighted outcomes were primarily from participants in the OPGP Since this was not a controlled or experimental study and given potential sample size and selections issues as well as the lack of longer-term follow-up information, further study is needed to draw definitive conclusions about program effectiveness, despite promising preliminary results. In addition, medication use, such as opioids either before or after completion of the program, was not included as part of this evaluation. As previously discussed, medication management for some patients continued beyond the 8-week time frame of the OPGP. Nonetheless, understanding the impact of this team approach on opioid use also is an important topic for future research.

Despite these limitations, the described model could be a feasible option for improving pain management in outpatient practices not only within the VA but in community settings.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the use of short-term, structured therapeutic protocols could be a potentially effective strategy for the behavioral treatment of chronic pain conditions among veterans. The development and implementation of effective, innovative, evidence-based practice to address the needs of patients with chronic pain is an important priority for maximizing clinical service delivery and meeting the needs of the nation’s veterans.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the previous Associate Chief of Staff, Ambulatory Care, Clinton Greenstone, MD, and Director of Primary Care Adam Tremblay, MD, for their vision, leadership, and support of the team and its efforts.

This work was supported in part through a Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service Research Career Scientist Award (RCS 11-222) awarded to Sarah Krein, PhD.