Patient Care

Patient portals are secure online website tools that provide patient access to personal health information (PHI). Access to online PHI improves health equity and satisfies the meaningful use objectives of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program.^1,2 Through patient portals, individuals can access PHI records and current diagnoses, request and reschedule appointments, locate test results, track trends for vital signs and laboratory values, refill medications, and communicate directly with the health care team through secure messaging. This alternative method of communication with the team is associated with increased patient satisfaction.³ Patients reported improved patient engagement in health care self-management and decision making, as well as strengthened relationships with their health care team.⁴

Background

One well-documented strategy to improve portal use includes the development of a nurse champion to facilitate enrollment during the clinic visit.⁵ Patient perceptions of portal value increased after education by a health care professional (HCP) and assistance in enrollment to familiarize patients with the platform for ongoing use.⁵ Use of patient portals has been associated with favorable outcomes in chronic disease management. Patients with diabetes mellitus who regularly use patient portals for prescription refills and secure messaging have demonstrated improved glycemic control, medication adherence, and associated health parameters compared with nonusers.^5-7 In patients with congestive heart failure, meaningful patient portal use results in fewer emergency department visits, fewer hospital admissions, lower readmission rates, and reduced unscheduled and no-show visits.^8-11

Patient portal access is a quality improvement (QI) measure that meets Medicare and Medicaid meaningful use requirements that is designed to improve collaboration between HCPs and patients through EHRs. Despite legislation, uptake of patient portal access has been slow, especially among older adults.^10,12,13 Barriers to patient portal registration and use include patient lack of awareness, perceived or actual digital illiteracy, mistrust in privacy precautions, lack of user-friendly interfaces, lack of internet or technology, HCP bias and workload, and misperceptions of usefulness.^9,10,12,14 The HCPs most likely to facilitate the use of patient portals, typically include nurse practitioners (NPs), nurses, and medical residents.^10,15 Patient portal platforms promote the partnership of these disciplines with the veteran to help the patient better manage their health. Despite the benefits and widespread integration of patient portals in health care systems, socioeconomic inequalities and HCP attitudes contribute to persistent disparities in its adoption by underserved populations. The veteran population is often faced with additional barriers to health care access with regard to geographic location, advanced age, trauma, disabilities, mental health challenges, and homelessness.^10,16 These barriers require unique approaches to maximize the use of technologic advances.¹⁷ Advanced age contributes to low rates of patient portal enrollment and lack of digital platform use, thus creating a digital divide.^11,12

The digital divide is described as the gap between those persons who use technology including computers and internet, and those persons who do not because of social and geographic barriers.¹⁶ It contributes to a growing health disparity in both access to care and quality of care especially for rural veterans. About 25% of the US population lacks fixed broadband at home; these individuals are more likely to be racial minorities, older, widowed, or to have lower levels of education.^18,19 Veterans are disproportionately represented in these demographic categories.²⁰ According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health, the percentage of rural veterans enrolled in the VA health care system (58%) is significantly higher than enrollment of urban veterans (38%); additionally, 27% of rural veterans do not access the internet at home.²¹

My HealtheVet

The VA plays an integral part in increasing virtual access to care, from the introduction of My Healthevet (MHV) in 2003 to the distribution of iPad tablets to vulnerable veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.^22,23 Due to COVID-19, the need for VA patient access to the internet and VA Video-Connect (VVC) telehealth services increased significantly.²² Access to internet and hardware supporting use of VVC and MHV has been facilitated by the Digital Divide Consult, a VA program launched in 2020 to increase access to telehealth services.²⁴ The VA has distributed > 26,000 cellular-enabled tablets and provided > 50,000 veterans with connectivity in collaboration with various private sector companies.²² Patients report that MHV facilitates engagement in health care through improved access to EHRs and expedited communication with the health care team.⁴

MHV is a secure online tool that provides patients access to PHI. MHV aims to empower veterans to take charge of their health by improving communication with HCPs, setting patient goals, and offering health and well-being resources.^25,26 In a study of outpatients at a large urban multisite health care system, < 35% of patients on 16 medical resident panels were enrolled in a patient portal.¹⁵ MHV internal national metrics show increasing registration and active users of the patient portal, yet locally, disparities in the use of the portal by rural and older veterans exist.

The Local Problem

A review of the registration process at a rural VA clinic revealed barriers to facilitating the veteran registration process at the point of care. Clinical reminders exist within the EHR to prompt clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of care. At the New England Healthcare System (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 1), a patient portal clinical reminder prompts staff to encourage veterans to register. Anecdotal data obtained from primary care staff interviews at a rural VA primary care clinic in Vermont revealed low clinician confidence in completing the clinical reminder, a lack of knowledge of MHV, and lack of time to educate veterans about the benefits of MHV.

Despite availability of a registration process at the point of care and clinical staff assigned to provide registration information to the veteran, access to the patient portal among veterans at this clinic remained low. This QI project aimed to increase patient portal enrollment of veterans in MHV in a single NP patient panel of 100 patients from a baseline of 33% by 10% in a 3-month time frame.  

Implementation

Before implementing the first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, we established the baseline data for 1 patient panel to be 33%. A retrospective review of the NP resident’s panel of 100 revealed 33 veterans were enrolled in MHV, providing a setting for process improvement. Evaluation of potential enrollment data for the panel population revealed unenrolled veterans were primarily aged ≥ 65 years. A rapid cycle QI (RCQI) strategy using the PDSA method was used to identify, implement, and measure changes over a 3-month time frame in 1 NP patient panel.¹⁴

The RCQI process included establishing baseline data and 3 PDSA cycles that evaluated the current state of patient access to the electronic patient portal, elucidated patient barriers to registration, assessed the processes for point-of-care enrollment, and developed strategies to improve the process and increase veteran enrollment. The QI project team included an NP resident as the project manager and MHV champion, a clinical faculty mentor at the site, a telehealth coordinator, an MHV coordinator, clinic registered nurse (RN), and clinic licensed nursing assistant (LNA). The RN and LNA additionally served as MHV champions as the project progressed.

PDSA Cycles

The objective for PDSA cycle 1 was to evaluate the process of patient registration and assess the impact on NP workload and clinic workflow over a 4-week period to improve veteran enrollment. Data were collected in a spreadsheet to track the number of veterans enrolled, time frame to enroll, and field notes that the NP resident recorded about the experience. The NP resident was trained in registration methods by the MHV coordinator. Several barriers to the registration process were identified: The process resulted in a change of the clinic visit closure focus, the clinic room was blocked for use by another patient, veterans had difficulty generating a unique username and password, veterans were unfamiliar with basic tablet accessibility and use, and additional time was required if incorrect information was entered. The veterans displayed low confidence in using tablet technology and were unaware of the patient portal or its usefulness. After discussion of the process with the project team, recommendations were made to address challenges, including an RN-led registration process. The first PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment by 4 veterans to 37%.

In PDSA cycle 2 after the NP visit, patients who agreed to register for the MHV portal were introduced to the tablet. The registration process was completed by the patient with the RN prior to the patient checkout. Once patient registration was completed, the veteran met the MHV coordinator and upgraded to a premium account, which provided full access to portal features. Electronic messaging was tested by the MHV coordinator and veteran to validate patient understanding. Although preloading demographic information improved accessibility issues, time was still required for the RN to orient the veteran to the tablet, provide additional directions, and answer questions.

The registration process reduced NP time commitment but added to the RN time burden and disrupted workflow; and clinic room access continued to be an issue. The wait time for the veteran to register in the clinic remained dependent on the availability of the RN. The decision was to move the registration process to the initial patient rooming assignment in the clinic and was transitioned from RN to LNA, prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Four additional veterans registered in the second PDSA cycle, and total enrollment increased to 41%, an overall 8% increase from baseline.

In the third PDSA cycle the patient enrollment process was managed by the clinic LNA using scripted information about MHV prior to the veteran encounter. A partially preloaded tablet was offered to the veteran to register with MHV during the rooming process, and written and oral instruction were provided to the veteran. The time required for each veteran to register for MHV averaged 10 minutes, and the veteran was able to register while waiting for the NP to enter the room. Typical LNA tasks included greeting patients, updating health records, completing clinical reminders with the veteran, obtaining vital signs, and addressing questions. The LNA introduced the veteran to MHV using scripted information and supported them in registering for MHV prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Registration at point of care during the rooming process was well received by both the LNA and veterans. The LNA reported the process was efficient and did not add excessive time to the LNA workflow. The LNA reported verbal patient satisfaction and registration was facilitated for 6 veterans during the 4-week period. 

Registration during point of care was reported as feasible and sustainable by the LNA. Upgrading the patient to a premium MHV account was transitioned to the MHV coordinator. All veterans seen during the 4-week period were approached about registration; if the veteran declined, written at-home step-by-step instructions were provided. A replacement electronic clinical reminder was proposed to the VISN clinical reminders team for review and was pilot tested by the primary care clinical team. The third PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment to 47%, an overall 14% increase from baseline. Six new veteran users were added during PDSA cycle 3.

Discussion

The project team successfully used a RCQI method with a PDSA strategy to improve patient access to the MHV portal and increased veteran enrollment by 14% on 1 NP resident patient panel. The project evaluated clinic workflow regarding veteran patient portal registration, uncovered inefficiencies, and developed improved processes to increase veteran access to the patient portal. Results were positively impacted through the recognition of inefficiencies and initiation of new processes to engage veterans in the portal registration process. Familiarizing the entire clinical team with the clinical reminder and registration process raised the awareness of a digital divide consult and the utility of the portal in patient care. The project provided an opportunity to evaluate veterans’ digital literacy, digital access to send and receive messages, and to provide coaching as needed. Sequential PDSA cycles employed audit and feedback, information preloading, multimodal teaching strategies (verbal, print, hands-on tablet learning), scripting, staff interviews, time studies, and workflow evaluation to improve processes. An MHV champion led the team, monitored the progress, set deadlines, and effectively communicated project performance.

Limitations

Project limitations included the single-site location, its small sample size, and the short 3-month implementation time frame. The patient panel was representative of other NP resident patient panels at the facility but may not be representative of other VA facilities.

Ethical Considerations

Patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the registration and data collection process. The project team (NP, RN, LNA) received training and written instructions on protection of patient confidentiality by the MHV coordinator prior to assisting veterans with the registration process. Privacy was maintained, no patient identifiers were collected or viewed, and no assistance was provided for username, password, or security questions. The tablet was password protected and secured, used only by the project team when veteran was interested in point-of-care portal registration.

Sustainability

QI projects require ongoing systemic efforts to enhance sustainability.^26,27 The project team used the PDSA methodology to stimulate the design of new workflow processes to engage staff and veterans in portal registration. Several actions were taken to promote sustainability for veteran portal registration and improve access to health care for rural and underserved veterans. First, printed instructions and website link are available in the clinic intake and examination rooms. Staff are equipped with patient education discussion points about the portal. A tablet is available in the clinic to encourage veterans to sign up. A clinical reminder is in place to encourage portal registration. A designated super-user is available to help new patient portal users register and navigate the system. Outcomes of the QI project were presented at 2 separate VISN 1 nursing grand rounds and reported to the MHV coordinator and telehealth coordinator to promote dialogue among staff and raise awareness of challenges to veteran MHV access.

Conclusions

Reviewing patient portal registration processes at the local level is essential to improve veteran access. This QI project proposed a realistic and scalable solution to implementing and improving patient enrollment to MHV in primary care clinics. Integrating measurement of patient registration into the daily routine of the clinic empowers the entire clinical team to improve the quality of access to patient portal.

The project team worked together to accomplish a shared goal, using errors as opportunities to improve the process, while using available staff without compromising significant time or resources. Engaging the entire team to audit processes and designating one member of the team as an MHV champion to provide feedback is critical to the sustainability of point-of-care registration in the MHV patient portal. Multifaceted approaches to maximizing the use of technology lessens the digital divide for veterans who are faced with geographical and social barriers to health care access.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Office of Academic Affiliations and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academic Partnerships in Graduate Education Nurse Practitioner residency program and clinical faculty and the affiliated University of Vermont faculty mentor/quality improvement coach for the support of the project.

Patient portals are secure online website tools that provide patient access to personal health information (PHI). Access to online PHI improves health equity and satisfies the meaningful use objectives of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program.^1,2 Through patient portals, individuals can access PHI records and current diagnoses, request and reschedule appointments, locate test results, track trends for vital signs and laboratory values, refill medications, and communicate directly with the health care team through secure messaging. This alternative method of communication with the team is associated with increased patient satisfaction.³ Patients reported improved patient engagement in health care self-management and decision making, as well as strengthened relationships with their health care team.⁴

Background

One well-documented strategy to improve portal use includes the development of a nurse champion to facilitate enrollment during the clinic visit.⁵ Patient perceptions of portal value increased after education by a health care professional (HCP) and assistance in enrollment to familiarize patients with the platform for ongoing use.⁵ Use of patient portals has been associated with favorable outcomes in chronic disease management. Patients with diabetes mellitus who regularly use patient portals for prescription refills and secure messaging have demonstrated improved glycemic control, medication adherence, and associated health parameters compared with nonusers.^5-7 In patients with congestive heart failure, meaningful patient portal use results in fewer emergency department visits, fewer hospital admissions, lower readmission rates, and reduced unscheduled and no-show visits.^8-11

Patient portal access is a quality improvement (QI) measure that meets Medicare and Medicaid meaningful use requirements that is designed to improve collaboration between HCPs and patients through EHRs. Despite legislation, uptake of patient portal access has been slow, especially among older adults.^10,12,13 Barriers to patient portal registration and use include patient lack of awareness, perceived or actual digital illiteracy, mistrust in privacy precautions, lack of user-friendly interfaces, lack of internet or technology, HCP bias and workload, and misperceptions of usefulness.^9,10,12,14 The HCPs most likely to facilitate the use of patient portals, typically include nurse practitioners (NPs), nurses, and medical residents.^10,15 Patient portal platforms promote the partnership of these disciplines with the veteran to help the patient better manage their health. Despite the benefits and widespread integration of patient portals in health care systems, socioeconomic inequalities and HCP attitudes contribute to persistent disparities in its adoption by underserved populations. The veteran population is often faced with additional barriers to health care access with regard to geographic location, advanced age, trauma, disabilities, mental health challenges, and homelessness.^10,16 These barriers require unique approaches to maximize the use of technologic advances.¹⁷ Advanced age contributes to low rates of patient portal enrollment and lack of digital platform use, thus creating a digital divide.^11,12

The digital divide is described as the gap between those persons who use technology including computers and internet, and those persons who do not because of social and geographic barriers.¹⁶ It contributes to a growing health disparity in both access to care and quality of care especially for rural veterans. About 25% of the US population lacks fixed broadband at home; these individuals are more likely to be racial minorities, older, widowed, or to have lower levels of education.^18,19 Veterans are disproportionately represented in these demographic categories.²⁰ According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health, the percentage of rural veterans enrolled in the VA health care system (58%) is significantly higher than enrollment of urban veterans (38%); additionally, 27% of rural veterans do not access the internet at home.²¹

My HealtheVet

The VA plays an integral part in increasing virtual access to care, from the introduction of My Healthevet (MHV) in 2003 to the distribution of iPad tablets to vulnerable veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.^22,23 Due to COVID-19, the need for VA patient access to the internet and VA Video-Connect (VVC) telehealth services increased significantly.²² Access to internet and hardware supporting use of VVC and MHV has been facilitated by the Digital Divide Consult, a VA program launched in 2020 to increase access to telehealth services.²⁴ The VA has distributed > 26,000 cellular-enabled tablets and provided > 50,000 veterans with connectivity in collaboration with various private sector companies.²² Patients report that MHV facilitates engagement in health care through improved access to EHRs and expedited communication with the health care team.⁴

MHV is a secure online tool that provides patients access to PHI. MHV aims to empower veterans to take charge of their health by improving communication with HCPs, setting patient goals, and offering health and well-being resources.^25,26 In a study of outpatients at a large urban multisite health care system, < 35% of patients on 16 medical resident panels were enrolled in a patient portal.¹⁵ MHV internal national metrics show increasing registration and active users of the patient portal, yet locally, disparities in the use of the portal by rural and older veterans exist.

The Local Problem

A review of the registration process at a rural VA clinic revealed barriers to facilitating the veteran registration process at the point of care. Clinical reminders exist within the EHR to prompt clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of care. At the New England Healthcare System (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 1), a patient portal clinical reminder prompts staff to encourage veterans to register. Anecdotal data obtained from primary care staff interviews at a rural VA primary care clinic in Vermont revealed low clinician confidence in completing the clinical reminder, a lack of knowledge of MHV, and lack of time to educate veterans about the benefits of MHV.

Despite availability of a registration process at the point of care and clinical staff assigned to provide registration information to the veteran, access to the patient portal among veterans at this clinic remained low. This QI project aimed to increase patient portal enrollment of veterans in MHV in a single NP patient panel of 100 patients from a baseline of 33% by 10% in a 3-month time frame.  

Implementation

Before implementing the first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, we established the baseline data for 1 patient panel to be 33%. A retrospective review of the NP resident’s panel of 100 revealed 33 veterans were enrolled in MHV, providing a setting for process improvement. Evaluation of potential enrollment data for the panel population revealed unenrolled veterans were primarily aged ≥ 65 years. A rapid cycle QI (RCQI) strategy using the PDSA method was used to identify, implement, and measure changes over a 3-month time frame in 1 NP patient panel.¹⁴

The RCQI process included establishing baseline data and 3 PDSA cycles that evaluated the current state of patient access to the electronic patient portal, elucidated patient barriers to registration, assessed the processes for point-of-care enrollment, and developed strategies to improve the process and increase veteran enrollment. The QI project team included an NP resident as the project manager and MHV champion, a clinical faculty mentor at the site, a telehealth coordinator, an MHV coordinator, clinic registered nurse (RN), and clinic licensed nursing assistant (LNA). The RN and LNA additionally served as MHV champions as the project progressed.

PDSA Cycles

The objective for PDSA cycle 1 was to evaluate the process of patient registration and assess the impact on NP workload and clinic workflow over a 4-week period to improve veteran enrollment. Data were collected in a spreadsheet to track the number of veterans enrolled, time frame to enroll, and field notes that the NP resident recorded about the experience. The NP resident was trained in registration methods by the MHV coordinator. Several barriers to the registration process were identified: The process resulted in a change of the clinic visit closure focus, the clinic room was blocked for use by another patient, veterans had difficulty generating a unique username and password, veterans were unfamiliar with basic tablet accessibility and use, and additional time was required if incorrect information was entered. The veterans displayed low confidence in using tablet technology and were unaware of the patient portal or its usefulness. After discussion of the process with the project team, recommendations were made to address challenges, including an RN-led registration process. The first PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment by 4 veterans to 37%.

In PDSA cycle 2 after the NP visit, patients who agreed to register for the MHV portal were introduced to the tablet. The registration process was completed by the patient with the RN prior to the patient checkout. Once patient registration was completed, the veteran met the MHV coordinator and upgraded to a premium account, which provided full access to portal features. Electronic messaging was tested by the MHV coordinator and veteran to validate patient understanding. Although preloading demographic information improved accessibility issues, time was still required for the RN to orient the veteran to the tablet, provide additional directions, and answer questions.

The registration process reduced NP time commitment but added to the RN time burden and disrupted workflow; and clinic room access continued to be an issue. The wait time for the veteran to register in the clinic remained dependent on the availability of the RN. The decision was to move the registration process to the initial patient rooming assignment in the clinic and was transitioned from RN to LNA, prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Four additional veterans registered in the second PDSA cycle, and total enrollment increased to 41%, an overall 8% increase from baseline.

In the third PDSA cycle the patient enrollment process was managed by the clinic LNA using scripted information about MHV prior to the veteran encounter. A partially preloaded tablet was offered to the veteran to register with MHV during the rooming process, and written and oral instruction were provided to the veteran. The time required for each veteran to register for MHV averaged 10 minutes, and the veteran was able to register while waiting for the NP to enter the room. Typical LNA tasks included greeting patients, updating health records, completing clinical reminders with the veteran, obtaining vital signs, and addressing questions. The LNA introduced the veteran to MHV using scripted information and supported them in registering for MHV prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Registration at point of care during the rooming process was well received by both the LNA and veterans. The LNA reported the process was efficient and did not add excessive time to the LNA workflow. The LNA reported verbal patient satisfaction and registration was facilitated for 6 veterans during the 4-week period. 

Registration during point of care was reported as feasible and sustainable by the LNA. Upgrading the patient to a premium MHV account was transitioned to the MHV coordinator. All veterans seen during the 4-week period were approached about registration; if the veteran declined, written at-home step-by-step instructions were provided. A replacement electronic clinical reminder was proposed to the VISN clinical reminders team for review and was pilot tested by the primary care clinical team. The third PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment to 47%, an overall 14% increase from baseline. Six new veteran users were added during PDSA cycle 3.

Discussion

The project team successfully used a RCQI method with a PDSA strategy to improve patient access to the MHV portal and increased veteran enrollment by 14% on 1 NP resident patient panel. The project evaluated clinic workflow regarding veteran patient portal registration, uncovered inefficiencies, and developed improved processes to increase veteran access to the patient portal. Results were positively impacted through the recognition of inefficiencies and initiation of new processes to engage veterans in the portal registration process. Familiarizing the entire clinical team with the clinical reminder and registration process raised the awareness of a digital divide consult and the utility of the portal in patient care. The project provided an opportunity to evaluate veterans’ digital literacy, digital access to send and receive messages, and to provide coaching as needed. Sequential PDSA cycles employed audit and feedback, information preloading, multimodal teaching strategies (verbal, print, hands-on tablet learning), scripting, staff interviews, time studies, and workflow evaluation to improve processes. An MHV champion led the team, monitored the progress, set deadlines, and effectively communicated project performance.

Limitations

Project limitations included the single-site location, its small sample size, and the short 3-month implementation time frame. The patient panel was representative of other NP resident patient panels at the facility but may not be representative of other VA facilities.

Ethical Considerations

Patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the registration and data collection process. The project team (NP, RN, LNA) received training and written instructions on protection of patient confidentiality by the MHV coordinator prior to assisting veterans with the registration process. Privacy was maintained, no patient identifiers were collected or viewed, and no assistance was provided for username, password, or security questions. The tablet was password protected and secured, used only by the project team when veteran was interested in point-of-care portal registration.

Sustainability

QI projects require ongoing systemic efforts to enhance sustainability.^26,27 The project team used the PDSA methodology to stimulate the design of new workflow processes to engage staff and veterans in portal registration. Several actions were taken to promote sustainability for veteran portal registration and improve access to health care for rural and underserved veterans. First, printed instructions and website link are available in the clinic intake and examination rooms. Staff are equipped with patient education discussion points about the portal. A tablet is available in the clinic to encourage veterans to sign up. A clinical reminder is in place to encourage portal registration. A designated super-user is available to help new patient portal users register and navigate the system. Outcomes of the QI project were presented at 2 separate VISN 1 nursing grand rounds and reported to the MHV coordinator and telehealth coordinator to promote dialogue among staff and raise awareness of challenges to veteran MHV access.

Conclusions

Reviewing patient portal registration processes at the local level is essential to improve veteran access. This QI project proposed a realistic and scalable solution to implementing and improving patient enrollment to MHV in primary care clinics. Integrating measurement of patient registration into the daily routine of the clinic empowers the entire clinical team to improve the quality of access to patient portal.

The project team worked together to accomplish a shared goal, using errors as opportunities to improve the process, while using available staff without compromising significant time or resources. Engaging the entire team to audit processes and designating one member of the team as an MHV champion to provide feedback is critical to the sustainability of point-of-care registration in the MHV patient portal. Multifaceted approaches to maximizing the use of technology lessens the digital divide for veterans who are faced with geographical and social barriers to health care access.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Office of Academic Affiliations and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academic Partnerships in Graduate Education Nurse Practitioner residency program and clinical faculty and the affiliated University of Vermont faculty mentor/quality improvement coach for the support of the project.

Patient portals are secure online website tools that provide patient access to personal health information (PHI). Access to online PHI improves health equity and satisfies the meaningful use objectives of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program.^1,2 Through patient portals, individuals can access PHI records and current diagnoses, request and reschedule appointments, locate test results, track trends for vital signs and laboratory values, refill medications, and communicate directly with the health care team through secure messaging. This alternative method of communication with the team is associated with increased patient satisfaction.³ Patients reported improved patient engagement in health care self-management and decision making, as well as strengthened relationships with their health care team.⁴

Background

One well-documented strategy to improve portal use includes the development of a nurse champion to facilitate enrollment during the clinic visit.⁵ Patient perceptions of portal value increased after education by a health care professional (HCP) and assistance in enrollment to familiarize patients with the platform for ongoing use.⁵ Use of patient portals has been associated with favorable outcomes in chronic disease management. Patients with diabetes mellitus who regularly use patient portals for prescription refills and secure messaging have demonstrated improved glycemic control, medication adherence, and associated health parameters compared with nonusers.^5-7 In patients with congestive heart failure, meaningful patient portal use results in fewer emergency department visits, fewer hospital admissions, lower readmission rates, and reduced unscheduled and no-show visits.^8-11

Patient portal access is a quality improvement (QI) measure that meets Medicare and Medicaid meaningful use requirements that is designed to improve collaboration between HCPs and patients through EHRs. Despite legislation, uptake of patient portal access has been slow, especially among older adults.^10,12,13 Barriers to patient portal registration and use include patient lack of awareness, perceived or actual digital illiteracy, mistrust in privacy precautions, lack of user-friendly interfaces, lack of internet or technology, HCP bias and workload, and misperceptions of usefulness.^9,10,12,14 The HCPs most likely to facilitate the use of patient portals, typically include nurse practitioners (NPs), nurses, and medical residents.^10,15 Patient portal platforms promote the partnership of these disciplines with the veteran to help the patient better manage their health. Despite the benefits and widespread integration of patient portals in health care systems, socioeconomic inequalities and HCP attitudes contribute to persistent disparities in its adoption by underserved populations. The veteran population is often faced with additional barriers to health care access with regard to geographic location, advanced age, trauma, disabilities, mental health challenges, and homelessness.^10,16 These barriers require unique approaches to maximize the use of technologic advances.¹⁷ Advanced age contributes to low rates of patient portal enrollment and lack of digital platform use, thus creating a digital divide.^11,12

The digital divide is described as the gap between those persons who use technology including computers and internet, and those persons who do not because of social and geographic barriers.¹⁶ It contributes to a growing health disparity in both access to care and quality of care especially for rural veterans. About 25% of the US population lacks fixed broadband at home; these individuals are more likely to be racial minorities, older, widowed, or to have lower levels of education.^18,19 Veterans are disproportionately represented in these demographic categories.²⁰ According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health, the percentage of rural veterans enrolled in the VA health care system (58%) is significantly higher than enrollment of urban veterans (38%); additionally, 27% of rural veterans do not access the internet at home.²¹

My HealtheVet

The VA plays an integral part in increasing virtual access to care, from the introduction of My Healthevet (MHV) in 2003 to the distribution of iPad tablets to vulnerable veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.^22,23 Due to COVID-19, the need for VA patient access to the internet and VA Video-Connect (VVC) telehealth services increased significantly.²² Access to internet and hardware supporting use of VVC and MHV has been facilitated by the Digital Divide Consult, a VA program launched in 2020 to increase access to telehealth services.²⁴ The VA has distributed > 26,000 cellular-enabled tablets and provided > 50,000 veterans with connectivity in collaboration with various private sector companies.²² Patients report that MHV facilitates engagement in health care through improved access to EHRs and expedited communication with the health care team.⁴

MHV is a secure online tool that provides patients access to PHI. MHV aims to empower veterans to take charge of their health by improving communication with HCPs, setting patient goals, and offering health and well-being resources.^25,26 In a study of outpatients at a large urban multisite health care system, < 35% of patients on 16 medical resident panels were enrolled in a patient portal.¹⁵ MHV internal national metrics show increasing registration and active users of the patient portal, yet locally, disparities in the use of the portal by rural and older veterans exist.

The Local Problem

A review of the registration process at a rural VA clinic revealed barriers to facilitating the veteran registration process at the point of care. Clinical reminders exist within the EHR to prompt clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of care. At the New England Healthcare System (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 1), a patient portal clinical reminder prompts staff to encourage veterans to register. Anecdotal data obtained from primary care staff interviews at a rural VA primary care clinic in Vermont revealed low clinician confidence in completing the clinical reminder, a lack of knowledge of MHV, and lack of time to educate veterans about the benefits of MHV.

Despite availability of a registration process at the point of care and clinical staff assigned to provide registration information to the veteran, access to the patient portal among veterans at this clinic remained low. This QI project aimed to increase patient portal enrollment of veterans in MHV in a single NP patient panel of 100 patients from a baseline of 33% by 10% in a 3-month time frame.  

Implementation

Before implementing the first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, we established the baseline data for 1 patient panel to be 33%. A retrospective review of the NP resident’s panel of 100 revealed 33 veterans were enrolled in MHV, providing a setting for process improvement. Evaluation of potential enrollment data for the panel population revealed unenrolled veterans were primarily aged ≥ 65 years. A rapid cycle QI (RCQI) strategy using the PDSA method was used to identify, implement, and measure changes over a 3-month time frame in 1 NP patient panel.¹⁴

The RCQI process included establishing baseline data and 3 PDSA cycles that evaluated the current state of patient access to the electronic patient portal, elucidated patient barriers to registration, assessed the processes for point-of-care enrollment, and developed strategies to improve the process and increase veteran enrollment. The QI project team included an NP resident as the project manager and MHV champion, a clinical faculty mentor at the site, a telehealth coordinator, an MHV coordinator, clinic registered nurse (RN), and clinic licensed nursing assistant (LNA). The RN and LNA additionally served as MHV champions as the project progressed.

PDSA Cycles

The objective for PDSA cycle 1 was to evaluate the process of patient registration and assess the impact on NP workload and clinic workflow over a 4-week period to improve veteran enrollment. Data were collected in a spreadsheet to track the number of veterans enrolled, time frame to enroll, and field notes that the NP resident recorded about the experience. The NP resident was trained in registration methods by the MHV coordinator. Several barriers to the registration process were identified: The process resulted in a change of the clinic visit closure focus, the clinic room was blocked for use by another patient, veterans had difficulty generating a unique username and password, veterans were unfamiliar with basic tablet accessibility and use, and additional time was required if incorrect information was entered. The veterans displayed low confidence in using tablet technology and were unaware of the patient portal or its usefulness. After discussion of the process with the project team, recommendations were made to address challenges, including an RN-led registration process. The first PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment by 4 veterans to 37%.

In PDSA cycle 2 after the NP visit, patients who agreed to register for the MHV portal were introduced to the tablet. The registration process was completed by the patient with the RN prior to the patient checkout. Once patient registration was completed, the veteran met the MHV coordinator and upgraded to a premium account, which provided full access to portal features. Electronic messaging was tested by the MHV coordinator and veteran to validate patient understanding. Although preloading demographic information improved accessibility issues, time was still required for the RN to orient the veteran to the tablet, provide additional directions, and answer questions.

The registration process reduced NP time commitment but added to the RN time burden and disrupted workflow; and clinic room access continued to be an issue. The wait time for the veteran to register in the clinic remained dependent on the availability of the RN. The decision was to move the registration process to the initial patient rooming assignment in the clinic and was transitioned from RN to LNA, prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Four additional veterans registered in the second PDSA cycle, and total enrollment increased to 41%, an overall 8% increase from baseline.

In the third PDSA cycle the patient enrollment process was managed by the clinic LNA using scripted information about MHV prior to the veteran encounter. A partially preloaded tablet was offered to the veteran to register with MHV during the rooming process, and written and oral instruction were provided to the veteran. The time required for each veteran to register for MHV averaged 10 minutes, and the veteran was able to register while waiting for the NP to enter the room. Typical LNA tasks included greeting patients, updating health records, completing clinical reminders with the veteran, obtaining vital signs, and addressing questions. The LNA introduced the veteran to MHV using scripted information and supported them in registering for MHV prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Registration at point of care during the rooming process was well received by both the LNA and veterans. The LNA reported the process was efficient and did not add excessive time to the LNA workflow. The LNA reported verbal patient satisfaction and registration was facilitated for 6 veterans during the 4-week period. 

Registration during point of care was reported as feasible and sustainable by the LNA. Upgrading the patient to a premium MHV account was transitioned to the MHV coordinator. All veterans seen during the 4-week period were approached about registration; if the veteran declined, written at-home step-by-step instructions were provided. A replacement electronic clinical reminder was proposed to the VISN clinical reminders team for review and was pilot tested by the primary care clinical team. The third PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment to 47%, an overall 14% increase from baseline. Six new veteran users were added during PDSA cycle 3.

Discussion

The project team successfully used a RCQI method with a PDSA strategy to improve patient access to the MHV portal and increased veteran enrollment by 14% on 1 NP resident patient panel. The project evaluated clinic workflow regarding veteran patient portal registration, uncovered inefficiencies, and developed improved processes to increase veteran access to the patient portal. Results were positively impacted through the recognition of inefficiencies and initiation of new processes to engage veterans in the portal registration process. Familiarizing the entire clinical team with the clinical reminder and registration process raised the awareness of a digital divide consult and the utility of the portal in patient care. The project provided an opportunity to evaluate veterans’ digital literacy, digital access to send and receive messages, and to provide coaching as needed. Sequential PDSA cycles employed audit and feedback, information preloading, multimodal teaching strategies (verbal, print, hands-on tablet learning), scripting, staff interviews, time studies, and workflow evaluation to improve processes. An MHV champion led the team, monitored the progress, set deadlines, and effectively communicated project performance.

Limitations

Project limitations included the single-site location, its small sample size, and the short 3-month implementation time frame. The patient panel was representative of other NP resident patient panels at the facility but may not be representative of other VA facilities.

Ethical Considerations

Patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the registration and data collection process. The project team (NP, RN, LNA) received training and written instructions on protection of patient confidentiality by the MHV coordinator prior to assisting veterans with the registration process. Privacy was maintained, no patient identifiers were collected or viewed, and no assistance was provided for username, password, or security questions. The tablet was password protected and secured, used only by the project team when veteran was interested in point-of-care portal registration.

Sustainability

QI projects require ongoing systemic efforts to enhance sustainability.^26,27 The project team used the PDSA methodology to stimulate the design of new workflow processes to engage staff and veterans in portal registration. Several actions were taken to promote sustainability for veteran portal registration and improve access to health care for rural and underserved veterans. First, printed instructions and website link are available in the clinic intake and examination rooms. Staff are equipped with patient education discussion points about the portal. A tablet is available in the clinic to encourage veterans to sign up. A clinical reminder is in place to encourage portal registration. A designated super-user is available to help new patient portal users register and navigate the system. Outcomes of the QI project were presented at 2 separate VISN 1 nursing grand rounds and reported to the MHV coordinator and telehealth coordinator to promote dialogue among staff and raise awareness of challenges to veteran MHV access.

Conclusions

Reviewing patient portal registration processes at the local level is essential to improve veteran access. This QI project proposed a realistic and scalable solution to implementing and improving patient enrollment to MHV in primary care clinics. Integrating measurement of patient registration into the daily routine of the clinic empowers the entire clinical team to improve the quality of access to patient portal.

The project team worked together to accomplish a shared goal, using errors as opportunities to improve the process, while using available staff without compromising significant time or resources. Engaging the entire team to audit processes and designating one member of the team as an MHV champion to provide feedback is critical to the sustainability of point-of-care registration in the MHV patient portal. Multifaceted approaches to maximizing the use of technology lessens the digital divide for veterans who are faced with geographical and social barriers to health care access.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Office of Academic Affiliations and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academic Partnerships in Graduate Education Nurse Practitioner residency program and clinical faculty and the affiliated University of Vermont faculty mentor/quality improvement coach for the support of the project.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

fdp03911454_t1.png

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

fdp03911454_t2.png

fdp03911454_t3.png

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

fdp03911454_t1.png

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

fdp03911454_t2.png

fdp03911454_t3.png

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

fdp03911454_t1.png

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

fdp03911454_t2.png

fdp03911454_t3.png

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Narrative competence is the ability to acquire, interpret, and act on the stories of others.¹ Developing this skill through guided medical storytelling can improve health care practitioners’ (HCPs) sense of empathy and satisfaction with their work.² Narrative medicine experiences for medical students can foster a deeper understanding of their patients beyond illness-associated identities.³

Within narrative medicine, the “life story” is a specific technique that allows patients to share experiences through open-ended interviews that are entered into the health record.^4,5 By sharing life stories, patients control a narrative encompassing more than their illness and can reinforce a sense of purpose in their lives.⁶ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) My Life My Story (MLMS) program gives veterans the opportunity to share their narrative with staff and volunteer interviewers. MLMS is well received by veterans, has durable positive effects for HCPs who read the stories, and has been used as a tool to teach patient-centered care to medical trainees.^7-9

We created a narrative medicine curriculum at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) in which medical students interviewed veterans for the MLMS program. Medical students initially collected life stories through in-person conversation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing regulations limited direct patient interaction for students and prompted a switch to phone and video interviews. This shift paralleled the widespread adoption of telehealth, which will persist beyond the pandemic and require teachers and learners to develop competency in forming personal connections with patients through videoconferencing.^10,11

There are no published studies describing how to guide medical students (or other historians) in generating life stories without in-person patient contact. This article details the design of a medical student curriculum incorporating MLMS and the transition to remote interaction between instructors, students, and veterans during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

MLMS Program Origins

The MLMS project began at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2013 with staff and volunteer interviewers and has expanded to more than 60 VA facilities.⁷ In January 2020, we initiated a narrative medicine curriculum incorporating MLMS at the SFVAMC as a required component of a third-year internal medicine clerkship for medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Fifty-four medical students in 10 cohorts participated in the curriculum in 2020. The primary program objectives were for medical students to develop skills for eliciting and recording a life story and to appreciate the impact of this activity on a veteran’s experience of receiving health care. Secondary objectives were for students to understand the mission of the VA health care system and veteran demographics.

The first cohort of 6 UCSF medical students participated in MLMS during their 8-week VA clerkship. Students attended a 1-hour small group session to introduce the program and build narrative medicine skills. Preparation for this session involved listening to 2 podcast episodes introducing the VA health care system and MLMS.^12,13 The session began with a short interactive discussion of veteran demographics with an emphasis on addressing assumptions students might have about the veteran population. Students were taught strategies for engaging in open-ended conversations without emphasizing illness. Each student practiced collecting a life story with a simulated patient portrayed by an instructor and received feedback from classmates and instructors.

Over the following weeks, students selected a hospitalized veteran, typically a patient they were caring for, introduced MLMS, and obtained verbal consent to participate. They conducted a 60- to 90-minute interview, wrote and organized the life story, read it to the veteran, and solicited edits. Once a final version was generated, the student provided the veteran with printed copies and offered to place the story in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Near the end of their rotation, students attended a 1-hour small group session in which they shared reflections on the experience of collecting a life story, the impact of veterans’ life experiences on their health and illness, and moments when students confronted their own stereotypes and implicit biases. Students then reviewed narrative medicine skills that are generalizable to all patient interactions.

COVID-19-Related Adaptation

In March 2020, shortly after the second student cohort began, medical students were removed from the clinical setting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 8-week clerkship was converted to a 3-week remote learning rotation. The MLMS experience was preserved by converting small group sessions to videoconferences and expanding the pool of eligible patients to include veterans who students had met on prior rotations, current inpatients, and outpatients from VA primary care clinics. Students contacted veterans after an instructor had introduced MLMS to the veteran and confirmed that the veteran was interested in participating.

Students in the second and third cohorts completed a telephone-based iteration of MLMS in which interviews and life story reviews were conducted over the telephone and printed copies mailed to the veteran. For the fourth, fifth, and sixth cohorts, MLMS was transitioned to a video-based program with inpatients. Instructors collaborated with a volunteer group supplying tablet devices to inpatients to make video calls to their families during the pandemic.¹⁴ Clerkship students coordinated with that volunteer group to interview veterans and review their stories through the tablet devices.

From July to December 2020 medical students returned to 4-week on-site clinical rotations at the SFVAMC. The program returned to the original format for cohorts 7 to 10, with students attending in-person small group sessions and conducting in-person interviews with inpatients.

Curriculum Evaluation

Students completed surveys in the week after the curriculum concluded. Survey completion was voluntary, anonymous, and had no bearing on their evaluation or grade (pass/fail only). Likert scale questions (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) were used to assess the program (eAppendix 1). One-way analysis of variance testing was used to compare means stratified by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video). Surveys also included free-response questions asking students to highlight aspects of the program they valued or would change; responses were summarized by theme. This program evaluation was deemed exempt from review by the UCSF Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board.

fdp03812568_ea1.png

Sixty-two veteran stories were collected by 54 participating students (one student was unable to complete an interview, while several students completed multiple interviews). Fifty-four (87%) veterans requested their stories be entered into the medical record.

All 54 students completed the survey. Students reported that the MLMS curriculum helped them develop new skills for eliciting and recording a life story (mean [SD] 4.5 [0.7]). Most students strongly agreed that MLMS helped them understand how sharing a life story can impact a veteran’s experience of receiving health care, with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (0.4). After completing MLMS, students also reported a better understanding of the mission of the VA and veteran demographics with a mean (SD) score of 4.4 (0.7) and 4.3 (0.7), respectively. Stratification of survey responses by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video) revealed no statistically significant differences in evaluations (Table 1).

fdp03812568_t1.png

fdp03812568_ea2.png

Discussion

Previous research has demonstrated that a narrative medicine curriculum can help medicine clerkship students develop narrative competence through patient storytelling with a focus on a patient’s illness narrative.¹⁵ The VA MLMS program extends the patient narrative beyond health care–related experiences and encompasses their broader life story. This article adds to the MLMS and narrative medicine literature by demonstrating that the efficacy of teaching patient-centered care to medical trainees through direct interviews can be maintained in remote formats.⁹ The article also provides guidance for MLMS programs that wish to conduct remote veteran interviews.

The widespread adoption of telemedicine will require trainees to develop communication skills to establish therapeutic relationships with patients both face-to-face and through videoconferencing. In order to promote this important skill across varying levels of physical distancing, narrative medicine programs should be adaptable to a virtual learning environment. As we redesigned MLMS for the remote setting, we learned several key lessons that can guide similar curricular and programmatic innovations at other institutions. For example, videoconferencing created stronger connections between the students and veterans than telephone calls. However, tablet-based video interviews also introduced many technological challenges and required on-site personnel (nurses and volunteers) to connect students, veterans, and technology. Solutions for technology and communication challenges related to the basic personnel and infrastructure needed to start and maintain a remote MLMS program are outlined in Table 2.

fdp03812568_t2.png

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the participation of trainees from a single institution and a lack of assessment of the impact of MLMS on veterans. Future research could assess whether life story skills and practices are maintained after the medicine clerkship. In addition, future studies could examine veterans’ perspectives through interviews with qualitative analysis to learn how MLMS affected their experience of receiving health care.

Conclusions

This is the first report of a remote-capable life story curriculum for medical students. Shifting to a virtual MLMS curriculum requires protocols and people to link interviewers, veterans, and technology. Training for in-person interactions while being prepared for remote interviewing is essential to ensure that the MLMS experience remains available to interviewers and veterans who otherwise may never have the chance to connect. The restrictions and isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade, but using MLMS to virtually connect patients, providers, and students will remain an important capability and opportunity as health care shifts to more virtual interaction.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Emma Levine, MD, for her assistance coordinating video interviews; Thor Ringler, MS, MFA, for his assistance with manuscript review; and the veterans of the San Francisco VA Health Care System for sharing their stories.

Narrative competence is the ability to acquire, interpret, and act on the stories of others.¹ Developing this skill through guided medical storytelling can improve health care practitioners’ (HCPs) sense of empathy and satisfaction with their work.² Narrative medicine experiences for medical students can foster a deeper understanding of their patients beyond illness-associated identities.³

Within narrative medicine, the “life story” is a specific technique that allows patients to share experiences through open-ended interviews that are entered into the health record.^4,5 By sharing life stories, patients control a narrative encompassing more than their illness and can reinforce a sense of purpose in their lives.⁶ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) My Life My Story (MLMS) program gives veterans the opportunity to share their narrative with staff and volunteer interviewers. MLMS is well received by veterans, has durable positive effects for HCPs who read the stories, and has been used as a tool to teach patient-centered care to medical trainees.^7-9

We created a narrative medicine curriculum at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) in which medical students interviewed veterans for the MLMS program. Medical students initially collected life stories through in-person conversation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing regulations limited direct patient interaction for students and prompted a switch to phone and video interviews. This shift paralleled the widespread adoption of telehealth, which will persist beyond the pandemic and require teachers and learners to develop competency in forming personal connections with patients through videoconferencing.^10,11

There are no published studies describing how to guide medical students (or other historians) in generating life stories without in-person patient contact. This article details the design of a medical student curriculum incorporating MLMS and the transition to remote interaction between instructors, students, and veterans during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

MLMS Program Origins

The MLMS project began at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2013 with staff and volunteer interviewers and has expanded to more than 60 VA facilities.⁷ In January 2020, we initiated a narrative medicine curriculum incorporating MLMS at the SFVAMC as a required component of a third-year internal medicine clerkship for medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Fifty-four medical students in 10 cohorts participated in the curriculum in 2020. The primary program objectives were for medical students to develop skills for eliciting and recording a life story and to appreciate the impact of this activity on a veteran’s experience of receiving health care. Secondary objectives were for students to understand the mission of the VA health care system and veteran demographics.

The first cohort of 6 UCSF medical students participated in MLMS during their 8-week VA clerkship. Students attended a 1-hour small group session to introduce the program and build narrative medicine skills. Preparation for this session involved listening to 2 podcast episodes introducing the VA health care system and MLMS.^12,13 The session began with a short interactive discussion of veteran demographics with an emphasis on addressing assumptions students might have about the veteran population. Students were taught strategies for engaging in open-ended conversations without emphasizing illness. Each student practiced collecting a life story with a simulated patient portrayed by an instructor and received feedback from classmates and instructors.

Over the following weeks, students selected a hospitalized veteran, typically a patient they were caring for, introduced MLMS, and obtained verbal consent to participate. They conducted a 60- to 90-minute interview, wrote and organized the life story, read it to the veteran, and solicited edits. Once a final version was generated, the student provided the veteran with printed copies and offered to place the story in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Near the end of their rotation, students attended a 1-hour small group session in which they shared reflections on the experience of collecting a life story, the impact of veterans’ life experiences on their health and illness, and moments when students confronted their own stereotypes and implicit biases. Students then reviewed narrative medicine skills that are generalizable to all patient interactions.

COVID-19-Related Adaptation

In March 2020, shortly after the second student cohort began, medical students were removed from the clinical setting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 8-week clerkship was converted to a 3-week remote learning rotation. The MLMS experience was preserved by converting small group sessions to videoconferences and expanding the pool of eligible patients to include veterans who students had met on prior rotations, current inpatients, and outpatients from VA primary care clinics. Students contacted veterans after an instructor had introduced MLMS to the veteran and confirmed that the veteran was interested in participating.

Students in the second and third cohorts completed a telephone-based iteration of MLMS in which interviews and life story reviews were conducted over the telephone and printed copies mailed to the veteran. For the fourth, fifth, and sixth cohorts, MLMS was transitioned to a video-based program with inpatients. Instructors collaborated with a volunteer group supplying tablet devices to inpatients to make video calls to their families during the pandemic.¹⁴ Clerkship students coordinated with that volunteer group to interview veterans and review their stories through the tablet devices.

From July to December 2020 medical students returned to 4-week on-site clinical rotations at the SFVAMC. The program returned to the original format for cohorts 7 to 10, with students attending in-person small group sessions and conducting in-person interviews with inpatients.

Curriculum Evaluation

Students completed surveys in the week after the curriculum concluded. Survey completion was voluntary, anonymous, and had no bearing on their evaluation or grade (pass/fail only). Likert scale questions (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) were used to assess the program (eAppendix 1). One-way analysis of variance testing was used to compare means stratified by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video). Surveys also included free-response questions asking students to highlight aspects of the program they valued or would change; responses were summarized by theme. This program evaluation was deemed exempt from review by the UCSF Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board.

fdp03812568_ea1.png

Sixty-two veteran stories were collected by 54 participating students (one student was unable to complete an interview, while several students completed multiple interviews). Fifty-four (87%) veterans requested their stories be entered into the medical record.

All 54 students completed the survey. Students reported that the MLMS curriculum helped them develop new skills for eliciting and recording a life story (mean [SD] 4.5 [0.7]). Most students strongly agreed that MLMS helped them understand how sharing a life story can impact a veteran’s experience of receiving health care, with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (0.4). After completing MLMS, students also reported a better understanding of the mission of the VA and veteran demographics with a mean (SD) score of 4.4 (0.7) and 4.3 (0.7), respectively. Stratification of survey responses by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video) revealed no statistically significant differences in evaluations (Table 1).

fdp03812568_t1.png

fdp03812568_ea2.png

Discussion

Previous research has demonstrated that a narrative medicine curriculum can help medicine clerkship students develop narrative competence through patient storytelling with a focus on a patient’s illness narrative.¹⁵ The VA MLMS program extends the patient narrative beyond health care–related experiences and encompasses their broader life story. This article adds to the MLMS and narrative medicine literature by demonstrating that the efficacy of teaching patient-centered care to medical trainees through direct interviews can be maintained in remote formats.⁹ The article also provides guidance for MLMS programs that wish to conduct remote veteran interviews.

The widespread adoption of telemedicine will require trainees to develop communication skills to establish therapeutic relationships with patients both face-to-face and through videoconferencing. In order to promote this important skill across varying levels of physical distancing, narrative medicine programs should be adaptable to a virtual learning environment. As we redesigned MLMS for the remote setting, we learned several key lessons that can guide similar curricular and programmatic innovations at other institutions. For example, videoconferencing created stronger connections between the students and veterans than telephone calls. However, tablet-based video interviews also introduced many technological challenges and required on-site personnel (nurses and volunteers) to connect students, veterans, and technology. Solutions for technology and communication challenges related to the basic personnel and infrastructure needed to start and maintain a remote MLMS program are outlined in Table 2.

fdp03812568_t2.png

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the participation of trainees from a single institution and a lack of assessment of the impact of MLMS on veterans. Future research could assess whether life story skills and practices are maintained after the medicine clerkship. In addition, future studies could examine veterans’ perspectives through interviews with qualitative analysis to learn how MLMS affected their experience of receiving health care.

Conclusions

This is the first report of a remote-capable life story curriculum for medical students. Shifting to a virtual MLMS curriculum requires protocols and people to link interviewers, veterans, and technology. Training for in-person interactions while being prepared for remote interviewing is essential to ensure that the MLMS experience remains available to interviewers and veterans who otherwise may never have the chance to connect. The restrictions and isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade, but using MLMS to virtually connect patients, providers, and students will remain an important capability and opportunity as health care shifts to more virtual interaction.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Emma Levine, MD, for her assistance coordinating video interviews; Thor Ringler, MS, MFA, for his assistance with manuscript review; and the veterans of the San Francisco VA Health Care System for sharing their stories.

Narrative competence is the ability to acquire, interpret, and act on the stories of others.¹ Developing this skill through guided medical storytelling can improve health care practitioners’ (HCPs) sense of empathy and satisfaction with their work.² Narrative medicine experiences for medical students can foster a deeper understanding of their patients beyond illness-associated identities.³

Within narrative medicine, the “life story” is a specific technique that allows patients to share experiences through open-ended interviews that are entered into the health record.^4,5 By sharing life stories, patients control a narrative encompassing more than their illness and can reinforce a sense of purpose in their lives.⁶ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) My Life My Story (MLMS) program gives veterans the opportunity to share their narrative with staff and volunteer interviewers. MLMS is well received by veterans, has durable positive effects for HCPs who read the stories, and has been used as a tool to teach patient-centered care to medical trainees.^7-9

We created a narrative medicine curriculum at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) in which medical students interviewed veterans for the MLMS program. Medical students initially collected life stories through in-person conversation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing regulations limited direct patient interaction for students and prompted a switch to phone and video interviews. This shift paralleled the widespread adoption of telehealth, which will persist beyond the pandemic and require teachers and learners to develop competency in forming personal connections with patients through videoconferencing.^10,11

There are no published studies describing how to guide medical students (or other historians) in generating life stories without in-person patient contact. This article details the design of a medical student curriculum incorporating MLMS and the transition to remote interaction between instructors, students, and veterans during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

MLMS Program Origins

The MLMS project began at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2013 with staff and volunteer interviewers and has expanded to more than 60 VA facilities.⁷ In January 2020, we initiated a narrative medicine curriculum incorporating MLMS at the SFVAMC as a required component of a third-year internal medicine clerkship for medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Fifty-four medical students in 10 cohorts participated in the curriculum in 2020. The primary program objectives were for medical students to develop skills for eliciting and recording a life story and to appreciate the impact of this activity on a veteran’s experience of receiving health care. Secondary objectives were for students to understand the mission of the VA health care system and veteran demographics.

The first cohort of 6 UCSF medical students participated in MLMS during their 8-week VA clerkship. Students attended a 1-hour small group session to introduce the program and build narrative medicine skills. Preparation for this session involved listening to 2 podcast episodes introducing the VA health care system and MLMS.^12,13 The session began with a short interactive discussion of veteran demographics with an emphasis on addressing assumptions students might have about the veteran population. Students were taught strategies for engaging in open-ended conversations without emphasizing illness. Each student practiced collecting a life story with a simulated patient portrayed by an instructor and received feedback from classmates and instructors.

Over the following weeks, students selected a hospitalized veteran, typically a patient they were caring for, introduced MLMS, and obtained verbal consent to participate. They conducted a 60- to 90-minute interview, wrote and organized the life story, read it to the veteran, and solicited edits. Once a final version was generated, the student provided the veteran with printed copies and offered to place the story in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Near the end of their rotation, students attended a 1-hour small group session in which they shared reflections on the experience of collecting a life story, the impact of veterans’ life experiences on their health and illness, and moments when students confronted their own stereotypes and implicit biases. Students then reviewed narrative medicine skills that are generalizable to all patient interactions.

COVID-19-Related Adaptation

In March 2020, shortly after the second student cohort began, medical students were removed from the clinical setting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 8-week clerkship was converted to a 3-week remote learning rotation. The MLMS experience was preserved by converting small group sessions to videoconferences and expanding the pool of eligible patients to include veterans who students had met on prior rotations, current inpatients, and outpatients from VA primary care clinics. Students contacted veterans after an instructor had introduced MLMS to the veteran and confirmed that the veteran was interested in participating.

Students in the second and third cohorts completed a telephone-based iteration of MLMS in which interviews and life story reviews were conducted over the telephone and printed copies mailed to the veteran. For the fourth, fifth, and sixth cohorts, MLMS was transitioned to a video-based program with inpatients. Instructors collaborated with a volunteer group supplying tablet devices to inpatients to make video calls to their families during the pandemic.¹⁴ Clerkship students coordinated with that volunteer group to interview veterans and review their stories through the tablet devices.

From July to December 2020 medical students returned to 4-week on-site clinical rotations at the SFVAMC. The program returned to the original format for cohorts 7 to 10, with students attending in-person small group sessions and conducting in-person interviews with inpatients.

Curriculum Evaluation

Students completed surveys in the week after the curriculum concluded. Survey completion was voluntary, anonymous, and had no bearing on their evaluation or grade (pass/fail only). Likert scale questions (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) were used to assess the program (eAppendix 1). One-way analysis of variance testing was used to compare means stratified by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video). Surveys also included free-response questions asking students to highlight aspects of the program they valued or would change; responses were summarized by theme. This program evaluation was deemed exempt from review by the UCSF Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board.

fdp03812568_ea1.png

Sixty-two veteran stories were collected by 54 participating students (one student was unable to complete an interview, while several students completed multiple interviews). Fifty-four (87%) veterans requested their stories be entered into the medical record.

All 54 students completed the survey. Students reported that the MLMS curriculum helped them develop new skills for eliciting and recording a life story (mean [SD] 4.5 [0.7]). Most students strongly agreed that MLMS helped them understand how sharing a life story can impact a veteran’s experience of receiving health care, with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (0.4). After completing MLMS, students also reported a better understanding of the mission of the VA and veteran demographics with a mean (SD) score of 4.4 (0.7) and 4.3 (0.7), respectively. Stratification of survey responses by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video) revealed no statistically significant differences in evaluations (Table 1).

fdp03812568_t1.png

fdp03812568_ea2.png

Discussion

Previous research has demonstrated that a narrative medicine curriculum can help medicine clerkship students develop narrative competence through patient storytelling with a focus on a patient’s illness narrative.¹⁵ The VA MLMS program extends the patient narrative beyond health care–related experiences and encompasses their broader life story. This article adds to the MLMS and narrative medicine literature by demonstrating that the efficacy of teaching patient-centered care to medical trainees through direct interviews can be maintained in remote formats.⁹ The article also provides guidance for MLMS programs that wish to conduct remote veteran interviews.

The widespread adoption of telemedicine will require trainees to develop communication skills to establish therapeutic relationships with patients both face-to-face and through videoconferencing. In order to promote this important skill across varying levels of physical distancing, narrative medicine programs should be adaptable to a virtual learning environment. As we redesigned MLMS for the remote setting, we learned several key lessons that can guide similar curricular and programmatic innovations at other institutions. For example, videoconferencing created stronger connections between the students and veterans than telephone calls. However, tablet-based video interviews also introduced many technological challenges and required on-site personnel (nurses and volunteers) to connect students, veterans, and technology. Solutions for technology and communication challenges related to the basic personnel and infrastructure needed to start and maintain a remote MLMS program are outlined in Table 2.

fdp03812568_t2.png

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the participation of trainees from a single institution and a lack of assessment of the impact of MLMS on veterans. Future research could assess whether life story skills and practices are maintained after the medicine clerkship. In addition, future studies could examine veterans’ perspectives through interviews with qualitative analysis to learn how MLMS affected their experience of receiving health care.

Conclusions

This is the first report of a remote-capable life story curriculum for medical students. Shifting to a virtual MLMS curriculum requires protocols and people to link interviewers, veterans, and technology. Training for in-person interactions while being prepared for remote interviewing is essential to ensure that the MLMS experience remains available to interviewers and veterans who otherwise may never have the chance to connect. The restrictions and isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade, but using MLMS to virtually connect patients, providers, and students will remain an important capability and opportunity as health care shifts to more virtual interaction.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Emma Levine, MD, for her assistance coordinating video interviews; Thor Ringler, MS, MFA, for his assistance with manuscript review; and the veterans of the San Francisco VA Health Care System for sharing their stories.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

fdp03804160_f1.png

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

fdp03804160_f2.png

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

fdp03804160_t1.png

fdp03804160_t2.png

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

fdp03804160_t3.png

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

fdp03804160_f1.png

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

fdp03804160_f2.png

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

fdp03804160_t1.png

fdp03804160_t2.png

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

fdp03804160_t3.png

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

fdp03804160_f1.png

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

fdp03804160_f2.png

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

fdp03804160_t1.png

fdp03804160_t2.png

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

fdp03804160_t3.png

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

fdp03803110_f.png

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

fdp03803110_t1.png

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

fdp03803110_t2.png

fdp03803110_t3.png

fdp03803110_t4.png

fdp03803110_t5.png

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

fdp03803110_f.png

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

fdp03803110_t1.png

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

fdp03803110_t2.png

fdp03803110_t3.png

fdp03803110_t4.png

fdp03803110_t5.png

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

fdp03803110_f.png

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

fdp03803110_t1.png

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

fdp03803110_t2.png

fdp03803110_t3.png

fdp03803110_t4.png

fdp03803110_t5.png

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are integral to the comprehensive treatment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), yet the evaluation and treatment options they offer may not be known to all primary care providers (PCPs). As the research on the management and treatment of mTBI continues to evolve, the PCPs role in referring patients with mTBI to the appropriate resources becomes imperative.

mTBI is a common injury in both military and civilian settings, but it can be difficult to diagnose and is not always well understood. Long-term debilitating effects have been associated with mTBI, with literature linking it to an increased risk of developing Alzheimer disease, motor neuron disease, and Parkinson disease.¹ In addition, mTBI is a strong predictor for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members, the incidence of mTBI associated mental health conditions have been reported to be as high as 22.8%, affecting > 320,000 veterans.^2-5

The US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) health care system offers these returning veterans a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment strategy. The care is often coordinated by the veteran’s patient aligned care team (PACT) that consists of a PCP, nurses, and a medical support associate. The US Department of Defense (DoD) and VA also facilitated the development of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that can be used by the PACT and other health care providers to support evidence based patient-centered care. This CPG is extensive and has recommendations for evaluation and treatment of mTBI and the symptoms associated such as impaired memory and alterations in executive function.⁶

The following hypothetical case is based on an actual patient. This case illustrates the role of speech pathology in caring for patients with mTBI.

Case Presentation

A 25-year-old male combat veteran presented to his VA PACT team for a new patient visit. As part of the screening of his medical history, mTBI was fully defined for the patient to include “alteration” in consciousness. This reminded the patient of an injury that occurred 1 year prior to presentation during a routine convoy mission. He was riding in the back of a Humvee when it hit a large pothole slamming his head into the side of the vehicle. He reported that he felt “dazed and dizzy” with “ringing” in his ears immediately following the event, without an overt loss of consciousness. He was unable to seek medical attention secondary to the urgency of the convoy mission, so he “shook it off” and kept going. Later that week he noted headache and insomnia. He was seen and evaluated by his health care provider for insomnia, but when questioned he reported no head trauma as he had forgotten the incident. Upon follow-up with his PCP, he reported his headaches were manageable, and his insomnia was somewhat improved with recommended life-style modifications and good sleep hygiene.

fdp03803136_t1.png

He still had frequent headaches, dizziness, and some insomnia. However, his chief concern was that he was struggling with new schoolwork. He noted that he was a straight-A student prior to his military service. A review of his medical history in his medical chart showed that a previous PCP had treated his associated symptoms of insomnia and headache without improvement. In addition, he had recently been diagnosed with PTSD. As his symptoms had lasted > 90 days, not resolved with initial treatment in primary care, and were causing a significant impact on his activities of daily living, his PCP placed a consult to Speech Pathology for cognitive-linguistic assessment and treatment, if indicated, noting that he may have had a mTBI.⁶ Although not intended to be comprehensive, Table 1 describes several clinical areas where a speech pathology referral may be appropriate.

The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist

The speech-language pathologist takes an additional history of the patient. This better quantifies specific details of the veteran’s functional concerns pertaining to possible difficulty with attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial awareness, etc. Examples might include difficulty with attention/memory, including not remembering what to get at the store, forgetting to take medications, forgetting appointments, and difficulty in school, among many others. Reports of feeling “stupid” also are common. Assessment varies by clinician, but it is not uncommon for the SLP to administer a battery of evaluations to help identify a range of possible impairments. Choosing testing that is sensitive to even mild impairment is important and should be used in combination with subjective complaints. Mild deficits can sometimes be missed in those with average performance, but whose premorbid intelligence was above average. One combination of test batteries sometimes utilized is the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Trails A and B (Table 2).

fdp03803136_t2.png

The initial testing results are discussed with the veteran. If patient concerns and/or testing reveal impairment that is amenable to treatment and the veteran wishes to proceed, subsequent treatment sessions are scheduled. The first treatment session is spent establishing and prioritizing functional goals specific to that individual and their needs (eg, for daily life, work, school). In a case of subacute or older mTBI, as is often seen in veterans coming to the VA, intervention often targets strategies and techniques that can help the individual compensate for current deficits.

Many patients already own a smartphone, so this device often is used functionally as a cognitive prosthetic as early as the first treatment session. In an effort to immediately start addressing important issues like medication management and attending appointments, the veteran is educated to the benefit of entering important information into the calendar and/or reminder apps on their phone and setting associated alarms that would serve as a reminder for what was entered. Patients are often encouraged by the positive impact of these initial strategies and look forward to future treatment sessions to address compensation for their functional deficits.

If a veteran with TBI has numerous needs, it can be beneficial for the care team to discuss the care plan at an interdisciplinary team meeting. It is not uncommon for veterans like the one discussed above to be referred to neurology (persistent headaches and further neurological evaluation); mental health (PTSD treatment and family support/counseling options); occupational therapy (visuospatial needs); and audiology (vestibular concerns). Social work involvement is often extremely beneficial for coordination of care in more complex cases. If patient is having difficulty making healthy eating choices or with meal preparation, a consult to a dietitian may prove invaluable. Concerns related to trouble with medication adherence (beyond memory-related adherence issues that speech pathology would address) or polypharmacy can be directed to a clinical pharmacy specialist, who could prepare a medication chart, review optimal medication timing, and provide education on adverse effects. A veteran's communication with the team can be facilitated through secure messaging (a method of secure emailing) and encouraging use of the My HealtheVet portal. With this modality, patients could review chart notes and results and share them with non-VA health care providers and/or family members as indicated.

A whole health approach also may appeal to some mTBI patients. This approach focuses on the totality of patient needs for healthy living and on patient-centered goal setting. Services provided may differ at various VA medical centers, but the PACT team can connect the veteran to the services of interest.

Conclusions

A team approach to veterans with mTBI provides a comprehensive way to treat the various problems associated with the condition. Further research into the role of multidisciplinary teams in the management of mTBI was recommended in the 2016 CPG.⁶ The unique role that the speech-language pathologist plays as part of this team has been highlighted, as it is important that PCP’s be aware of the extent of evaluation and treatment services they offer. Beyond mTBI, speech pathologists evaluate and treat patients with several conditions that are seen regularly in primary care.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are integral to the comprehensive treatment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), yet the evaluation and treatment options they offer may not be known to all primary care providers (PCPs). As the research on the management and treatment of mTBI continues to evolve, the PCPs role in referring patients with mTBI to the appropriate resources becomes imperative.

mTBI is a common injury in both military and civilian settings, but it can be difficult to diagnose and is not always well understood. Long-term debilitating effects have been associated with mTBI, with literature linking it to an increased risk of developing Alzheimer disease, motor neuron disease, and Parkinson disease.¹ In addition, mTBI is a strong predictor for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members, the incidence of mTBI associated mental health conditions have been reported to be as high as 22.8%, affecting > 320,000 veterans.^2-5

The US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) health care system offers these returning veterans a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment strategy. The care is often coordinated by the veteran’s patient aligned care team (PACT) that consists of a PCP, nurses, and a medical support associate. The US Department of Defense (DoD) and VA also facilitated the development of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that can be used by the PACT and other health care providers to support evidence based patient-centered care. This CPG is extensive and has recommendations for evaluation and treatment of mTBI and the symptoms associated such as impaired memory and alterations in executive function.⁶

The following hypothetical case is based on an actual patient. This case illustrates the role of speech pathology in caring for patients with mTBI.

Case Presentation

A 25-year-old male combat veteran presented to his VA PACT team for a new patient visit. As part of the screening of his medical history, mTBI was fully defined for the patient to include “alteration” in consciousness. This reminded the patient of an injury that occurred 1 year prior to presentation during a routine convoy mission. He was riding in the back of a Humvee when it hit a large pothole slamming his head into the side of the vehicle. He reported that he felt “dazed and dizzy” with “ringing” in his ears immediately following the event, without an overt loss of consciousness. He was unable to seek medical attention secondary to the urgency of the convoy mission, so he “shook it off” and kept going. Later that week he noted headache and insomnia. He was seen and evaluated by his health care provider for insomnia, but when questioned he reported no head trauma as he had forgotten the incident. Upon follow-up with his PCP, he reported his headaches were manageable, and his insomnia was somewhat improved with recommended life-style modifications and good sleep hygiene.

fdp03803136_t1.png

He still had frequent headaches, dizziness, and some insomnia. However, his chief concern was that he was struggling with new schoolwork. He noted that he was a straight-A student prior to his military service. A review of his medical history in his medical chart showed that a previous PCP had treated his associated symptoms of insomnia and headache without improvement. In addition, he had recently been diagnosed with PTSD. As his symptoms had lasted > 90 days, not resolved with initial treatment in primary care, and were causing a significant impact on his activities of daily living, his PCP placed a consult to Speech Pathology for cognitive-linguistic assessment and treatment, if indicated, noting that he may have had a mTBI.⁶ Although not intended to be comprehensive, Table 1 describes several clinical areas where a speech pathology referral may be appropriate.

The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist

The speech-language pathologist takes an additional history of the patient. This better quantifies specific details of the veteran’s functional concerns pertaining to possible difficulty with attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial awareness, etc. Examples might include difficulty with attention/memory, including not remembering what to get at the store, forgetting to take medications, forgetting appointments, and difficulty in school, among many others. Reports of feeling “stupid” also are common. Assessment varies by clinician, but it is not uncommon for the SLP to administer a battery of evaluations to help identify a range of possible impairments. Choosing testing that is sensitive to even mild impairment is important and should be used in combination with subjective complaints. Mild deficits can sometimes be missed in those with average performance, but whose premorbid intelligence was above average. One combination of test batteries sometimes utilized is the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Trails A and B (Table 2).

fdp03803136_t2.png

The initial testing results are discussed with the veteran. If patient concerns and/or testing reveal impairment that is amenable to treatment and the veteran wishes to proceed, subsequent treatment sessions are scheduled. The first treatment session is spent establishing and prioritizing functional goals specific to that individual and their needs (eg, for daily life, work, school). In a case of subacute or older mTBI, as is often seen in veterans coming to the VA, intervention often targets strategies and techniques that can help the individual compensate for current deficits.

Many patients already own a smartphone, so this device often is used functionally as a cognitive prosthetic as early as the first treatment session. In an effort to immediately start addressing important issues like medication management and attending appointments, the veteran is educated to the benefit of entering important information into the calendar and/or reminder apps on their phone and setting associated alarms that would serve as a reminder for what was entered. Patients are often encouraged by the positive impact of these initial strategies and look forward to future treatment sessions to address compensation for their functional deficits.

If a veteran with TBI has numerous needs, it can be beneficial for the care team to discuss the care plan at an interdisciplinary team meeting. It is not uncommon for veterans like the one discussed above to be referred to neurology (persistent headaches and further neurological evaluation); mental health (PTSD treatment and family support/counseling options); occupational therapy (visuospatial needs); and audiology (vestibular concerns). Social work involvement is often extremely beneficial for coordination of care in more complex cases. If patient is having difficulty making healthy eating choices or with meal preparation, a consult to a dietitian may prove invaluable. Concerns related to trouble with medication adherence (beyond memory-related adherence issues that speech pathology would address) or polypharmacy can be directed to a clinical pharmacy specialist, who could prepare a medication chart, review optimal medication timing, and provide education on adverse effects. A veteran's communication with the team can be facilitated through secure messaging (a method of secure emailing) and encouraging use of the My HealtheVet portal. With this modality, patients could review chart notes and results and share them with non-VA health care providers and/or family members as indicated.

A whole health approach also may appeal to some mTBI patients. This approach focuses on the totality of patient needs for healthy living and on patient-centered goal setting. Services provided may differ at various VA medical centers, but the PACT team can connect the veteran to the services of interest.

Conclusions

A team approach to veterans with mTBI provides a comprehensive way to treat the various problems associated with the condition. Further research into the role of multidisciplinary teams in the management of mTBI was recommended in the 2016 CPG.⁶ The unique role that the speech-language pathologist plays as part of this team has been highlighted, as it is important that PCP’s be aware of the extent of evaluation and treatment services they offer. Beyond mTBI, speech pathologists evaluate and treat patients with several conditions that are seen regularly in primary care.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are integral to the comprehensive treatment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), yet the evaluation and treatment options they offer may not be known to all primary care providers (PCPs). As the research on the management and treatment of mTBI continues to evolve, the PCPs role in referring patients with mTBI to the appropriate resources becomes imperative.

mTBI is a common injury in both military and civilian settings, but it can be difficult to diagnose and is not always well understood. Long-term debilitating effects have been associated with mTBI, with literature linking it to an increased risk of developing Alzheimer disease, motor neuron disease, and Parkinson disease.¹ In addition, mTBI is a strong predictor for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members, the incidence of mTBI associated mental health conditions have been reported to be as high as 22.8%, affecting > 320,000 veterans.^2-5

The US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) health care system offers these returning veterans a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment strategy. The care is often coordinated by the veteran’s patient aligned care team (PACT) that consists of a PCP, nurses, and a medical support associate. The US Department of Defense (DoD) and VA also facilitated the development of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that can be used by the PACT and other health care providers to support evidence based patient-centered care. This CPG is extensive and has recommendations for evaluation and treatment of mTBI and the symptoms associated such as impaired memory and alterations in executive function.⁶

The following hypothetical case is based on an actual patient. This case illustrates the role of speech pathology in caring for patients with mTBI.

Case Presentation

A 25-year-old male combat veteran presented to his VA PACT team for a new patient visit. As part of the screening of his medical history, mTBI was fully defined for the patient to include “alteration” in consciousness. This reminded the patient of an injury that occurred 1 year prior to presentation during a routine convoy mission. He was riding in the back of a Humvee when it hit a large pothole slamming his head into the side of the vehicle. He reported that he felt “dazed and dizzy” with “ringing” in his ears immediately following the event, without an overt loss of consciousness. He was unable to seek medical attention secondary to the urgency of the convoy mission, so he “shook it off” and kept going. Later that week he noted headache and insomnia. He was seen and evaluated by his health care provider for insomnia, but when questioned he reported no head trauma as he had forgotten the incident. Upon follow-up with his PCP, he reported his headaches were manageable, and his insomnia was somewhat improved with recommended life-style modifications and good sleep hygiene.

fdp03803136_t1.png

He still had frequent headaches, dizziness, and some insomnia. However, his chief concern was that he was struggling with new schoolwork. He noted that he was a straight-A student prior to his military service. A review of his medical history in his medical chart showed that a previous PCP had treated his associated symptoms of insomnia and headache without improvement. In addition, he had recently been diagnosed with PTSD. As his symptoms had lasted > 90 days, not resolved with initial treatment in primary care, and were causing a significant impact on his activities of daily living, his PCP placed a consult to Speech Pathology for cognitive-linguistic assessment and treatment, if indicated, noting that he may have had a mTBI.⁶ Although not intended to be comprehensive, Table 1 describes several clinical areas where a speech pathology referral may be appropriate.

The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist

The speech-language pathologist takes an additional history of the patient. This better quantifies specific details of the veteran’s functional concerns pertaining to possible difficulty with attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial awareness, etc. Examples might include difficulty with attention/memory, including not remembering what to get at the store, forgetting to take medications, forgetting appointments, and difficulty in school, among many others. Reports of feeling “stupid” also are common. Assessment varies by clinician, but it is not uncommon for the SLP to administer a battery of evaluations to help identify a range of possible impairments. Choosing testing that is sensitive to even mild impairment is important and should be used in combination with subjective complaints. Mild deficits can sometimes be missed in those with average performance, but whose premorbid intelligence was above average. One combination of test batteries sometimes utilized is the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Trails A and B (Table 2).

fdp03803136_t2.png

The initial testing results are discussed with the veteran. If patient concerns and/or testing reveal impairment that is amenable to treatment and the veteran wishes to proceed, subsequent treatment sessions are scheduled. The first treatment session is spent establishing and prioritizing functional goals specific to that individual and their needs (eg, for daily life, work, school). In a case of subacute or older mTBI, as is often seen in veterans coming to the VA, intervention often targets strategies and techniques that can help the individual compensate for current deficits.

Many patients already own a smartphone, so this device often is used functionally as a cognitive prosthetic as early as the first treatment session. In an effort to immediately start addressing important issues like medication management and attending appointments, the veteran is educated to the benefit of entering important information into the calendar and/or reminder apps on their phone and setting associated alarms that would serve as a reminder for what was entered. Patients are often encouraged by the positive impact of these initial strategies and look forward to future treatment sessions to address compensation for their functional deficits.

If a veteran with TBI has numerous needs, it can be beneficial for the care team to discuss the care plan at an interdisciplinary team meeting. It is not uncommon for veterans like the one discussed above to be referred to neurology (persistent headaches and further neurological evaluation); mental health (PTSD treatment and family support/counseling options); occupational therapy (visuospatial needs); and audiology (vestibular concerns). Social work involvement is often extremely beneficial for coordination of care in more complex cases. If patient is having difficulty making healthy eating choices or with meal preparation, a consult to a dietitian may prove invaluable. Concerns related to trouble with medication adherence (beyond memory-related adherence issues that speech pathology would address) or polypharmacy can be directed to a clinical pharmacy specialist, who could prepare a medication chart, review optimal medication timing, and provide education on adverse effects. A veteran's communication with the team can be facilitated through secure messaging (a method of secure emailing) and encouraging use of the My HealtheVet portal. With this modality, patients could review chart notes and results and share them with non-VA health care providers and/or family members as indicated.

A whole health approach also may appeal to some mTBI patients. This approach focuses on the totality of patient needs for healthy living and on patient-centered goal setting. Services provided may differ at various VA medical centers, but the PACT team can connect the veteran to the services of interest.

Conclusions

A team approach to veterans with mTBI provides a comprehensive way to treat the various problems associated with the condition. Further research into the role of multidisciplinary teams in the management of mTBI was recommended in the 2016 CPG.⁶ The unique role that the speech-language pathologist plays as part of this team has been highlighted, as it is important that PCP’s be aware of the extent of evaluation and treatment services they offer. Beyond mTBI, speech pathologists evaluate and treat patients with several conditions that are seen regularly in primary care.

Although about 8.3% of the general adult civilian population will be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in their lifetime, rates of PTSD are even higher in the veteran population.^1,2 PTSD is associated with a number of psychosocial consequences in veterans, including decreased intimate partner relationship functioning.^3,4 For example, Cloitre and colleagues reported that PTSD is associated with difficulty with socializing, intimacy, responsibility, and control, all of which increase difficulties in intimate partner relationships.⁵ Similarly, researchers also have noted that traumatic experiences can affect an individual’s attachment style, resulting in progressive avoidance of interpersonal relationships, which can lead to marked difficulties in maintaining and beginning intimate partner relationships.^6,7 Despite these known consequences of PTSD, as Dekel and Monson noted in a review,further research is still needed regarding the mechanisms by which trauma and PTSD result in decreased intimate partner relationship functioning among veterans.⁸ Nonetheless, as positive interpersonal relationships are associated with decreased PTSD symptom severity^9,10 and increased engagement in PTSD treatment,¹¹ determining methods of measuring intimate partner relationship functioning in veterans with PTSD is important to inform future research and aid the provision of care.

To date, limited research has examined the valid measurement of intimate partner relationship functioning among veterans with PTSD. Many existing measures that comprehensively assess intimate partner relationship functioning are time and resource intensive. One such measure, the Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales (TCFES), comprehensively assesses multiple pertinent domains of intimate partner relationship functioning (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict).¹² By assessing multiple domains, the TCFES offers a method of understanding the specific components of an individual’s intimate partner relationship in need of increased clinical attention.¹² However, the TCFES is a time- and labor-intensive observational measure that requires a couple to interact while a blinded, independent rater observes and rates their interactions using an intricate coding process. This survey structure precludes the ability to quickly and comprehensively assess a veteran’s intimate partner functioning in settings such as mental health outpatient clinics where mental health providers engage in brief, time-limited psychotherapy. As such, brief measures of intimate partner relationship functioning are needed to best inform clinical care among veterans with PTSD.

The primary aim of the current study was to create a psychometrically valid, yet brief, self-report version of the TCFES to assess multiple domains of intimate partner relationship functioning. The psychometric properties of this measure were assessed among a sample of US veterans with PTSD who were in an intimate partner relationship. We specifically examined factor structure, reliability, and associations to established measures of specific domains of relational functioning.

Methods

Ninety-four veterans were recruited via posted advertisements, promotion in PTSD therapy groups/staff meetings, and word of mouth at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). Participants were eligible if they had a documented diagnosis of PTSD as confirmed in the veteran’s electronic medical record and an affirmative response to currently being involved in an intimate partner relationship (ie, legally married, common-law spouse, involved in a relationship/partnership). There were no exclusion criteria.

Interested veterans were invited to complete several study-related self-report measures concerning their intimate partner relationships that would take about an hour. They were informed that the surveys were voluntary and confidential, and that they would be compensated for their participation. All veterans who participated provided written consent and the study was approved by the Dallas VAMC institutional review board.

Of the 94 veterans recruited, 3 veterans’ data were removed from current analyses after informed consent but before completing the surveys when they indicated they were not currently in a relationship or were divorced. After consent, the 91 participants were administered several study-related self-report measures. The measures took between 30 and 55 minutes to complete. Participants were then compensated $25 for their participation.

Intimate Partner Relationship Functioning

The 16-item TCFES self-report version (TCFES-SR) was developed to assess multiple domains of interpersonal functioning (Appendix). The observational TCFES assesses 5 intimate partner relationship characteristic domains (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict) during a couple’s interaction by an independent trained rater.¹² Each of the 16 TCFES-SR items were modeled after original constructs measured by the TCFES, including power, closeness, clarify, other’s views, responsibility, closure, negotiation, expressiveness, responsiveness, positive regard, negative regard, mood/tone, empathy, frequency, affective quality, and generalization and escalation. To maintain consistency with the TCFES, each item of the TCFES-SR was scored from 1 (severely dysfunctional) to 5 (highly functional). Additionally, all item wording for the TCFES-SR was based on wording in the TCFES manual after consultation with an expert who facilitated the development of the TCFES.¹² On average, the TCFES-SR took 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

To measure concurrent validity of the modified TCFES-SR, several additional interpersonal measures were selected and administered based on prior research and established domains of the TCFES. The Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale (PANQIMS) was administered to assess perceived attitudes toward a relationship.^13,14 The PANQIMS generates 2 subscales: positive quality and negative quality in the relationship. Because the PANQIMS specifically assesses married relationships and our sample included married and nonmarried participants, wording was modified (eg, “spouse/partner”).

The relative power subscale of the Network Relationships Inventory–Relationship Qualities Version (NRI-RQV) measure was administered to assess the unequal/shared role romantic partners have in power equality (ie, relative power).¹⁵

The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) is a self-report measure that assesses multiple dimensions of marital adjustment and functioning.¹⁶ Six subscales of the RDAS were chosen based on items of the TCFES-SR: decision making, values, affection, conflict, activities, and discussion.

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) empathetic concern subscale was administered to assess empathy across multiple contexts and situations¹⁷ and the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R) was administered to assess relational functioning by determining attachment-related anxiety and avoidance.¹⁸

Sociodemographic Information

A sociodemographic questionnaire also was administered. The questionnaire assessed gender, age, education, service branch, length of interpersonal relationship, race, and ethnicity of the veteran as well as gender of the veteran’s partner.

Statistical Analysis

Factor structure of the TCFES-SR was determined by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. To allow for correlation between items, the Promax oblique rotation method was chosen.¹⁹ Number of factors was determined by agreement between number of eigenvalues ≥ 1, visual inspection of the scree plot, and a parallel analysis. Factor loadings of ≥ 0.3 were used to determine which items loaded on to which factors.

Convergent validity was assessed by conducting Pearson’s bivariate correlations between identified TCFES-SR factor(s) and other administered measures of interpersonal functioning (ie, PANQIMS positive and negative quality; NRI-RQV relative power subscale; RDAS decision making, values, affection, conflict, activities, and discussion subscales; IRI-empathetic concern subscale; and ECR-R attachment-related anxiety and avoidance subscales). Strength of relationship was determined based on the following guidelines: ± 0.3 to 0.49 = small, ± 0.5 to 0.69 = moderate, and ± 0.7 to 1.00 = large. Internal consistency was also determined for TCFES-SR factor(s) using Cronbach’s α. A standard level of significance (α=.05) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

Eighty-six veterans provided complete data (Table 1). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was indicative that sample size was adequate (.91), while Bartlett’s test of sphericity found the variables were suitable for structure detection, χ² (120) = 800.00, P < .001. While 2 eigenvalues were ≥ 1, visual inspection of the scree plot and subsequent parallel analysis identified a unidimensional structure (ie, 1 factor) for the TCFES-SR. All items were found to load to this single factor, with all loadings being ≥ 0.5 (Table 2). Additionally, internal consistency was excellent for the scale (α = .93).

fed03606014s_t1.png

Pearson’s bivariate correlations were significant (P < .05) between TCFES-SR total score, and almost all administered interpersonal functioning measures (Table 3). Interestingly, no significant associations were found between any of the administered measures, including the TCFES-SR total score, and the IRI-empathetic concern subscale (P > .05).

Discussion

These findings provide initial support for the psychometric properties of the TCFES-SR, including excellent internal consistency and the adequate association of its total score to established measures of interpersonal functioning. Contrary to the TCFES, the TCFES-SR was shown to best fit a unidimensional factor rather than a multidimensional measure of relationship functioning. However, the TCFES-SR was also shown to have strong convergent validity with multiple domains of relationship functioning, indicating that the measure of overall intimate partner relationship functioning encompasses a number of relational domains (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict). Critically, the TCFES-SR is brief and was administered easily in our sample, providing utility as clinical tool to be used in time-sensitive outpatient settings.

fed03606014s_t2.png

A unidimensional factor has particular strength in providing a global portrait of perceived intimate partner relationship functioning, and mental health providers can administer the TCFES-SR to assess for overall perceptions of intimate partner relationship functioning rather than administering a number of measures focusing on specific interpersonal domains (eg, decision making processes or positive/negative attitudes towards one’s relationship). This allows for the quick assessment (ie, 5-10 minutes) of overall intimate partner relationship functioning rather than administration of multiple self-report measures which can be time-intensive and expensive. However, the TCFES-SR also is limited by a lack of nuanced understanding of perceptions of functioning specific to particular domains. For example, the TCFES-SR score cannot describe intimate partner functioning in the domain of problem solving. Therefore, brief screening tools need to be developed that assess multiple intimate partner relationship domains.

fed03606014s_t3.png

Importantly, overall intimate partner relationship functioning as measured by the TCFES-SR may not incorporate perceptions of relationship empathy, as the total score did not correlate with a measure of empathetic concern (ie, the IRI-empathetic concern subscale). As empathy was based on one item in the TCFES-SR vs 7 in the IRI-empathetic concern subscale, it is unclear if the TCFES-SR only captures a portion of the construct of empathy (ie, sensitivity to partner) vs the comprehensive assessment of trait empathy that the IRI subscale measures. Additionally, the IRI-empathetic concern subscale did not significantly correlate with any of the other administered measures of relationship functioning. Given the role of empathy in positive, healthy intimate partner relationships, future research should explore the role of empathetic concern among veterans with PTSD as it relates to overall (eg, TCFES-SR) and specific aspects of intimate partner relationship functioning.²⁰

While the clinical applicability of the TCFES-SR requires further examination, this measure has a number of potential uses. Information captured quickly by the TCFES-SR may help to inform appropriate referral for treatment. For instance, veterans reporting low total scores on the TCFES-SR may indicate a need for a referral for intervention focused on improving overall relationship functioning (eg, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy).^21,22 Measurement-based care (ie, tracking and discussing changes in symptoms during treatment using validated self-report measures) is now required by the Joint Commission as a standard of care,and has been shown to improve outcomes in couples therapy.^23,24 As a brief self-report measure, the TCFES-SR may be able to facilitate measurement-based care and assist providers in tracking changes in overall relationship functioning over the course of treatment. However, the purpose of the current study was to validate the TCFES-SR and not to examine the utility of the TCFES-SR in clinical care; additional research is needed to determine standardized cutoff scores to indicate a need for clinical intervention.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. The current study only assessed perceived intimate partner relationship functioning from the perspective of the veteran, thus limiting implications as it pertains to the spouse/partner of the veteran. PTSD diagnosis was based on chart review rather than a psychodiagnostic measure (eg, Clinician Administered PTSD Scale); therefore, whether this diagnosis was current or in remission was unclear. Although our sample was adequate to conduct an exploratory factor analysis,the overall sample size was modest, and results should be considered preliminary with need for further replication.²⁵ The sample was also primarily male, white or black, and non-Hispanic; therefore, results may not generalize to a more sociodemographically diverse population. Finally, given the focus of the study to develop a self-report measure, we did not compare the TCFES-SR to the original TCFES. Thus, further research examining the relationship between the TCFES-SR and TCFES may be needed to better understand overlap and potential incongruence in these measures, and to ascertain any differences in their factor structures.

Conclusion

This study is novel in that it adapted a comprehensive observational measure of relationship functioning to a self-report measure piloted among a sample of veterans with PTSD in an intimate partner relationship, a clinical population that remains largely understudied. Although findings are preliminary, the TCFES-SR was found to be a reliable and valid measure of overall intimate partner relationship functioning. Given the rapid administration of this self-report measure, the TCFES-SR may hold clinical utility as a screen of intimate partner relationship deficits in need of clinical intervention. Replication in a larger, more diverse sample is needed to further examine the generalizability and confirm psychometric properties of the TCFES-SR. Additionally, further understanding of the clinical utility of the TCFES-SR in treatment settings remains critical to promote the development and maintenance of healthy intimate partner relationships among veterans with PTSD. Finally, development of effective self-report measures of intimate partner relationship functioning, such as the TCFES-SR, may help to facilitate needed research to understand the effect of PTSD on establishing and maintaining healthy intimate partner relationships among veterans.

Acknowledgments

The current study was funded by the Timberlawn Psychiatric Research Foundation. This material is the result of work supported in part by the US Department of Veterans Affairs; the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) for Suicide Prevention; Sierra Pacific MIRECC; and the Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, Department of Veterans Affairs.

fed03606014s_appendix.png

fed03606014s_appendix2.png

Although about 8.3% of the general adult civilian population will be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in their lifetime, rates of PTSD are even higher in the veteran population.^1,2 PTSD is associated with a number of psychosocial consequences in veterans, including decreased intimate partner relationship functioning.^3,4 For example, Cloitre and colleagues reported that PTSD is associated with difficulty with socializing, intimacy, responsibility, and control, all of which increase difficulties in intimate partner relationships.⁵ Similarly, researchers also have noted that traumatic experiences can affect an individual’s attachment style, resulting in progressive avoidance of interpersonal relationships, which can lead to marked difficulties in maintaining and beginning intimate partner relationships.^6,7 Despite these known consequences of PTSD, as Dekel and Monson noted in a review,further research is still needed regarding the mechanisms by which trauma and PTSD result in decreased intimate partner relationship functioning among veterans.⁸ Nonetheless, as positive interpersonal relationships are associated with decreased PTSD symptom severity^9,10 and increased engagement in PTSD treatment,¹¹ determining methods of measuring intimate partner relationship functioning in veterans with PTSD is important to inform future research and aid the provision of care.

To date, limited research has examined the valid measurement of intimate partner relationship functioning among veterans with PTSD. Many existing measures that comprehensively assess intimate partner relationship functioning are time and resource intensive. One such measure, the Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales (TCFES), comprehensively assesses multiple pertinent domains of intimate partner relationship functioning (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict).¹² By assessing multiple domains, the TCFES offers a method of understanding the specific components of an individual’s intimate partner relationship in need of increased clinical attention.¹² However, the TCFES is a time- and labor-intensive observational measure that requires a couple to interact while a blinded, independent rater observes and rates their interactions using an intricate coding process. This survey structure precludes the ability to quickly and comprehensively assess a veteran’s intimate partner functioning in settings such as mental health outpatient clinics where mental health providers engage in brief, time-limited psychotherapy. As such, brief measures of intimate partner relationship functioning are needed to best inform clinical care among veterans with PTSD.

The primary aim of the current study was to create a psychometrically valid, yet brief, self-report version of the TCFES to assess multiple domains of intimate partner relationship functioning. The psychometric properties of this measure were assessed among a sample of US veterans with PTSD who were in an intimate partner relationship. We specifically examined factor structure, reliability, and associations to established measures of specific domains of relational functioning.

Methods

Ninety-four veterans were recruited via posted advertisements, promotion in PTSD therapy groups/staff meetings, and word of mouth at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). Participants were eligible if they had a documented diagnosis of PTSD as confirmed in the veteran’s electronic medical record and an affirmative response to currently being involved in an intimate partner relationship (ie, legally married, common-law spouse, involved in a relationship/partnership). There were no exclusion criteria.

Interested veterans were invited to complete several study-related self-report measures concerning their intimate partner relationships that would take about an hour. They were informed that the surveys were voluntary and confidential, and that they would be compensated for their participation. All veterans who participated provided written consent and the study was approved by the Dallas VAMC institutional review board.

Of the 94 veterans recruited, 3 veterans’ data were removed from current analyses after informed consent but before completing the surveys when they indicated they were not currently in a relationship or were divorced. After consent, the 91 participants were administered several study-related self-report measures. The measures took between 30 and 55 minutes to complete. Participants were then compensated $25 for their participation.

Intimate Partner Relationship Functioning

The 16-item TCFES self-report version (TCFES-SR) was developed to assess multiple domains of interpersonal functioning (Appendix). The observational TCFES assesses 5 intimate partner relationship characteristic domains (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict) during a couple’s interaction by an independent trained rater.¹² Each of the 16 TCFES-SR items were modeled after original constructs measured by the TCFES, including power, closeness, clarify, other’s views, responsibility, closure, negotiation, expressiveness, responsiveness, positive regard, negative regard, mood/tone, empathy, frequency, affective quality, and generalization and escalation. To maintain consistency with the TCFES, each item of the TCFES-SR was scored from 1 (severely dysfunctional) to 5 (highly functional). Additionally, all item wording for the TCFES-SR was based on wording in the TCFES manual after consultation with an expert who facilitated the development of the TCFES.¹² On average, the TCFES-SR took 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

To measure concurrent validity of the modified TCFES-SR, several additional interpersonal measures were selected and administered based on prior research and established domains of the TCFES. The Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale (PANQIMS) was administered to assess perceived attitudes toward a relationship.^13,14 The PANQIMS generates 2 subscales: positive quality and negative quality in the relationship. Because the PANQIMS specifically assesses married relationships and our sample included married and nonmarried participants, wording was modified (eg, “spouse/partner”).

The relative power subscale of the Network Relationships Inventory–Relationship Qualities Version (NRI-RQV) measure was administered to assess the unequal/shared role romantic partners have in power equality (ie, relative power).¹⁵

The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) is a self-report measure that assesses multiple dimensions of marital adjustment and functioning.¹⁶ Six subscales of the RDAS were chosen based on items of the TCFES-SR: decision making, values, affection, conflict, activities, and discussion.

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) empathetic concern subscale was administered to assess empathy across multiple contexts and situations¹⁷ and the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R) was administered to assess relational functioning by determining attachment-related anxiety and avoidance.¹⁸

Sociodemographic Information

A sociodemographic questionnaire also was administered. The questionnaire assessed gender, age, education, service branch, length of interpersonal relationship, race, and ethnicity of the veteran as well as gender of the veteran’s partner.

Statistical Analysis

Factor structure of the TCFES-SR was determined by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. To allow for correlation between items, the Promax oblique rotation method was chosen.¹⁹ Number of factors was determined by agreement between number of eigenvalues ≥ 1, visual inspection of the scree plot, and a parallel analysis. Factor loadings of ≥ 0.3 were used to determine which items loaded on to which factors.

Convergent validity was assessed by conducting Pearson’s bivariate correlations between identified TCFES-SR factor(s) and other administered measures of interpersonal functioning (ie, PANQIMS positive and negative quality; NRI-RQV relative power subscale; RDAS decision making, values, affection, conflict, activities, and discussion subscales; IRI-empathetic concern subscale; and ECR-R attachment-related anxiety and avoidance subscales). Strength of relationship was determined based on the following guidelines: ± 0.3 to 0.49 = small, ± 0.5 to 0.69 = moderate, and ± 0.7 to 1.00 = large. Internal consistency was also determined for TCFES-SR factor(s) using Cronbach’s α. A standard level of significance (α=.05) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

Eighty-six veterans provided complete data (Table 1). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was indicative that sample size was adequate (.91), while Bartlett’s test of sphericity found the variables were suitable for structure detection, χ² (120) = 800.00, P < .001. While 2 eigenvalues were ≥ 1, visual inspection of the scree plot and subsequent parallel analysis identified a unidimensional structure (ie, 1 factor) for the TCFES-SR. All items were found to load to this single factor, with all loadings being ≥ 0.5 (Table 2). Additionally, internal consistency was excellent for the scale (α = .93).

fed03606014s_t1.png

Pearson’s bivariate correlations were significant (P < .05) between TCFES-SR total score, and almost all administered interpersonal functioning measures (Table 3). Interestingly, no significant associations were found between any of the administered measures, including the TCFES-SR total score, and the IRI-empathetic concern subscale (P > .05).

Discussion

These findings provide initial support for the psychometric properties of the TCFES-SR, including excellent internal consistency and the adequate association of its total score to established measures of interpersonal functioning. Contrary to the TCFES, the TCFES-SR was shown to best fit a unidimensional factor rather than a multidimensional measure of relationship functioning. However, the TCFES-SR was also shown to have strong convergent validity with multiple domains of relationship functioning, indicating that the measure of overall intimate partner relationship functioning encompasses a number of relational domains (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict). Critically, the TCFES-SR is brief and was administered easily in our sample, providing utility as clinical tool to be used in time-sensitive outpatient settings.

fed03606014s_t2.png

A unidimensional factor has particular strength in providing a global portrait of perceived intimate partner relationship functioning, and mental health providers can administer the TCFES-SR to assess for overall perceptions of intimate partner relationship functioning rather than administering a number of measures focusing on specific interpersonal domains (eg, decision making processes or positive/negative attitudes towards one’s relationship). This allows for the quick assessment (ie, 5-10 minutes) of overall intimate partner relationship functioning rather than administration of multiple self-report measures which can be time-intensive and expensive. However, the TCFES-SR also is limited by a lack of nuanced understanding of perceptions of functioning specific to particular domains. For example, the TCFES-SR score cannot describe intimate partner functioning in the domain of problem solving. Therefore, brief screening tools need to be developed that assess multiple intimate partner relationship domains.

fed03606014s_t3.png

Importantly, overall intimate partner relationship functioning as measured by the TCFES-SR may not incorporate perceptions of relationship empathy, as the total score did not correlate with a measure of empathetic concern (ie, the IRI-empathetic concern subscale). As empathy was based on one item in the TCFES-SR vs 7 in the IRI-empathetic concern subscale, it is unclear if the TCFES-SR only captures a portion of the construct of empathy (ie, sensitivity to partner) vs the comprehensive assessment of trait empathy that the IRI subscale measures. Additionally, the IRI-empathetic concern subscale did not significantly correlate with any of the other administered measures of relationship functioning. Given the role of empathy in positive, healthy intimate partner relationships, future research should explore the role of empathetic concern among veterans with PTSD as it relates to overall (eg, TCFES-SR) and specific aspects of intimate partner relationship functioning.²⁰

While the clinical applicability of the TCFES-SR requires further examination, this measure has a number of potential uses. Information captured quickly by the TCFES-SR may help to inform appropriate referral for treatment. For instance, veterans reporting low total scores on the TCFES-SR may indicate a need for a referral for intervention focused on improving overall relationship functioning (eg, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy).^21,22 Measurement-based care (ie, tracking and discussing changes in symptoms during treatment using validated self-report measures) is now required by the Joint Commission as a standard of care,and has been shown to improve outcomes in couples therapy.^23,24 As a brief self-report measure, the TCFES-SR may be able to facilitate measurement-based care and assist providers in tracking changes in overall relationship functioning over the course of treatment. However, the purpose of the current study was to validate the TCFES-SR and not to examine the utility of the TCFES-SR in clinical care; additional research is needed to determine standardized cutoff scores to indicate a need for clinical intervention.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. The current study only assessed perceived intimate partner relationship functioning from the perspective of the veteran, thus limiting implications as it pertains to the spouse/partner of the veteran. PTSD diagnosis was based on chart review rather than a psychodiagnostic measure (eg, Clinician Administered PTSD Scale); therefore, whether this diagnosis was current or in remission was unclear. Although our sample was adequate to conduct an exploratory factor analysis,the overall sample size was modest, and results should be considered preliminary with need for further replication.²⁵ The sample was also primarily male, white or black, and non-Hispanic; therefore, results may not generalize to a more sociodemographically diverse population. Finally, given the focus of the study to develop a self-report measure, we did not compare the TCFES-SR to the original TCFES. Thus, further research examining the relationship between the TCFES-SR and TCFES may be needed to better understand overlap and potential incongruence in these measures, and to ascertain any differences in their factor structures.

Conclusion

This study is novel in that it adapted a comprehensive observational measure of relationship functioning to a self-report measure piloted among a sample of veterans with PTSD in an intimate partner relationship, a clinical population that remains largely understudied. Although findings are preliminary, the TCFES-SR was found to be a reliable and valid measure of overall intimate partner relationship functioning. Given the rapid administration of this self-report measure, the TCFES-SR may hold clinical utility as a screen of intimate partner relationship deficits in need of clinical intervention. Replication in a larger, more diverse sample is needed to further examine the generalizability and confirm psychometric properties of the TCFES-SR. Additionally, further understanding of the clinical utility of the TCFES-SR in treatment settings remains critical to promote the development and maintenance of healthy intimate partner relationships among veterans with PTSD. Finally, development of effective self-report measures of intimate partner relationship functioning, such as the TCFES-SR, may help to facilitate needed research to understand the effect of PTSD on establishing and maintaining healthy intimate partner relationships among veterans.

Acknowledgments

The current study was funded by the Timberlawn Psychiatric Research Foundation. This material is the result of work supported in part by the US Department of Veterans Affairs; the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) for Suicide Prevention; Sierra Pacific MIRECC; and the Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, Department of Veterans Affairs.

fed03606014s_appendix.png

fed03606014s_appendix2.png

Although about 8.3% of the general adult civilian population will be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in their lifetime, rates of PTSD are even higher in the veteran population.^1,2 PTSD is associated with a number of psychosocial consequences in veterans, including decreased intimate partner relationship functioning.^3,4 For example, Cloitre and colleagues reported that PTSD is associated with difficulty with socializing, intimacy, responsibility, and control, all of which increase difficulties in intimate partner relationships.⁵ Similarly, researchers also have noted that traumatic experiences can affect an individual’s attachment style, resulting in progressive avoidance of interpersonal relationships, which can lead to marked difficulties in maintaining and beginning intimate partner relationships.^6,7 Despite these known consequences of PTSD, as Dekel and Monson noted in a review,further research is still needed regarding the mechanisms by which trauma and PTSD result in decreased intimate partner relationship functioning among veterans.⁸ Nonetheless, as positive interpersonal relationships are associated with decreased PTSD symptom severity^9,10 and increased engagement in PTSD treatment,¹¹ determining methods of measuring intimate partner relationship functioning in veterans with PTSD is important to inform future research and aid the provision of care.

To date, limited research has examined the valid measurement of intimate partner relationship functioning among veterans with PTSD. Many existing measures that comprehensively assess intimate partner relationship functioning are time and resource intensive. One such measure, the Timberlawn Couple and Family Evaluation Scales (TCFES), comprehensively assesses multiple pertinent domains of intimate partner relationship functioning (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict).¹² By assessing multiple domains, the TCFES offers a method of understanding the specific components of an individual’s intimate partner relationship in need of increased clinical attention.¹² However, the TCFES is a time- and labor-intensive observational measure that requires a couple to interact while a blinded, independent rater observes and rates their interactions using an intricate coding process. This survey structure precludes the ability to quickly and comprehensively assess a veteran’s intimate partner functioning in settings such as mental health outpatient clinics where mental health providers engage in brief, time-limited psychotherapy. As such, brief measures of intimate partner relationship functioning are needed to best inform clinical care among veterans with PTSD.

The primary aim of the current study was to create a psychometrically valid, yet brief, self-report version of the TCFES to assess multiple domains of intimate partner relationship functioning. The psychometric properties of this measure were assessed among a sample of US veterans with PTSD who were in an intimate partner relationship. We specifically examined factor structure, reliability, and associations to established measures of specific domains of relational functioning.

Methods

Ninety-four veterans were recruited via posted advertisements, promotion in PTSD therapy groups/staff meetings, and word of mouth at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). Participants were eligible if they had a documented diagnosis of PTSD as confirmed in the veteran’s electronic medical record and an affirmative response to currently being involved in an intimate partner relationship (ie, legally married, common-law spouse, involved in a relationship/partnership). There were no exclusion criteria.

Interested veterans were invited to complete several study-related self-report measures concerning their intimate partner relationships that would take about an hour. They were informed that the surveys were voluntary and confidential, and that they would be compensated for their participation. All veterans who participated provided written consent and the study was approved by the Dallas VAMC institutional review board.

Of the 94 veterans recruited, 3 veterans’ data were removed from current analyses after informed consent but before completing the surveys when they indicated they were not currently in a relationship or were divorced. After consent, the 91 participants were administered several study-related self-report measures. The measures took between 30 and 55 minutes to complete. Participants were then compensated $25 for their participation.

Intimate Partner Relationship Functioning

The 16-item TCFES self-report version (TCFES-SR) was developed to assess multiple domains of interpersonal functioning (Appendix). The observational TCFES assesses 5 intimate partner relationship characteristic domains (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict) during a couple’s interaction by an independent trained rater.¹² Each of the 16 TCFES-SR items were modeled after original constructs measured by the TCFES, including power, closeness, clarify, other’s views, responsibility, closure, negotiation, expressiveness, responsiveness, positive regard, negative regard, mood/tone, empathy, frequency, affective quality, and generalization and escalation. To maintain consistency with the TCFES, each item of the TCFES-SR was scored from 1 (severely dysfunctional) to 5 (highly functional). Additionally, all item wording for the TCFES-SR was based on wording in the TCFES manual after consultation with an expert who facilitated the development of the TCFES.¹² On average, the TCFES-SR took 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

To measure concurrent validity of the modified TCFES-SR, several additional interpersonal measures were selected and administered based on prior research and established domains of the TCFES. The Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage Scale (PANQIMS) was administered to assess perceived attitudes toward a relationship.^13,14 The PANQIMS generates 2 subscales: positive quality and negative quality in the relationship. Because the PANQIMS specifically assesses married relationships and our sample included married and nonmarried participants, wording was modified (eg, “spouse/partner”).

The relative power subscale of the Network Relationships Inventory–Relationship Qualities Version (NRI-RQV) measure was administered to assess the unequal/shared role romantic partners have in power equality (ie, relative power).¹⁵

The Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) is a self-report measure that assesses multiple dimensions of marital adjustment and functioning.¹⁶ Six subscales of the RDAS were chosen based on items of the TCFES-SR: decision making, values, affection, conflict, activities, and discussion.

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) empathetic concern subscale was administered to assess empathy across multiple contexts and situations¹⁷ and the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised Questionnaire (ECR-R) was administered to assess relational functioning by determining attachment-related anxiety and avoidance.¹⁸

Sociodemographic Information

A sociodemographic questionnaire also was administered. The questionnaire assessed gender, age, education, service branch, length of interpersonal relationship, race, and ethnicity of the veteran as well as gender of the veteran’s partner.

Statistical Analysis

Factor structure of the TCFES-SR was determined by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. To allow for correlation between items, the Promax oblique rotation method was chosen.¹⁹ Number of factors was determined by agreement between number of eigenvalues ≥ 1, visual inspection of the scree plot, and a parallel analysis. Factor loadings of ≥ 0.3 were used to determine which items loaded on to which factors.

Convergent validity was assessed by conducting Pearson’s bivariate correlations between identified TCFES-SR factor(s) and other administered measures of interpersonal functioning (ie, PANQIMS positive and negative quality; NRI-RQV relative power subscale; RDAS decision making, values, affection, conflict, activities, and discussion subscales; IRI-empathetic concern subscale; and ECR-R attachment-related anxiety and avoidance subscales). Strength of relationship was determined based on the following guidelines: ± 0.3 to 0.49 = small, ± 0.5 to 0.69 = moderate, and ± 0.7 to 1.00 = large. Internal consistency was also determined for TCFES-SR factor(s) using Cronbach’s α. A standard level of significance (α=.05) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

Eighty-six veterans provided complete data (Table 1). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was indicative that sample size was adequate (.91), while Bartlett’s test of sphericity found the variables were suitable for structure detection, χ² (120) = 800.00, P < .001. While 2 eigenvalues were ≥ 1, visual inspection of the scree plot and subsequent parallel analysis identified a unidimensional structure (ie, 1 factor) for the TCFES-SR. All items were found to load to this single factor, with all loadings being ≥ 0.5 (Table 2). Additionally, internal consistency was excellent for the scale (α = .93).

fed03606014s_t1.png

Pearson’s bivariate correlations were significant (P < .05) between TCFES-SR total score, and almost all administered interpersonal functioning measures (Table 3). Interestingly, no significant associations were found between any of the administered measures, including the TCFES-SR total score, and the IRI-empathetic concern subscale (P > .05).

Discussion

These findings provide initial support for the psychometric properties of the TCFES-SR, including excellent internal consistency and the adequate association of its total score to established measures of interpersonal functioning. Contrary to the TCFES, the TCFES-SR was shown to best fit a unidimensional factor rather than a multidimensional measure of relationship functioning. However, the TCFES-SR was also shown to have strong convergent validity with multiple domains of relationship functioning, indicating that the measure of overall intimate partner relationship functioning encompasses a number of relational domains (ie, structure, autonomy, problem solving, affect regulation, and disagreement/conflict). Critically, the TCFES-SR is brief and was administered easily in our sample, providing utility as clinical tool to be used in time-sensitive outpatient settings.

fed03606014s_t2.png

A unidimensional factor has particular strength in providing a global portrait of perceived intimate partner relationship functioning, and mental health providers can administer the TCFES-SR to assess for overall perceptions of intimate partner relationship functioning rather than administering a number of measures focusing on specific interpersonal domains (eg, decision making processes or positive/negative attitudes towards one’s relationship). This allows for the quick assessment (ie, 5-10 minutes) of overall intimate partner relationship functioning rather than administration of multiple self-report measures which can be time-intensive and expensive. However, the TCFES-SR also is limited by a lack of nuanced understanding of perceptions of functioning specific to particular domains. For example, the TCFES-SR score cannot describe intimate partner functioning in the domain of problem solving. Therefore, brief screening tools need to be developed that assess multiple intimate partner relationship domains.

fed03606014s_t3.png

Importantly, overall intimate partner relationship functioning as measured by the TCFES-SR may not incorporate perceptions of relationship empathy, as the total score did not correlate with a measure of empathetic concern (ie, the IRI-empathetic concern subscale). As empathy was based on one item in the TCFES-SR vs 7 in the IRI-empathetic concern subscale, it is unclear if the TCFES-SR only captures a portion of the construct of empathy (ie, sensitivity to partner) vs the comprehensive assessment of trait empathy that the IRI subscale measures. Additionally, the IRI-empathetic concern subscale did not significantly correlate with any of the other administered measures of relationship functioning. Given the role of empathy in positive, healthy intimate partner relationships, future research should explore the role of empathetic concern among veterans with PTSD as it relates to overall (eg, TCFES-SR) and specific aspects of intimate partner relationship functioning.²⁰

While the clinical applicability of the TCFES-SR requires further examination, this measure has a number of potential uses. Information captured quickly by the TCFES-SR may help to inform appropriate referral for treatment. For instance, veterans reporting low total scores on the TCFES-SR may indicate a need for a referral for intervention focused on improving overall relationship functioning (eg, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy).^21,22 Measurement-based care (ie, tracking and discussing changes in symptoms during treatment using validated self-report measures) is now required by the Joint Commission as a standard of care,and has been shown to improve outcomes in couples therapy.^23,24 As a brief self-report measure, the TCFES-SR may be able to facilitate measurement-based care and assist providers in tracking changes in overall relationship functioning over the course of treatment. However, the purpose of the current study was to validate the TCFES-SR and not to examine the utility of the TCFES-SR in clinical care; additional research is needed to determine standardized cutoff scores to indicate a need for clinical intervention.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted. The current study only assessed perceived intimate partner relationship functioning from the perspective of the veteran, thus limiting implications as it pertains to the spouse/partner of the veteran. PTSD diagnosis was based on chart review rather than a psychodiagnostic measure (eg, Clinician Administered PTSD Scale); therefore, whether this diagnosis was current or in remission was unclear. Although our sample was adequate to conduct an exploratory factor analysis,the overall sample size was modest, and results should be considered preliminary with need for further replication.²⁵ The sample was also primarily male, white or black, and non-Hispanic; therefore, results may not generalize to a more sociodemographically diverse population. Finally, given the focus of the study to develop a self-report measure, we did not compare the TCFES-SR to the original TCFES. Thus, further research examining the relationship between the TCFES-SR and TCFES may be needed to better understand overlap and potential incongruence in these measures, and to ascertain any differences in their factor structures.

Conclusion

This study is novel in that it adapted a comprehensive observational measure of relationship functioning to a self-report measure piloted among a sample of veterans with PTSD in an intimate partner relationship, a clinical population that remains largely understudied. Although findings are preliminary, the TCFES-SR was found to be a reliable and valid measure of overall intimate partner relationship functioning. Given the rapid administration of this self-report measure, the TCFES-SR may hold clinical utility as a screen of intimate partner relationship deficits in need of clinical intervention. Replication in a larger, more diverse sample is needed to further examine the generalizability and confirm psychometric properties of the TCFES-SR. Additionally, further understanding of the clinical utility of the TCFES-SR in treatment settings remains critical to promote the development and maintenance of healthy intimate partner relationships among veterans with PTSD. Finally, development of effective self-report measures of intimate partner relationship functioning, such as the TCFES-SR, may help to facilitate needed research to understand the effect of PTSD on establishing and maintaining healthy intimate partner relationships among veterans.

Acknowledgments

The current study was funded by the Timberlawn Psychiatric Research Foundation. This material is the result of work supported in part by the US Department of Veterans Affairs; the Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) for Suicide Prevention; Sierra Pacific MIRECC; and the Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, Department of Veterans Affairs.

fed03606014s_appendix.png

fed03606014s_appendix2.png

Consolidated mail outpatient pharmacy (CMOP) is an automated prescription order processing and delivery system developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1994 to provide medications to VA patients.¹ In fiscal year (FY) 2016, CMOP filled about 80% of VA outpatient prescriptions.²

Formalized by the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between Indian Health Service (IHS) and VA, CMOP is a partnership undertaken to improve the delivery of care to patients by both agencies.³ The number of prescriptions filled by CMOP for IHS patients increased from 1,972 in FY 2010 to 840,109 in FY 2018.⁴ In the fourth quarter of FY 2018, there were 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS federal and tribal sites.⁵ It is only appropriate that a growing number of IHS sites are adopting CMOP considering the evidence for mail-order pharmacy on better patient adherence, improved health outcomes, and potential cost savings.^6-9 Furthermore, using a centralized pharmacy operation, such as CMOP, can lead to better quality services.¹⁰

Crownpoint Health Care Facility (CHCF) serves > 30,000 American Indians and is in Crownpoint, New Mexico, a small community of about 3,000 people.¹¹ Most of the patients served by the facility live in distant places. Many of these underserved patients do not have a stable means of transportation.¹² Therefore, these patients may have difficulty traveling to the facility for their health care needs, including medication pickups. More than 2.5 million American Indians and Alaska Natives IHS beneficiaries face similar challenges due to the rurality of their communities.¹³ CMOP can be a method to increase access to care for this vulnerable population. However, the utilization of CMOP varies significantly among IHS facilities. While some IHS facilities process large numbers of prescriptions through CMOP, other facilities process few, if any. There also are IHS facilities, such as CHCF, which are at the initial stage of implementing CMOP or trying to increase the volume of prescriptions processed through CMOP. Although the utilization of CMOP has grown exponentially among IHS facilities, there is currently no available resource that summarizes the relative advantages and disadvantages, the challenges and opportunities, and the strengths and weaknesses of implementing CMOP for IHS facilities

Methods

A questionnaire encompassing various aspects of CMOP prescription processing was developed and distributed to the primary CMOP contacts for IHS facilities. The questionnaire was first distributed by e-mail on December 19, 2018. It was e-mailed for a second time on January 16, 2019, and the questionnaire was open for responses until the end of January 2019 (Table).

fdp03707325_t.png

Results

Forty-four of 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS sites responded to the questionnaire. Most sites train the majority of their pharmacists in CMOP prescription processing. Overall, 310 of 347 pharmacists (89%) in these 44 IHS sites can process prescriptions through CMOP. Thirty-one sites have all their pharmacists trained in CMOP prescription processing. Only 1 facility had less than half (2 of 17 pharmacists) of its pharmacists trained in CMOP prescription processing. More than half the total number of pharmacists, 185 out of 347 (53%), check electronic messages via Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS) MailMan to get information about prescriptions rejected by CMOP. Twenty sites have all their pharmacists check messages about CMOP rejections. However, 2 facilities reported that they do not check the rejection messages at all. Twenty-six of the 44 responding sites (59%) transmit prescriptions to CMOP manually in the electronic system. The rest (18 of 44) rely on the auto-transmission (AT) setup to transmit the CMOP-suspended prescriptions at specified times of the day.

Half the sites (8 of 16) that rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request do not use any method to designate a CMOP patient. Twenty-four sites use the narrative field on the patient’s profile in RPMS, the health information system used by most IHS facilities, to designate CMOP patients. Eighteen sites use pop-up messages on ScriptPro, a pharmacy automation system, as a designation method. Most of the sites (12 of 15) that use both RPMS and ScriptPro designation methods do not require patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request; prescriptions for these patients are routed through CMOP unless patients request otherwise. Only 3 of 44 sites use both methods and rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request. Some other reported designation methods were using the electronic health record (EHR) posting box, keeping a manual list of CMOP patients, and solely utilizing the Prescription Mail Delivery field in RPMS. Three sites also noted that they keep manual lists to auto-refill prescriptions through CMOP.

Thirty sites (68%) reported that they process every prescription through CMOP even if the patient had prescriptions with specified CMOP quantities. Only 8 sites (18%) said that they used the local mail-out program to keep the same days’ supply for all medication orders. For patients with CMOP-ineligible prescriptions, 34 of the 44 sites (77%) process the eligible prescriptions through CMOP and refill the rest of the prescriptions locally. Six sites (14%) process all medication orders locally for patients with any CMOP-ineligible prescriptions.

Only 12 of 44 sites (27%) involve pharmacy technicians in CMOP prescription processing. Five sites have technicians process prescription refills through CMOP. Two of these sites mentioned the strategy of technicians suspending the prescriptions to be sent to CMOP on the refill due date. Other technician roles included tracking CMOP packages, checking electronic messages for CMOP rejections, and signing up patients for CMOP.

Only 3 of the 44 sites (7%) have measured patient satisfaction with the CMOP program. One of these 3 sites reported that the overall satisfaction was high with CMOP. This site administered the survey to patients who came to the clinic for appointments. The second facility called patients and asked for their feedback. The third site conducted the survey by using student pharmacists. Two sites reported that they use the survey results from the CMOP-conducted patient satisfaction surveys, although they have not measured patient satisfaction at their specific facilities.

Most sites have not assessed CMOP’s impact on their insurance (point of sale) collections. However, 13 sites (30%) reported that they believe they are losing on collections by utilizing CMOP. The use of repackaged products by CMOP, which are usually nonreimbursable, is an issue that was mentioned multiple times. In contrast, 2 sites mentioned that CMOP has led to increased insurance collections for their facilities.

Discussion

The utility of CMOP among the responding IHS sites varies quite significantly. Some sites appreciate the convenience of CMOP while acknowledging its limitations, such as the possible decrease in insurance collections, lengthy prescription processing time, or medication backorders. However, some sites have reserved CMOP for special circumstances (eg, mailing refrigerated items to the patient’s street address) due to various complexities that may come with CMOP. One site reported that it compares IHS contract drug prices with VA contract drug prices quarterly to determine which prescriptions should be sent through CMOP.

Most of the IHS pharmacists (89%) are trained in CMOP prescription processing. If an IHS site wants to increase its volume of CMOP prescriptions, it is sensible to train as many pharmacists as possible so that the responsibility does not fall on a few pharmacists. Newly hired pharmacists can receive guidance from trained pharmacists. Designation methods for CMOP patients can be beneficial for these pharmacists to identify CMOP-enrolled patients, especially if the site does not require patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request. Only 3 sites (7%) use multiple designation methods in addition to relying on patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed. Proper implementation of designation methods can remove this extra burden on patients. Conversely, requiring patients to ask for prescriptions to be sent through CMOP can prevent spontaneous mail-outs if a CMOP-designated patient wants to pick up prescriptions locally. Overall, 16 sites (36%) rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed.

One of the main benefits of CMOP is the ability to mail refrigerated items. Local pharmacy mail-out programs may not have this ability. Patients at rural locations often use post office (PO) boxes because they are unable to receive postal services at their physical addresses; however, they may receive packages through United Parcel Service (UPS) at their physical addresses. CMOP uses UPS to send refrigerated items, but UPS does not deliver to PO boxes. Therefore, remotely located sites like CHCF have difficulty in fully optimizing this benefit. One solution is documenting both the physical and mailing addresses on the patient’s EHR, which enables CMOP to send refrigerated items to the patient’s home address via UPS and mail the rest of the prescriptions to the patient’s PO box address with the US Postal Service. The physical address must be listed above the PO box address to ensure that refrigerated items are not rejected by CMOP. Furthermore, both the physical address and the PO box address must be in the same city for this method to work. Two sites noted mailing refrigerated items as one of the major challenges in CMOP prescription processing.

CMOP-enrolled patients must be educated about requesting medications 7 to 10 days before they run out. There is no standard time line for prescriptions filled by CMOP. However, 1 site reported that it may take up to “10 days from time requested to mailbox.” This delay leads to pharmacies facing a dilemma as processing prescriptions too early can lead to insurance rejections, but processing them too late can lead to the patient not receiving the medication by the time they run out of their current supply. However, CMOP provides the ability to track prescriptions sent through CMOP. Pharmacists and technicians need to have access to BestWay Parcel Services Client Portal (genco-mms.bestwayparcel.com) to track CMOP packages. Tracking CMOP prescriptions is a way pharmacy technicians can be involved in CMOP prescription processing. Technicians seem to be underutilized, as only 27% of the responding sites utilize them to some degree in the CMOP process. One site delegated the responsibility of checking CMOP rejection messages to pharmacy technicians. Since 2 of the responding sites do not check CMOP rejection messages at all, this is an excellent opportunity to get pharmacy technicians involved.

A CMOP auto-refill program can potentially be utilized to avoid missed or late medications. In an auto-refill program, a pharmacist can refill prescriptions through CMOP on the due date without a patient request. They may get rejected by insurance the first time they are processed through CMOP for refilling too early if the processing time is taken into account. However, the subsequent refills do not have to consider the CMOP processing time as they would already be synchronized based on the last refill date. Though, if CMOP is out of stock on a medication and it is expected to be available soon, CMOP may take a few extra days to either fill the prescription or reject it if the drug stays unavailable. One of the sites reported “the amount of time [CMOP] holds medications if they are out of stock” as “the hardest thing to work around.” A couple of sites also mentioned the longer than usual delay in processing prescriptions by CMOP during the holidays as one of the major challenges.

CMOP use of repackaged products also may lead insurance companies to deny reimbursement. Repackaged products are usually cheaper to buy.¹⁴ However, most insurances do not reimburse for prescriptions filled with these products.¹⁵ The local drug file on RPMS may have a national drug code (NDC) that is reimbursable by insurance, but CMOP will change it to the repackaged NDC if they are filling the prescription with a repackaged product. One potential solution to this problem would be filling these prescriptions locally. Furthermore, insurance claims are processed when the prescriptions are filled by CMOP. Sites cannot return/cancel the prescription anymore at that point. Therefore, the inability to see real-time rejections as the medication orders are processed on-site makes it challenging to prevent avoidable insurance rejections, such as a refill too soon. One site calculated that it lost $26,386.45 by utilizing CMOP from January 9, 2018 to December 12, 2018. However, it is unclear whether this loss was representative of other sites. It is also worth noting that IHS sites can save a substantial amount of money on certain products by utilizing CMOP because VA buys these products at a reduced price.¹⁶

CMOP-transmitted prescriptions can be rejected for various reasons, such as CMOP manufacturer’s backorder, a different quantity from CMOP stock size, etc. Information about these rejected prescriptions is accessed through electronic messages on RPMS. CMOP does not dispense less than a full, unopened package for most over-the-counter (OTC) medications. The quantity on these prescriptions must be equal to or multiples of the package size for them to be filled by CMOP. This can lead to a patient having prescriptions with different days’ supplies, which results in various refill due dates. If a site has a local mail-out program available, it can potentially keep the same days’ supply for all prescriptions by mailing these OTC medications locally rather than utilizing CMOP. However, this can partially negate CMOP’s benefit of reduced workload.

CMOP also has specified quantities on some prescription medications. One survey respondent viewed “the quantity and day supply required by CMOP” as a negative influence on the site’s insurance collection. It is possible that CMOP does not carry all the medications that a CMOP-enrolled patient is prescribed. Most sites (77%) still send eligible prescriptions through CMOP for the patients who also have CMOP-ineligible prescriptions. There are a small number of sites (14%) that utilize local mail-out program for the patients with any CMOP-ineligible prescriptions, possibly to simplify the process. Schedule II controlled substances cannot be processed through CMOP either; however, facilities may have local policies that prohibit mailing any controlled substances.

Prescriptions can be manually transmitted to CMOP, or they can be automatically transmitted based on the run time and frequency of the auto-transmission setup. The prescriptions that are waiting to be transmitted to CMOP must be in the “suspended” status. The apparent advantage of relying on auto-transmission is that you do not have to complete the steps manually to transmit suspended CMOP prescriptions, thereby making the process more convenient. However, the manual transmission can be utilized as a checkpoint to verify that prescriptions were properly suspended for CMOP, as the prescription status changes from “S” (suspended) to “AT” once the transmission is completed. If a prescription is not properly suspended for CMOP, the status will remain as S even after manual transmission. More than half (59%) of the responding sites must find the manual transmission feature useful as they use it either over or in addition to the auto-transmission setup.

Despite the challenges, many IHS sites process thousands of monthly prescriptions through CMOP. Of the 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS sites, 17 processed > 1,000 prescriptions from March 27, 2019 to April 25, 2019.¹⁷ Five sites processed > 5,000 prescriptions.¹⁷ At the rate of > 5,000 prescriptions per month, the yearly CMOP prescription count will be > 60,000. That is more than one-third of the prescriptions processed by CHCF in 2018. By handling these prescriptions through CMOP, it can decrease pharmacy filling and dispensing workload, thereby freeing pharmacists to participate in other services.¹⁸ Furthermore, implementing CMOP does not incur any cost for the IHS site. There is a nondrug cost for each prescription that is filled through CMOP. This cost was $2.67 during FY 2016.¹⁹ The fee covers prescription vial, label, packaging for mail, postage, personnel, building overhead, and equipment capitalization.¹⁹ The nondrug cost of filling a prescription locally at the site can potentially exceed the cost charged by CMOP.¹⁹

A lack of objective data exists to assess the net impact of CMOP on patients. Different theoretical assumptions can be made, such as CMOP resulting in better patient adherence. However, there is no objective information about how much CMOP improves patient adherence if it does at all. Though J.D. Power US Pharmacy Study ranks CMOP as “among the best” mail-order pharmacies in customer satisfaction, only 3 of the 44 responding sites have measured patient satisfaction locally.²⁰ Only 1 site had objective data about CMOP’s impact on the point of sale. Therefore, it is currently difficult to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the CMOP program. There are opportunities for further studies on these topics.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that < 50% of the CMOP-enrolled sites (44 of 94) responded to the questionnaire. It is possible that the facilities that had a significantly positive or negative experience with CMOP were more inclined to share their views. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether the responding sites are an accurate representative sample. Another limitation of the study was the questionnaire design and the reliance on free-text responses as opposed to structured data. The free-text responses had to be analyzed manually to determine whether they fall in the same category, thereby increasing the risk of interpretation error.

Conclusion

CMOP has its unique challenges but provides many benefits that local pharmacy mail-out programs may not possess, such as the abilities to mail refrigerated items and track packages. One must be familiar with CMOP’s various idiosyncrasies to make the best use of the program. Extensive staff education and orientation for new staff members must be done to familiarize them with the program. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of CMOP can lead to reduced pharmacy workload while increasing access to care for patients with transportation issues.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank LCDR Karsten Smith, PharmD, BCGP, the IHS CMOP Coordinator for providing the list of primary CMOP contacts and CDR Kendall Van Tyle, PharmD, BCPS, for proofreading the article.

Consolidated mail outpatient pharmacy (CMOP) is an automated prescription order processing and delivery system developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1994 to provide medications to VA patients.¹ In fiscal year (FY) 2016, CMOP filled about 80% of VA outpatient prescriptions.²

Formalized by the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between Indian Health Service (IHS) and VA, CMOP is a partnership undertaken to improve the delivery of care to patients by both agencies.³ The number of prescriptions filled by CMOP for IHS patients increased from 1,972 in FY 2010 to 840,109 in FY 2018.⁴ In the fourth quarter of FY 2018, there were 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS federal and tribal sites.⁵ It is only appropriate that a growing number of IHS sites are adopting CMOP considering the evidence for mail-order pharmacy on better patient adherence, improved health outcomes, and potential cost savings.^6-9 Furthermore, using a centralized pharmacy operation, such as CMOP, can lead to better quality services.¹⁰

Crownpoint Health Care Facility (CHCF) serves > 30,000 American Indians and is in Crownpoint, New Mexico, a small community of about 3,000 people.¹¹ Most of the patients served by the facility live in distant places. Many of these underserved patients do not have a stable means of transportation.¹² Therefore, these patients may have difficulty traveling to the facility for their health care needs, including medication pickups. More than 2.5 million American Indians and Alaska Natives IHS beneficiaries face similar challenges due to the rurality of their communities.¹³ CMOP can be a method to increase access to care for this vulnerable population. However, the utilization of CMOP varies significantly among IHS facilities. While some IHS facilities process large numbers of prescriptions through CMOP, other facilities process few, if any. There also are IHS facilities, such as CHCF, which are at the initial stage of implementing CMOP or trying to increase the volume of prescriptions processed through CMOP. Although the utilization of CMOP has grown exponentially among IHS facilities, there is currently no available resource that summarizes the relative advantages and disadvantages, the challenges and opportunities, and the strengths and weaknesses of implementing CMOP for IHS facilities

Methods

A questionnaire encompassing various aspects of CMOP prescription processing was developed and distributed to the primary CMOP contacts for IHS facilities. The questionnaire was first distributed by e-mail on December 19, 2018. It was e-mailed for a second time on January 16, 2019, and the questionnaire was open for responses until the end of January 2019 (Table).

fdp03707325_t.png

Results

Forty-four of 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS sites responded to the questionnaire. Most sites train the majority of their pharmacists in CMOP prescription processing. Overall, 310 of 347 pharmacists (89%) in these 44 IHS sites can process prescriptions through CMOP. Thirty-one sites have all their pharmacists trained in CMOP prescription processing. Only 1 facility had less than half (2 of 17 pharmacists) of its pharmacists trained in CMOP prescription processing. More than half the total number of pharmacists, 185 out of 347 (53%), check electronic messages via Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS) MailMan to get information about prescriptions rejected by CMOP. Twenty sites have all their pharmacists check messages about CMOP rejections. However, 2 facilities reported that they do not check the rejection messages at all. Twenty-six of the 44 responding sites (59%) transmit prescriptions to CMOP manually in the electronic system. The rest (18 of 44) rely on the auto-transmission (AT) setup to transmit the CMOP-suspended prescriptions at specified times of the day.

Half the sites (8 of 16) that rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request do not use any method to designate a CMOP patient. Twenty-four sites use the narrative field on the patient’s profile in RPMS, the health information system used by most IHS facilities, to designate CMOP patients. Eighteen sites use pop-up messages on ScriptPro, a pharmacy automation system, as a designation method. Most of the sites (12 of 15) that use both RPMS and ScriptPro designation methods do not require patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request; prescriptions for these patients are routed through CMOP unless patients request otherwise. Only 3 of 44 sites use both methods and rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request. Some other reported designation methods were using the electronic health record (EHR) posting box, keeping a manual list of CMOP patients, and solely utilizing the Prescription Mail Delivery field in RPMS. Three sites also noted that they keep manual lists to auto-refill prescriptions through CMOP.

Thirty sites (68%) reported that they process every prescription through CMOP even if the patient had prescriptions with specified CMOP quantities. Only 8 sites (18%) said that they used the local mail-out program to keep the same days’ supply for all medication orders. For patients with CMOP-ineligible prescriptions, 34 of the 44 sites (77%) process the eligible prescriptions through CMOP and refill the rest of the prescriptions locally. Six sites (14%) process all medication orders locally for patients with any CMOP-ineligible prescriptions.

Only 12 of 44 sites (27%) involve pharmacy technicians in CMOP prescription processing. Five sites have technicians process prescription refills through CMOP. Two of these sites mentioned the strategy of technicians suspending the prescriptions to be sent to CMOP on the refill due date. Other technician roles included tracking CMOP packages, checking electronic messages for CMOP rejections, and signing up patients for CMOP.

Only 3 of the 44 sites (7%) have measured patient satisfaction with the CMOP program. One of these 3 sites reported that the overall satisfaction was high with CMOP. This site administered the survey to patients who came to the clinic for appointments. The second facility called patients and asked for their feedback. The third site conducted the survey by using student pharmacists. Two sites reported that they use the survey results from the CMOP-conducted patient satisfaction surveys, although they have not measured patient satisfaction at their specific facilities.

Most sites have not assessed CMOP’s impact on their insurance (point of sale) collections. However, 13 sites (30%) reported that they believe they are losing on collections by utilizing CMOP. The use of repackaged products by CMOP, which are usually nonreimbursable, is an issue that was mentioned multiple times. In contrast, 2 sites mentioned that CMOP has led to increased insurance collections for their facilities.

Discussion

The utility of CMOP among the responding IHS sites varies quite significantly. Some sites appreciate the convenience of CMOP while acknowledging its limitations, such as the possible decrease in insurance collections, lengthy prescription processing time, or medication backorders. However, some sites have reserved CMOP for special circumstances (eg, mailing refrigerated items to the patient’s street address) due to various complexities that may come with CMOP. One site reported that it compares IHS contract drug prices with VA contract drug prices quarterly to determine which prescriptions should be sent through CMOP.

Most of the IHS pharmacists (89%) are trained in CMOP prescription processing. If an IHS site wants to increase its volume of CMOP prescriptions, it is sensible to train as many pharmacists as possible so that the responsibility does not fall on a few pharmacists. Newly hired pharmacists can receive guidance from trained pharmacists. Designation methods for CMOP patients can be beneficial for these pharmacists to identify CMOP-enrolled patients, especially if the site does not require patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request. Only 3 sites (7%) use multiple designation methods in addition to relying on patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed. Proper implementation of designation methods can remove this extra burden on patients. Conversely, requiring patients to ask for prescriptions to be sent through CMOP can prevent spontaneous mail-outs if a CMOP-designated patient wants to pick up prescriptions locally. Overall, 16 sites (36%) rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed.

One of the main benefits of CMOP is the ability to mail refrigerated items. Local pharmacy mail-out programs may not have this ability. Patients at rural locations often use post office (PO) boxes because they are unable to receive postal services at their physical addresses; however, they may receive packages through United Parcel Service (UPS) at their physical addresses. CMOP uses UPS to send refrigerated items, but UPS does not deliver to PO boxes. Therefore, remotely located sites like CHCF have difficulty in fully optimizing this benefit. One solution is documenting both the physical and mailing addresses on the patient’s EHR, which enables CMOP to send refrigerated items to the patient’s home address via UPS and mail the rest of the prescriptions to the patient’s PO box address with the US Postal Service. The physical address must be listed above the PO box address to ensure that refrigerated items are not rejected by CMOP. Furthermore, both the physical address and the PO box address must be in the same city for this method to work. Two sites noted mailing refrigerated items as one of the major challenges in CMOP prescription processing.

CMOP-enrolled patients must be educated about requesting medications 7 to 10 days before they run out. There is no standard time line for prescriptions filled by CMOP. However, 1 site reported that it may take up to “10 days from time requested to mailbox.” This delay leads to pharmacies facing a dilemma as processing prescriptions too early can lead to insurance rejections, but processing them too late can lead to the patient not receiving the medication by the time they run out of their current supply. However, CMOP provides the ability to track prescriptions sent through CMOP. Pharmacists and technicians need to have access to BestWay Parcel Services Client Portal (genco-mms.bestwayparcel.com) to track CMOP packages. Tracking CMOP prescriptions is a way pharmacy technicians can be involved in CMOP prescription processing. Technicians seem to be underutilized, as only 27% of the responding sites utilize them to some degree in the CMOP process. One site delegated the responsibility of checking CMOP rejection messages to pharmacy technicians. Since 2 of the responding sites do not check CMOP rejection messages at all, this is an excellent opportunity to get pharmacy technicians involved.

A CMOP auto-refill program can potentially be utilized to avoid missed or late medications. In an auto-refill program, a pharmacist can refill prescriptions through CMOP on the due date without a patient request. They may get rejected by insurance the first time they are processed through CMOP for refilling too early if the processing time is taken into account. However, the subsequent refills do not have to consider the CMOP processing time as they would already be synchronized based on the last refill date. Though, if CMOP is out of stock on a medication and it is expected to be available soon, CMOP may take a few extra days to either fill the prescription or reject it if the drug stays unavailable. One of the sites reported “the amount of time [CMOP] holds medications if they are out of stock” as “the hardest thing to work around.” A couple of sites also mentioned the longer than usual delay in processing prescriptions by CMOP during the holidays as one of the major challenges.

CMOP use of repackaged products also may lead insurance companies to deny reimbursement. Repackaged products are usually cheaper to buy.¹⁴ However, most insurances do not reimburse for prescriptions filled with these products.¹⁵ The local drug file on RPMS may have a national drug code (NDC) that is reimbursable by insurance, but CMOP will change it to the repackaged NDC if they are filling the prescription with a repackaged product. One potential solution to this problem would be filling these prescriptions locally. Furthermore, insurance claims are processed when the prescriptions are filled by CMOP. Sites cannot return/cancel the prescription anymore at that point. Therefore, the inability to see real-time rejections as the medication orders are processed on-site makes it challenging to prevent avoidable insurance rejections, such as a refill too soon. One site calculated that it lost $26,386.45 by utilizing CMOP from January 9, 2018 to December 12, 2018. However, it is unclear whether this loss was representative of other sites. It is also worth noting that IHS sites can save a substantial amount of money on certain products by utilizing CMOP because VA buys these products at a reduced price.¹⁶

CMOP-transmitted prescriptions can be rejected for various reasons, such as CMOP manufacturer’s backorder, a different quantity from CMOP stock size, etc. Information about these rejected prescriptions is accessed through electronic messages on RPMS. CMOP does not dispense less than a full, unopened package for most over-the-counter (OTC) medications. The quantity on these prescriptions must be equal to or multiples of the package size for them to be filled by CMOP. This can lead to a patient having prescriptions with different days’ supplies, which results in various refill due dates. If a site has a local mail-out program available, it can potentially keep the same days’ supply for all prescriptions by mailing these OTC medications locally rather than utilizing CMOP. However, this can partially negate CMOP’s benefit of reduced workload.

CMOP also has specified quantities on some prescription medications. One survey respondent viewed “the quantity and day supply required by CMOP” as a negative influence on the site’s insurance collection. It is possible that CMOP does not carry all the medications that a CMOP-enrolled patient is prescribed. Most sites (77%) still send eligible prescriptions through CMOP for the patients who also have CMOP-ineligible prescriptions. There are a small number of sites (14%) that utilize local mail-out program for the patients with any CMOP-ineligible prescriptions, possibly to simplify the process. Schedule II controlled substances cannot be processed through CMOP either; however, facilities may have local policies that prohibit mailing any controlled substances.

Prescriptions can be manually transmitted to CMOP, or they can be automatically transmitted based on the run time and frequency of the auto-transmission setup. The prescriptions that are waiting to be transmitted to CMOP must be in the “suspended” status. The apparent advantage of relying on auto-transmission is that you do not have to complete the steps manually to transmit suspended CMOP prescriptions, thereby making the process more convenient. However, the manual transmission can be utilized as a checkpoint to verify that prescriptions were properly suspended for CMOP, as the prescription status changes from “S” (suspended) to “AT” once the transmission is completed. If a prescription is not properly suspended for CMOP, the status will remain as S even after manual transmission. More than half (59%) of the responding sites must find the manual transmission feature useful as they use it either over or in addition to the auto-transmission setup.

Despite the challenges, many IHS sites process thousands of monthly prescriptions through CMOP. Of the 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS sites, 17 processed > 1,000 prescriptions from March 27, 2019 to April 25, 2019.¹⁷ Five sites processed > 5,000 prescriptions.¹⁷ At the rate of > 5,000 prescriptions per month, the yearly CMOP prescription count will be > 60,000. That is more than one-third of the prescriptions processed by CHCF in 2018. By handling these prescriptions through CMOP, it can decrease pharmacy filling and dispensing workload, thereby freeing pharmacists to participate in other services.¹⁸ Furthermore, implementing CMOP does not incur any cost for the IHS site. There is a nondrug cost for each prescription that is filled through CMOP. This cost was $2.67 during FY 2016.¹⁹ The fee covers prescription vial, label, packaging for mail, postage, personnel, building overhead, and equipment capitalization.¹⁹ The nondrug cost of filling a prescription locally at the site can potentially exceed the cost charged by CMOP.¹⁹

A lack of objective data exists to assess the net impact of CMOP on patients. Different theoretical assumptions can be made, such as CMOP resulting in better patient adherence. However, there is no objective information about how much CMOP improves patient adherence if it does at all. Though J.D. Power US Pharmacy Study ranks CMOP as “among the best” mail-order pharmacies in customer satisfaction, only 3 of the 44 responding sites have measured patient satisfaction locally.²⁰ Only 1 site had objective data about CMOP’s impact on the point of sale. Therefore, it is currently difficult to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the CMOP program. There are opportunities for further studies on these topics.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that < 50% of the CMOP-enrolled sites (44 of 94) responded to the questionnaire. It is possible that the facilities that had a significantly positive or negative experience with CMOP were more inclined to share their views. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether the responding sites are an accurate representative sample. Another limitation of the study was the questionnaire design and the reliance on free-text responses as opposed to structured data. The free-text responses had to be analyzed manually to determine whether they fall in the same category, thereby increasing the risk of interpretation error.

Conclusion

CMOP has its unique challenges but provides many benefits that local pharmacy mail-out programs may not possess, such as the abilities to mail refrigerated items and track packages. One must be familiar with CMOP’s various idiosyncrasies to make the best use of the program. Extensive staff education and orientation for new staff members must be done to familiarize them with the program. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of CMOP can lead to reduced pharmacy workload while increasing access to care for patients with transportation issues.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank LCDR Karsten Smith, PharmD, BCGP, the IHS CMOP Coordinator for providing the list of primary CMOP contacts and CDR Kendall Van Tyle, PharmD, BCPS, for proofreading the article.

Consolidated mail outpatient pharmacy (CMOP) is an automated prescription order processing and delivery system developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1994 to provide medications to VA patients.¹ In fiscal year (FY) 2016, CMOP filled about 80% of VA outpatient prescriptions.²

Formalized by the 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between Indian Health Service (IHS) and VA, CMOP is a partnership undertaken to improve the delivery of care to patients by both agencies.³ The number of prescriptions filled by CMOP for IHS patients increased from 1,972 in FY 2010 to 840,109 in FY 2018.⁴ In the fourth quarter of FY 2018, there were 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS federal and tribal sites.⁵ It is only appropriate that a growing number of IHS sites are adopting CMOP considering the evidence for mail-order pharmacy on better patient adherence, improved health outcomes, and potential cost savings.^6-9 Furthermore, using a centralized pharmacy operation, such as CMOP, can lead to better quality services.¹⁰

Crownpoint Health Care Facility (CHCF) serves > 30,000 American Indians and is in Crownpoint, New Mexico, a small community of about 3,000 people.¹¹ Most of the patients served by the facility live in distant places. Many of these underserved patients do not have a stable means of transportation.¹² Therefore, these patients may have difficulty traveling to the facility for their health care needs, including medication pickups. More than 2.5 million American Indians and Alaska Natives IHS beneficiaries face similar challenges due to the rurality of their communities.¹³ CMOP can be a method to increase access to care for this vulnerable population. However, the utilization of CMOP varies significantly among IHS facilities. While some IHS facilities process large numbers of prescriptions through CMOP, other facilities process few, if any. There also are IHS facilities, such as CHCF, which are at the initial stage of implementing CMOP or trying to increase the volume of prescriptions processed through CMOP. Although the utilization of CMOP has grown exponentially among IHS facilities, there is currently no available resource that summarizes the relative advantages and disadvantages, the challenges and opportunities, and the strengths and weaknesses of implementing CMOP for IHS facilities

Methods

A questionnaire encompassing various aspects of CMOP prescription processing was developed and distributed to the primary CMOP contacts for IHS facilities. The questionnaire was first distributed by e-mail on December 19, 2018. It was e-mailed for a second time on January 16, 2019, and the questionnaire was open for responses until the end of January 2019 (Table).

fdp03707325_t.png

Results

Forty-four of 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS sites responded to the questionnaire. Most sites train the majority of their pharmacists in CMOP prescription processing. Overall, 310 of 347 pharmacists (89%) in these 44 IHS sites can process prescriptions through CMOP. Thirty-one sites have all their pharmacists trained in CMOP prescription processing. Only 1 facility had less than half (2 of 17 pharmacists) of its pharmacists trained in CMOP prescription processing. More than half the total number of pharmacists, 185 out of 347 (53%), check electronic messages via Resource and Patient Management System (RPMS) MailMan to get information about prescriptions rejected by CMOP. Twenty sites have all their pharmacists check messages about CMOP rejections. However, 2 facilities reported that they do not check the rejection messages at all. Twenty-six of the 44 responding sites (59%) transmit prescriptions to CMOP manually in the electronic system. The rest (18 of 44) rely on the auto-transmission (AT) setup to transmit the CMOP-suspended prescriptions at specified times of the day.

Half the sites (8 of 16) that rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request do not use any method to designate a CMOP patient. Twenty-four sites use the narrative field on the patient’s profile in RPMS, the health information system used by most IHS facilities, to designate CMOP patients. Eighteen sites use pop-up messages on ScriptPro, a pharmacy automation system, as a designation method. Most of the sites (12 of 15) that use both RPMS and ScriptPro designation methods do not require patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request; prescriptions for these patients are routed through CMOP unless patients request otherwise. Only 3 of 44 sites use both methods and rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request. Some other reported designation methods were using the electronic health record (EHR) posting box, keeping a manual list of CMOP patients, and solely utilizing the Prescription Mail Delivery field in RPMS. Three sites also noted that they keep manual lists to auto-refill prescriptions through CMOP.

Thirty sites (68%) reported that they process every prescription through CMOP even if the patient had prescriptions with specified CMOP quantities. Only 8 sites (18%) said that they used the local mail-out program to keep the same days’ supply for all medication orders. For patients with CMOP-ineligible prescriptions, 34 of the 44 sites (77%) process the eligible prescriptions through CMOP and refill the rest of the prescriptions locally. Six sites (14%) process all medication orders locally for patients with any CMOP-ineligible prescriptions.

Only 12 of 44 sites (27%) involve pharmacy technicians in CMOP prescription processing. Five sites have technicians process prescription refills through CMOP. Two of these sites mentioned the strategy of technicians suspending the prescriptions to be sent to CMOP on the refill due date. Other technician roles included tracking CMOP packages, checking electronic messages for CMOP rejections, and signing up patients for CMOP.

Only 3 of the 44 sites (7%) have measured patient satisfaction with the CMOP program. One of these 3 sites reported that the overall satisfaction was high with CMOP. This site administered the survey to patients who came to the clinic for appointments. The second facility called patients and asked for their feedback. The third site conducted the survey by using student pharmacists. Two sites reported that they use the survey results from the CMOP-conducted patient satisfaction surveys, although they have not measured patient satisfaction at their specific facilities.

Most sites have not assessed CMOP’s impact on their insurance (point of sale) collections. However, 13 sites (30%) reported that they believe they are losing on collections by utilizing CMOP. The use of repackaged products by CMOP, which are usually nonreimbursable, is an issue that was mentioned multiple times. In contrast, 2 sites mentioned that CMOP has led to increased insurance collections for their facilities.

Discussion

The utility of CMOP among the responding IHS sites varies quite significantly. Some sites appreciate the convenience of CMOP while acknowledging its limitations, such as the possible decrease in insurance collections, lengthy prescription processing time, or medication backorders. However, some sites have reserved CMOP for special circumstances (eg, mailing refrigerated items to the patient’s street address) due to various complexities that may come with CMOP. One site reported that it compares IHS contract drug prices with VA contract drug prices quarterly to determine which prescriptions should be sent through CMOP.

Most of the IHS pharmacists (89%) are trained in CMOP prescription processing. If an IHS site wants to increase its volume of CMOP prescriptions, it is sensible to train as many pharmacists as possible so that the responsibility does not fall on a few pharmacists. Newly hired pharmacists can receive guidance from trained pharmacists. Designation methods for CMOP patients can be beneficial for these pharmacists to identify CMOP-enrolled patients, especially if the site does not require patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed at the time of refill request. Only 3 sites (7%) use multiple designation methods in addition to relying on patients to ask for prescriptions to be mailed. Proper implementation of designation methods can remove this extra burden on patients. Conversely, requiring patients to ask for prescriptions to be sent through CMOP can prevent spontaneous mail-outs if a CMOP-designated patient wants to pick up prescriptions locally. Overall, 16 sites (36%) rely on patients asking for prescriptions to be mailed.

One of the main benefits of CMOP is the ability to mail refrigerated items. Local pharmacy mail-out programs may not have this ability. Patients at rural locations often use post office (PO) boxes because they are unable to receive postal services at their physical addresses; however, they may receive packages through United Parcel Service (UPS) at their physical addresses. CMOP uses UPS to send refrigerated items, but UPS does not deliver to PO boxes. Therefore, remotely located sites like CHCF have difficulty in fully optimizing this benefit. One solution is documenting both the physical and mailing addresses on the patient’s EHR, which enables CMOP to send refrigerated items to the patient’s home address via UPS and mail the rest of the prescriptions to the patient’s PO box address with the US Postal Service. The physical address must be listed above the PO box address to ensure that refrigerated items are not rejected by CMOP. Furthermore, both the physical address and the PO box address must be in the same city for this method to work. Two sites noted mailing refrigerated items as one of the major challenges in CMOP prescription processing.

CMOP-enrolled patients must be educated about requesting medications 7 to 10 days before they run out. There is no standard time line for prescriptions filled by CMOP. However, 1 site reported that it may take up to “10 days from time requested to mailbox.” This delay leads to pharmacies facing a dilemma as processing prescriptions too early can lead to insurance rejections, but processing them too late can lead to the patient not receiving the medication by the time they run out of their current supply. However, CMOP provides the ability to track prescriptions sent through CMOP. Pharmacists and technicians need to have access to BestWay Parcel Services Client Portal (genco-mms.bestwayparcel.com) to track CMOP packages. Tracking CMOP prescriptions is a way pharmacy technicians can be involved in CMOP prescription processing. Technicians seem to be underutilized, as only 27% of the responding sites utilize them to some degree in the CMOP process. One site delegated the responsibility of checking CMOP rejection messages to pharmacy technicians. Since 2 of the responding sites do not check CMOP rejection messages at all, this is an excellent opportunity to get pharmacy technicians involved.

A CMOP auto-refill program can potentially be utilized to avoid missed or late medications. In an auto-refill program, a pharmacist can refill prescriptions through CMOP on the due date without a patient request. They may get rejected by insurance the first time they are processed through CMOP for refilling too early if the processing time is taken into account. However, the subsequent refills do not have to consider the CMOP processing time as they would already be synchronized based on the last refill date. Though, if CMOP is out of stock on a medication and it is expected to be available soon, CMOP may take a few extra days to either fill the prescription or reject it if the drug stays unavailable. One of the sites reported “the amount of time [CMOP] holds medications if they are out of stock” as “the hardest thing to work around.” A couple of sites also mentioned the longer than usual delay in processing prescriptions by CMOP during the holidays as one of the major challenges.

CMOP use of repackaged products also may lead insurance companies to deny reimbursement. Repackaged products are usually cheaper to buy.¹⁴ However, most insurances do not reimburse for prescriptions filled with these products.¹⁵ The local drug file on RPMS may have a national drug code (NDC) that is reimbursable by insurance, but CMOP will change it to the repackaged NDC if they are filling the prescription with a repackaged product. One potential solution to this problem would be filling these prescriptions locally. Furthermore, insurance claims are processed when the prescriptions are filled by CMOP. Sites cannot return/cancel the prescription anymore at that point. Therefore, the inability to see real-time rejections as the medication orders are processed on-site makes it challenging to prevent avoidable insurance rejections, such as a refill too soon. One site calculated that it lost $26,386.45 by utilizing CMOP from January 9, 2018 to December 12, 2018. However, it is unclear whether this loss was representative of other sites. It is also worth noting that IHS sites can save a substantial amount of money on certain products by utilizing CMOP because VA buys these products at a reduced price.¹⁶

CMOP-transmitted prescriptions can be rejected for various reasons, such as CMOP manufacturer’s backorder, a different quantity from CMOP stock size, etc. Information about these rejected prescriptions is accessed through electronic messages on RPMS. CMOP does not dispense less than a full, unopened package for most over-the-counter (OTC) medications. The quantity on these prescriptions must be equal to or multiples of the package size for them to be filled by CMOP. This can lead to a patient having prescriptions with different days’ supplies, which results in various refill due dates. If a site has a local mail-out program available, it can potentially keep the same days’ supply for all prescriptions by mailing these OTC medications locally rather than utilizing CMOP. However, this can partially negate CMOP’s benefit of reduced workload.

CMOP also has specified quantities on some prescription medications. One survey respondent viewed “the quantity and day supply required by CMOP” as a negative influence on the site’s insurance collection. It is possible that CMOP does not carry all the medications that a CMOP-enrolled patient is prescribed. Most sites (77%) still send eligible prescriptions through CMOP for the patients who also have CMOP-ineligible prescriptions. There are a small number of sites (14%) that utilize local mail-out program for the patients with any CMOP-ineligible prescriptions, possibly to simplify the process. Schedule II controlled substances cannot be processed through CMOP either; however, facilities may have local policies that prohibit mailing any controlled substances.

Prescriptions can be manually transmitted to CMOP, or they can be automatically transmitted based on the run time and frequency of the auto-transmission setup. The prescriptions that are waiting to be transmitted to CMOP must be in the “suspended” status. The apparent advantage of relying on auto-transmission is that you do not have to complete the steps manually to transmit suspended CMOP prescriptions, thereby making the process more convenient. However, the manual transmission can be utilized as a checkpoint to verify that prescriptions were properly suspended for CMOP, as the prescription status changes from “S” (suspended) to “AT” once the transmission is completed. If a prescription is not properly suspended for CMOP, the status will remain as S even after manual transmission. More than half (59%) of the responding sites must find the manual transmission feature useful as they use it either over or in addition to the auto-transmission setup.

Despite the challenges, many IHS sites process thousands of monthly prescriptions through CMOP. Of the 94 CMOP-enrolled IHS sites, 17 processed > 1,000 prescriptions from March 27, 2019 to April 25, 2019.¹⁷ Five sites processed > 5,000 prescriptions.¹⁷ At the rate of > 5,000 prescriptions per month, the yearly CMOP prescription count will be > 60,000. That is more than one-third of the prescriptions processed by CHCF in 2018. By handling these prescriptions through CMOP, it can decrease pharmacy filling and dispensing workload, thereby freeing pharmacists to participate in other services.¹⁸ Furthermore, implementing CMOP does not incur any cost for the IHS site. There is a nondrug cost for each prescription that is filled through CMOP. This cost was $2.67 during FY 2016.¹⁹ The fee covers prescription vial, label, packaging for mail, postage, personnel, building overhead, and equipment capitalization.¹⁹ The nondrug cost of filling a prescription locally at the site can potentially exceed the cost charged by CMOP.¹⁹

A lack of objective data exists to assess the net impact of CMOP on patients. Different theoretical assumptions can be made, such as CMOP resulting in better patient adherence. However, there is no objective information about how much CMOP improves patient adherence if it does at all. Though J.D. Power US Pharmacy Study ranks CMOP as “among the best” mail-order pharmacies in customer satisfaction, only 3 of the 44 responding sites have measured patient satisfaction locally.²⁰ Only 1 site had objective data about CMOP’s impact on the point of sale. Therefore, it is currently difficult to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the CMOP program. There are opportunities for further studies on these topics.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that < 50% of the CMOP-enrolled sites (44 of 94) responded to the questionnaire. It is possible that the facilities that had a significantly positive or negative experience with CMOP were more inclined to share their views. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether the responding sites are an accurate representative sample. Another limitation of the study was the questionnaire design and the reliance on free-text responses as opposed to structured data. The free-text responses had to be analyzed manually to determine whether they fall in the same category, thereby increasing the risk of interpretation error.

Conclusion

CMOP has its unique challenges but provides many benefits that local pharmacy mail-out programs may not possess, such as the abilities to mail refrigerated items and track packages. One must be familiar with CMOP’s various idiosyncrasies to make the best use of the program. Extensive staff education and orientation for new staff members must be done to familiarize them with the program. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of CMOP can lead to reduced pharmacy workload while increasing access to care for patients with transportation issues.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank LCDR Karsten Smith, PharmD, BCGP, the IHS CMOP Coordinator for providing the list of primary CMOP contacts and CDR Kendall Van Tyle, PharmD, BCPS, for proofreading the article.

COVID-19 has created stressors that are unprecedented in our modern era, prompting health care systems to adapt rapidly. Demand for telehealth has skyrocketed, and clinicians, many of whom had planned to adopt virtual practices in the future, have been pressured to do so immediately.¹ In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded telehealth services, removing many barriers to virtual care.² Similar remedy was not necessary for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) which reported more than 2.6 million episodes of telehealth care in 2019.³ By the time the pandemic was underway in the US, use of telehealth was widespread across the agency. In late March 2020, VHA released a COVID-19 Response Plan, in which telehealth played a critical role in safe, uninterrupted delivery of services.⁴ While telehealth has been widely used in VHA, the call for replacement of most in-person outpatient visits with telehealth visits was a fundamental paradigm shift for many patients and clinicians.⁴

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (HR 748) gave the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funding to expand coronavirus-related telehealth services, including the purchase of mobile devices and broadband expansion. CARES authorized the agency to expand telemental health services, enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, temporarily waived an in-person home visit requirement (accepting video and phone calls as an alternative), and provided means to make telehealth available for homeless veterans and case managers through the HUD-VASH (US Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing) program.

VHA is a national telehealth exemplar, initiating telehealth by use of closed-circuit televisions as early as 1968, and continuing to expand through 2017 with the implementation of the Veterans Video Connect (VVC) platform.⁵ VVC has enabled veterans to participate in virtual visits from distant locations, including their homes. VVC was used successfully during hurricanes Sandy, Harvey, Irma, and Maria and is being widely deployed in the current crisis.^6-8

While telehealth can take many forms, the current discussion will focus on live (synchronous) videoconferencing: a 2-way audiovisual link between a patient and clinician, such as VVC, which enables patients to maintain a safe and social distance from others while connecting with the health care team and receiving urgent as well as ongoing medical care for both new and established conditions.⁹ VHA has developed multiple training resources for use of VVC across many settings, including primary care, mental health, and specialties. In this review, we will make the novel case for applying a trauma-informed lens to telehealth care across VHA and beyond to other health care systems.

Trauma-Informed Care

Although our current focus is rightly on mitigating the health effects of a pandemic, we must recognize that stressful phenomena like COVID-19 occur against a backdrop of widespread physical, sexual, psychological, and racial trauma in our communities. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) describes trauma as resulting from “an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being.”¹⁰ Trauma exposure is both ubiquitous worldwide and inequitably distributed, with vulnerable populations disproportionately impacted.^11,12

Veterans as a population are often highly trauma exposed, and while VHA routinely screens for experiences of trauma, such as military sexual trauma (MST) and intimate partner violence (IPV), and potential mental health sequelae of trauma, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and suicidality, veterans may experience other forms of trauma or be unwilling or unable to talk about past exposures.¹³ One common example is that of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), which include household dysfunction, neglect, and physical and sexual abuse before the age of 18 years.¹⁴ ACEs have been associated with a wide range of risk behaviors and poor health outcomes in adulthood.¹⁴ In population-based data, both male and female veterans have reported higher ACE scores.¹⁵ In addition, ACE scores are higher overall for those serving in the all-volunteer era (after July 1, 1973).¹⁶ Because trauma may be unseen, unmeasured, and unnamed, it is important to deliver all medical care with sensitivity to its potential presence.

It is important to distinguish the concept of trauma-informed care (TIC) from trauma-focused services. Trauma-focused or trauma-specific treatment refers to evidence-based and best practice treatment models that have been proven to facilitate recovery from problems resulting from the experience of trauma, such as PTSD.¹⁷ These treatments directly address the emotional, behavioral, and physiologic impact of trauma on an individual’s life and facilitate improvement in related symptoms and functioning: They are designed to treat the consequences of trauma. VHA offers a wide range of trauma-specific treatments, and considerable experience in delivering evidence-based trauma-focused treatment through telehealth exists.^18,19 Given the range of possible responses to the experience of trauma, not all veterans with trauma histories need to, chose to, or feel ready to access trauma-specific treatments.²⁰

In contrast, TIC is a global, universal precautions approach to providing quality care that can be applied to all aspects of health care and to all patients.²¹ TIC is a strengths-based service delivery framework that is grounded in an understanding of, and responsiveness to, the disempowering impact of experiencing trauma. It seeks to maximize physical, psychological, and emotional safety in all health care encounters, not just those that are specifically trauma-focused, and creates opportunities to rebuild a sense of control and empowerment while fostering healing through safe and collaborative patient-clinician relationships.²² TIC is not accomplished through any single technique or checklist but through continuous appraisal of approaches to care delivery. SAMHSA has elucidated 6 fundamental principles of TIC: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment; voice and choice; and sensitivity to cultural, historical, and gender issues.¹⁰

TIC is based on the understanding that often traditional service delivery models of care may trigger, silence, or disempower survivors of trauma, exacerbating physical and mental health symptoms and potentially increasing disengagement from care and poorer outcomes.²³ Currier and colleagues aptly noted, “TIC assumes that trustworthiness is not something that an organization creates in a veteran client, but something that he or she will freely grant to an organization.”²⁴ Given the global prevalence of trauma, its well-established and deleterious impact on lifelong health, and the potential for health care itself to be traumatizing, TIC is a fundamental construct to apply universally with any patient at any time, especially in the context of a large-scale community trauma, such as a pandemic.¹²

Trauma-Informed COVID-19 Care

Catastrophic events, such as natural disasters and pandemics, may serve as both newly traumatic and as potential triggers for survivors who have endured prior trauma.^25,26 Increases in depression, PTSD, and substance use disorder (SUD) are common sequalae, occurring during the event, the immediate aftermath, and beyond.^25,27 In 2003, quarantine contained the spread of Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) but resulted in a high prevalence of psychological distress, including PTSD and depression.²⁷ Many veterans may have deployed in support of humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions, which typically do not involve armed combat but may expose service members to warlike situations, including social insecurity and suffering populations.²⁸ COVID-19 may be reminiscent of some of these deployments as well.

The impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on patients is pervasive. Those with preexisting financial insecurity now face additional economic hardship and health challenges, which are amplified by loneliness and loss of social support networks.²⁶ Widespread unemployment and closures of many businesses add to stress and may exacerbate preexisting mental and physical health concerns for many; some veterans also may be at increased risk.²⁹ While previous postdisaster research suggests that psychopathology in the general population will significantly remit over time, high-risk groups remain vulnerable to PTSD and bear the brunt of social and economic consequences associated with the crisis.²⁵ Veterans with preexisting trauma histories and mental health conditions are at increased risk for being retraumatized by the current pandemic and impacted by isolation and unplanned job or wage loss from it.²⁹ Compounding this, social distancing serves to protect communities but may amplify isolation and danger in abusive relationships or exacerbate underlying mental illness.^26,30

Thus, as we expand our use of telehealth, replacing our face-to-face visits with virtual encounters, it is critical for clinicians to be mindful that the pandemic and public health responses to it may result in trauma and retraumatization for veterans and other vulnerable patients, which in turn can impact both access and response to care. The application of trauma-informed principles to our virtual encounters has the potential to mitigate some of these health impacts, increase engagement in care, and provide opportunities for protective, healing connections.

In the setting of the continued fear and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe that application of a trauma-informed lens to telehealth efforts is timely. While virtual visits may seem to lack the warmth and immediacy of traditional medical encounters, accumulated experience suggests otherwise.¹⁹ Telehealth is fundamentally more patient-focused than traditional encounters, overcomes service delivery barriers, offers a greater range of options for treatment engagement, and can enhance clinician-patient partnerships.^6,31,32 Although the rapid transition to telehealth may be challenging for those new to it, experienced clinicians and patients express high degrees of satisfaction with virtual care because direct communication is unhampered by in-office challenges and travel logistics.³³

While it may feel daunting to integrate principles of TIC into telehealth during a crisis-driven scale-up, a growing practice and body of research can inform these efforts. To help better understand how trauma-exposed patients respond to telehealth, we reviewed findings from trauma-focused telemental health (TMH) treatment. This research demonstrates that telehealth promotes safety and collaboration—fundamental principles of TIC—that can, in turn, be applied to telehealth visits in primary care and other medical and surgical specialties. When compared with traditional in-person treatment, studies of both individual and group formats of TMH found no significant differences in satisfaction, acceptability, or outcomes (such as reduction in PTSD symptom severity scores³⁴), and TMH did not impede development of rapport.^19,35

Although counterintuitive, the virtual space created by the combined physical and psychological distance of videoconferencing has been shown to promote safety and transparency. In TMH, patients have reported greater honesty due to the protection afforded by this virtual space.³¹ Engaging in telehealth visits from the comfort of one’s home can feel emotionally safer than having to travel to a medical office, resulting in feeling more at ease during encounters.³¹ In one TMH study, veterans with PTSD described high comfort levels and ability to let their guard down during virtual treatment.¹⁹ Similarly, in palliative telehealth care, patients reported that clinicians successfully nurtured an experience of intimacy, expressed empathy verbally and nonverbally, and responded to the patient’s unique situation and emotions.³³

Trauma-Informed Telehealth

We have discussed how telehealth’s greater flexibility may create an ideal environment in which to implement principles of TIC. It may allow increased collaboration and closeness between patients and clinicians, empowering patients to codesign their care.^31,33 The Table reviews 6 core SAMHSA principles of TIC and offers examples of their application to telehealth visits. The following case illustrates the application of trauma-informed telehealth care.

Case Presentation

S is a 45-year-old male veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) who served as a combat medic. He has a history of osteoarthritis and PTSD related to combat experiences like caring for traumatic amputees. Before the pandemic began, he was employed as a server at a local restaurant but was laid off as the business transitioned to takeout orders only. The patient worked near a VA primary care clinic and frequently dropped by to see the staff and to pick up prescriptions. He had never agreed to video visits despite receiving encouragement from his medical team. He was reluctant to try telehealth, but he had developed a painful, itchy rash on his lower leg and was concerned about getting care.

fdp03707302_t.png

For patients like S who may be reluctant to try telehealth, it is important to understand the cause. Potential barriers to telehealth may include lack of Internet access or familiarity with technology, discomfort with being on video, shame about the appearance of one’s home, or a strong cultural preference for face-to-face medical visits. Some may miss the social support benefit of coming into a clinic, particularly in VHA, which is designed specifically for veteran patients. For these reasons it is important to offer the patient a choice and to begin with a supportive phone call that explores and strives to address the patient’s concerns about videoconferencing.

The clinic nurse called S who agreed to try a VVC visit with gentle encouragement. He shared that he was embarrassed about the appearance of his apartment and fearful about pictures being recorded of his body due to “a bad experience in my past.” The patient was reassured that visits are private and will not be recorded. The nurse also reminded him that he can choose the location in which the visit will take place and can turn his camera off at any time. Importantly, the nurse did not ask him to recount additional details of what happened in his past. Next, the nurse verified his location and contact information and explained why obtaining this information was necessary. Next, she asked his consent to proceed with the visit, reminding him that the visit can end at any point if he feels uncomfortable. After finishing this initial discussion, the nurse told him that his primary care physician (PCP) would join the visit and address his concerns with his leg.

S was happy to see his PCP despite his hesitations about video care. The PCP noticed that he seemed anxious and was avoiding talking about the rash. Knowing that he was anxious about this VVC visit, the PCP was careful to look directly at the camera to make eye contact and to be sure her face was well lit and not in shadows. She gave him some time to acclimate to the virtual environment and thanked him for joining the visit. Knowing that he was a combat veteran, she warned him that there have been sudden, loud construction noises outside her window. Although the PCP was pressed for time, she was aware that S may have had a previous difficult experience around images of his body or even combat-related trauma. She gently brought up the rash and asked for permission to examine it, avoiding commands or personalizing language such as “show me your leg” or “take off your pants for me.”³⁶After some hesitation, the patient revealed his leg that appeared to have multiple excoriations and old scars from picking. After the examination, the PCP waited until the patient’s leg was fully covered before beginning a discussion of the care plan. Together they collaboratively reviewed treatments that would soothe the skin. They decided to virtually consult a social worker to obtain emergency economic assistance and to speak with the patient’s care team psychologist to reduce some of the anxiety that may be leading to his leg scratching.

Case Discussion

This case illustrates the ways in which TIC can be applied to telehealth for a veteran with combat-related PTSD who may have experienced additional interpersonal trauma. It was not necessary to know more detail about the veteran’s trauma history to conduct the visit in a trauma-informed manner. Connecting to patients at home while considering these principles may thus foster mutuality, mitigate retraumatization, and cultivate enhanced collaboration with health care teams in this era of social distancing.

While a virtual physical examination creates both limitations and opportunity in telehealth, patients may find the greater degree of choice over their clothing and surroundings to be empowering. Telehealth also can allow for a greater portion of time to be dedicated to quality discussion and collaborative planning, with the clinician hearing and responding to the patient’s needs with reduced distraction. This may include opportunities to discuss mental health concerns openly, normalize emotional reactions, and offer connection to mental health and support services available through telehealth, including for patients who have not previously engaged in such care.

Conclusions

Telehealth expansion is occurring out of necessity in a time of crisis. While VHA is expanding its already robust telehealth program to replace some in-person visits, many other health care systems are just beginning to use telehealth. Trauma-informed virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to ensure and even expand continuity of medical care, offer connection and support to trauma survivors, and enhance patient and clinician resilience in this time of need. Clinicians have a unique opportunity in this pandemic to apply TIC principles early on and to envision how telehealth may contribute to a more meaningful care experience for all and a more equitable future for those we care for.

COVID-19 has created stressors that are unprecedented in our modern era, prompting health care systems to adapt rapidly. Demand for telehealth has skyrocketed, and clinicians, many of whom had planned to adopt virtual practices in the future, have been pressured to do so immediately.¹ In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded telehealth services, removing many barriers to virtual care.² Similar remedy was not necessary for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) which reported more than 2.6 million episodes of telehealth care in 2019.³ By the time the pandemic was underway in the US, use of telehealth was widespread across the agency. In late March 2020, VHA released a COVID-19 Response Plan, in which telehealth played a critical role in safe, uninterrupted delivery of services.⁴ While telehealth has been widely used in VHA, the call for replacement of most in-person outpatient visits with telehealth visits was a fundamental paradigm shift for many patients and clinicians.⁴

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (HR 748) gave the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funding to expand coronavirus-related telehealth services, including the purchase of mobile devices and broadband expansion. CARES authorized the agency to expand telemental health services, enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, temporarily waived an in-person home visit requirement (accepting video and phone calls as an alternative), and provided means to make telehealth available for homeless veterans and case managers through the HUD-VASH (US Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing) program.

VHA is a national telehealth exemplar, initiating telehealth by use of closed-circuit televisions as early as 1968, and continuing to expand through 2017 with the implementation of the Veterans Video Connect (VVC) platform.⁵ VVC has enabled veterans to participate in virtual visits from distant locations, including their homes. VVC was used successfully during hurricanes Sandy, Harvey, Irma, and Maria and is being widely deployed in the current crisis.^6-8

While telehealth can take many forms, the current discussion will focus on live (synchronous) videoconferencing: a 2-way audiovisual link between a patient and clinician, such as VVC, which enables patients to maintain a safe and social distance from others while connecting with the health care team and receiving urgent as well as ongoing medical care for both new and established conditions.⁹ VHA has developed multiple training resources for use of VVC across many settings, including primary care, mental health, and specialties. In this review, we will make the novel case for applying a trauma-informed lens to telehealth care across VHA and beyond to other health care systems.

Trauma-Informed Care

Although our current focus is rightly on mitigating the health effects of a pandemic, we must recognize that stressful phenomena like COVID-19 occur against a backdrop of widespread physical, sexual, psychological, and racial trauma in our communities. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) describes trauma as resulting from “an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being.”¹⁰ Trauma exposure is both ubiquitous worldwide and inequitably distributed, with vulnerable populations disproportionately impacted.^11,12

Veterans as a population are often highly trauma exposed, and while VHA routinely screens for experiences of trauma, such as military sexual trauma (MST) and intimate partner violence (IPV), and potential mental health sequelae of trauma, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and suicidality, veterans may experience other forms of trauma or be unwilling or unable to talk about past exposures.¹³ One common example is that of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), which include household dysfunction, neglect, and physical and sexual abuse before the age of 18 years.¹⁴ ACEs have been associated with a wide range of risk behaviors and poor health outcomes in adulthood.¹⁴ In population-based data, both male and female veterans have reported higher ACE scores.¹⁵ In addition, ACE scores are higher overall for those serving in the all-volunteer era (after July 1, 1973).¹⁶ Because trauma may be unseen, unmeasured, and unnamed, it is important to deliver all medical care with sensitivity to its potential presence.

It is important to distinguish the concept of trauma-informed care (TIC) from trauma-focused services. Trauma-focused or trauma-specific treatment refers to evidence-based and best practice treatment models that have been proven to facilitate recovery from problems resulting from the experience of trauma, such as PTSD.¹⁷ These treatments directly address the emotional, behavioral, and physiologic impact of trauma on an individual’s life and facilitate improvement in related symptoms and functioning: They are designed to treat the consequences of trauma. VHA offers a wide range of trauma-specific treatments, and considerable experience in delivering evidence-based trauma-focused treatment through telehealth exists.^18,19 Given the range of possible responses to the experience of trauma, not all veterans with trauma histories need to, chose to, or feel ready to access trauma-specific treatments.²⁰

In contrast, TIC is a global, universal precautions approach to providing quality care that can be applied to all aspects of health care and to all patients.²¹ TIC is a strengths-based service delivery framework that is grounded in an understanding of, and responsiveness to, the disempowering impact of experiencing trauma. It seeks to maximize physical, psychological, and emotional safety in all health care encounters, not just those that are specifically trauma-focused, and creates opportunities to rebuild a sense of control and empowerment while fostering healing through safe and collaborative patient-clinician relationships.²² TIC is not accomplished through any single technique or checklist but through continuous appraisal of approaches to care delivery. SAMHSA has elucidated 6 fundamental principles of TIC: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment; voice and choice; and sensitivity to cultural, historical, and gender issues.¹⁰

TIC is based on the understanding that often traditional service delivery models of care may trigger, silence, or disempower survivors of trauma, exacerbating physical and mental health symptoms and potentially increasing disengagement from care and poorer outcomes.²³ Currier and colleagues aptly noted, “TIC assumes that trustworthiness is not something that an organization creates in a veteran client, but something that he or she will freely grant to an organization.”²⁴ Given the global prevalence of trauma, its well-established and deleterious impact on lifelong health, and the potential for health care itself to be traumatizing, TIC is a fundamental construct to apply universally with any patient at any time, especially in the context of a large-scale community trauma, such as a pandemic.¹²

Trauma-Informed COVID-19 Care

Catastrophic events, such as natural disasters and pandemics, may serve as both newly traumatic and as potential triggers for survivors who have endured prior trauma.^25,26 Increases in depression, PTSD, and substance use disorder (SUD) are common sequalae, occurring during the event, the immediate aftermath, and beyond.^25,27 In 2003, quarantine contained the spread of Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) but resulted in a high prevalence of psychological distress, including PTSD and depression.²⁷ Many veterans may have deployed in support of humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions, which typically do not involve armed combat but may expose service members to warlike situations, including social insecurity and suffering populations.²⁸ COVID-19 may be reminiscent of some of these deployments as well.

The impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on patients is pervasive. Those with preexisting financial insecurity now face additional economic hardship and health challenges, which are amplified by loneliness and loss of social support networks.²⁶ Widespread unemployment and closures of many businesses add to stress and may exacerbate preexisting mental and physical health concerns for many; some veterans also may be at increased risk.²⁹ While previous postdisaster research suggests that psychopathology in the general population will significantly remit over time, high-risk groups remain vulnerable to PTSD and bear the brunt of social and economic consequences associated with the crisis.²⁵ Veterans with preexisting trauma histories and mental health conditions are at increased risk for being retraumatized by the current pandemic and impacted by isolation and unplanned job or wage loss from it.²⁹ Compounding this, social distancing serves to protect communities but may amplify isolation and danger in abusive relationships or exacerbate underlying mental illness.^26,30

Thus, as we expand our use of telehealth, replacing our face-to-face visits with virtual encounters, it is critical for clinicians to be mindful that the pandemic and public health responses to it may result in trauma and retraumatization for veterans and other vulnerable patients, which in turn can impact both access and response to care. The application of trauma-informed principles to our virtual encounters has the potential to mitigate some of these health impacts, increase engagement in care, and provide opportunities for protective, healing connections.

In the setting of the continued fear and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe that application of a trauma-informed lens to telehealth efforts is timely. While virtual visits may seem to lack the warmth and immediacy of traditional medical encounters, accumulated experience suggests otherwise.¹⁹ Telehealth is fundamentally more patient-focused than traditional encounters, overcomes service delivery barriers, offers a greater range of options for treatment engagement, and can enhance clinician-patient partnerships.^6,31,32 Although the rapid transition to telehealth may be challenging for those new to it, experienced clinicians and patients express high degrees of satisfaction with virtual care because direct communication is unhampered by in-office challenges and travel logistics.³³

While it may feel daunting to integrate principles of TIC into telehealth during a crisis-driven scale-up, a growing practice and body of research can inform these efforts. To help better understand how trauma-exposed patients respond to telehealth, we reviewed findings from trauma-focused telemental health (TMH) treatment. This research demonstrates that telehealth promotes safety and collaboration—fundamental principles of TIC—that can, in turn, be applied to telehealth visits in primary care and other medical and surgical specialties. When compared with traditional in-person treatment, studies of both individual and group formats of TMH found no significant differences in satisfaction, acceptability, or outcomes (such as reduction in PTSD symptom severity scores³⁴), and TMH did not impede development of rapport.^19,35

Although counterintuitive, the virtual space created by the combined physical and psychological distance of videoconferencing has been shown to promote safety and transparency. In TMH, patients have reported greater honesty due to the protection afforded by this virtual space.³¹ Engaging in telehealth visits from the comfort of one’s home can feel emotionally safer than having to travel to a medical office, resulting in feeling more at ease during encounters.³¹ In one TMH study, veterans with PTSD described high comfort levels and ability to let their guard down during virtual treatment.¹⁹ Similarly, in palliative telehealth care, patients reported that clinicians successfully nurtured an experience of intimacy, expressed empathy verbally and nonverbally, and responded to the patient’s unique situation and emotions.³³

Trauma-Informed Telehealth

We have discussed how telehealth’s greater flexibility may create an ideal environment in which to implement principles of TIC. It may allow increased collaboration and closeness between patients and clinicians, empowering patients to codesign their care.^31,33 The Table reviews 6 core SAMHSA principles of TIC and offers examples of their application to telehealth visits. The following case illustrates the application of trauma-informed telehealth care.

Case Presentation

S is a 45-year-old male veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) who served as a combat medic. He has a history of osteoarthritis and PTSD related to combat experiences like caring for traumatic amputees. Before the pandemic began, he was employed as a server at a local restaurant but was laid off as the business transitioned to takeout orders only. The patient worked near a VA primary care clinic and frequently dropped by to see the staff and to pick up prescriptions. He had never agreed to video visits despite receiving encouragement from his medical team. He was reluctant to try telehealth, but he had developed a painful, itchy rash on his lower leg and was concerned about getting care.

fdp03707302_t.png

For patients like S who may be reluctant to try telehealth, it is important to understand the cause. Potential barriers to telehealth may include lack of Internet access or familiarity with technology, discomfort with being on video, shame about the appearance of one’s home, or a strong cultural preference for face-to-face medical visits. Some may miss the social support benefit of coming into a clinic, particularly in VHA, which is designed specifically for veteran patients. For these reasons it is important to offer the patient a choice and to begin with a supportive phone call that explores and strives to address the patient’s concerns about videoconferencing.

The clinic nurse called S who agreed to try a VVC visit with gentle encouragement. He shared that he was embarrassed about the appearance of his apartment and fearful about pictures being recorded of his body due to “a bad experience in my past.” The patient was reassured that visits are private and will not be recorded. The nurse also reminded him that he can choose the location in which the visit will take place and can turn his camera off at any time. Importantly, the nurse did not ask him to recount additional details of what happened in his past. Next, the nurse verified his location and contact information and explained why obtaining this information was necessary. Next, she asked his consent to proceed with the visit, reminding him that the visit can end at any point if he feels uncomfortable. After finishing this initial discussion, the nurse told him that his primary care physician (PCP) would join the visit and address his concerns with his leg.

S was happy to see his PCP despite his hesitations about video care. The PCP noticed that he seemed anxious and was avoiding talking about the rash. Knowing that he was anxious about this VVC visit, the PCP was careful to look directly at the camera to make eye contact and to be sure her face was well lit and not in shadows. She gave him some time to acclimate to the virtual environment and thanked him for joining the visit. Knowing that he was a combat veteran, she warned him that there have been sudden, loud construction noises outside her window. Although the PCP was pressed for time, she was aware that S may have had a previous difficult experience around images of his body or even combat-related trauma. She gently brought up the rash and asked for permission to examine it, avoiding commands or personalizing language such as “show me your leg” or “take off your pants for me.”³⁶After some hesitation, the patient revealed his leg that appeared to have multiple excoriations and old scars from picking. After the examination, the PCP waited until the patient’s leg was fully covered before beginning a discussion of the care plan. Together they collaboratively reviewed treatments that would soothe the skin. They decided to virtually consult a social worker to obtain emergency economic assistance and to speak with the patient’s care team psychologist to reduce some of the anxiety that may be leading to his leg scratching.

Case Discussion

This case illustrates the ways in which TIC can be applied to telehealth for a veteran with combat-related PTSD who may have experienced additional interpersonal trauma. It was not necessary to know more detail about the veteran’s trauma history to conduct the visit in a trauma-informed manner. Connecting to patients at home while considering these principles may thus foster mutuality, mitigate retraumatization, and cultivate enhanced collaboration with health care teams in this era of social distancing.

While a virtual physical examination creates both limitations and opportunity in telehealth, patients may find the greater degree of choice over their clothing and surroundings to be empowering. Telehealth also can allow for a greater portion of time to be dedicated to quality discussion and collaborative planning, with the clinician hearing and responding to the patient’s needs with reduced distraction. This may include opportunities to discuss mental health concerns openly, normalize emotional reactions, and offer connection to mental health and support services available through telehealth, including for patients who have not previously engaged in such care.

Conclusions

Telehealth expansion is occurring out of necessity in a time of crisis. While VHA is expanding its already robust telehealth program to replace some in-person visits, many other health care systems are just beginning to use telehealth. Trauma-informed virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to ensure and even expand continuity of medical care, offer connection and support to trauma survivors, and enhance patient and clinician resilience in this time of need. Clinicians have a unique opportunity in this pandemic to apply TIC principles early on and to envision how telehealth may contribute to a more meaningful care experience for all and a more equitable future for those we care for.

COVID-19 has created stressors that are unprecedented in our modern era, prompting health care systems to adapt rapidly. Demand for telehealth has skyrocketed, and clinicians, many of whom had planned to adopt virtual practices in the future, have been pressured to do so immediately.¹ In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded telehealth services, removing many barriers to virtual care.² Similar remedy was not necessary for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) which reported more than 2.6 million episodes of telehealth care in 2019.³ By the time the pandemic was underway in the US, use of telehealth was widespread across the agency. In late March 2020, VHA released a COVID-19 Response Plan, in which telehealth played a critical role in safe, uninterrupted delivery of services.⁴ While telehealth has been widely used in VHA, the call for replacement of most in-person outpatient visits with telehealth visits was a fundamental paradigm shift for many patients and clinicians.⁴

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (HR 748) gave the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funding to expand coronavirus-related telehealth services, including the purchase of mobile devices and broadband expansion. CARES authorized the agency to expand telemental health services, enter into short-term agreements with telecommunications companies to provide temporary broadband services to veterans, temporarily waived an in-person home visit requirement (accepting video and phone calls as an alternative), and provided means to make telehealth available for homeless veterans and case managers through the HUD-VASH (US Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing) program.

VHA is a national telehealth exemplar, initiating telehealth by use of closed-circuit televisions as early as 1968, and continuing to expand through 2017 with the implementation of the Veterans Video Connect (VVC) platform.⁵ VVC has enabled veterans to participate in virtual visits from distant locations, including their homes. VVC was used successfully during hurricanes Sandy, Harvey, Irma, and Maria and is being widely deployed in the current crisis.^6-8

While telehealth can take many forms, the current discussion will focus on live (synchronous) videoconferencing: a 2-way audiovisual link between a patient and clinician, such as VVC, which enables patients to maintain a safe and social distance from others while connecting with the health care team and receiving urgent as well as ongoing medical care for both new and established conditions.⁹ VHA has developed multiple training resources for use of VVC across many settings, including primary care, mental health, and specialties. In this review, we will make the novel case for applying a trauma-informed lens to telehealth care across VHA and beyond to other health care systems.

Trauma-Informed Care

Although our current focus is rightly on mitigating the health effects of a pandemic, we must recognize that stressful phenomena like COVID-19 occur against a backdrop of widespread physical, sexual, psychological, and racial trauma in our communities. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) describes trauma as resulting from “an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being.”¹⁰ Trauma exposure is both ubiquitous worldwide and inequitably distributed, with vulnerable populations disproportionately impacted.^11,12

Veterans as a population are often highly trauma exposed, and while VHA routinely screens for experiences of trauma, such as military sexual trauma (MST) and intimate partner violence (IPV), and potential mental health sequelae of trauma, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and suicidality, veterans may experience other forms of trauma or be unwilling or unable to talk about past exposures.¹³ One common example is that of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), which include household dysfunction, neglect, and physical and sexual abuse before the age of 18 years.¹⁴ ACEs have been associated with a wide range of risk behaviors and poor health outcomes in adulthood.¹⁴ In population-based data, both male and female veterans have reported higher ACE scores.¹⁵ In addition, ACE scores are higher overall for those serving in the all-volunteer era (after July 1, 1973).¹⁶ Because trauma may be unseen, unmeasured, and unnamed, it is important to deliver all medical care with sensitivity to its potential presence.

It is important to distinguish the concept of trauma-informed care (TIC) from trauma-focused services. Trauma-focused or trauma-specific treatment refers to evidence-based and best practice treatment models that have been proven to facilitate recovery from problems resulting from the experience of trauma, such as PTSD.¹⁷ These treatments directly address the emotional, behavioral, and physiologic impact of trauma on an individual’s life and facilitate improvement in related symptoms and functioning: They are designed to treat the consequences of trauma. VHA offers a wide range of trauma-specific treatments, and considerable experience in delivering evidence-based trauma-focused treatment through telehealth exists.^18,19 Given the range of possible responses to the experience of trauma, not all veterans with trauma histories need to, chose to, or feel ready to access trauma-specific treatments.²⁰

In contrast, TIC is a global, universal precautions approach to providing quality care that can be applied to all aspects of health care and to all patients.²¹ TIC is a strengths-based service delivery framework that is grounded in an understanding of, and responsiveness to, the disempowering impact of experiencing trauma. It seeks to maximize physical, psychological, and emotional safety in all health care encounters, not just those that are specifically trauma-focused, and creates opportunities to rebuild a sense of control and empowerment while fostering healing through safe and collaborative patient-clinician relationships.²² TIC is not accomplished through any single technique or checklist but through continuous appraisal of approaches to care delivery. SAMHSA has elucidated 6 fundamental principles of TIC: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment; voice and choice; and sensitivity to cultural, historical, and gender issues.¹⁰

TIC is based on the understanding that often traditional service delivery models of care may trigger, silence, or disempower survivors of trauma, exacerbating physical and mental health symptoms and potentially increasing disengagement from care and poorer outcomes.²³ Currier and colleagues aptly noted, “TIC assumes that trustworthiness is not something that an organization creates in a veteran client, but something that he or she will freely grant to an organization.”²⁴ Given the global prevalence of trauma, its well-established and deleterious impact on lifelong health, and the potential for health care itself to be traumatizing, TIC is a fundamental construct to apply universally with any patient at any time, especially in the context of a large-scale community trauma, such as a pandemic.¹²

Trauma-Informed COVID-19 Care

Catastrophic events, such as natural disasters and pandemics, may serve as both newly traumatic and as potential triggers for survivors who have endured prior trauma.^25,26 Increases in depression, PTSD, and substance use disorder (SUD) are common sequalae, occurring during the event, the immediate aftermath, and beyond.^25,27 In 2003, quarantine contained the spread of Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) but resulted in a high prevalence of psychological distress, including PTSD and depression.²⁷ Many veterans may have deployed in support of humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions, which typically do not involve armed combat but may expose service members to warlike situations, including social insecurity and suffering populations.²⁸ COVID-19 may be reminiscent of some of these deployments as well.

The impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on patients is pervasive. Those with preexisting financial insecurity now face additional economic hardship and health challenges, which are amplified by loneliness and loss of social support networks.²⁶ Widespread unemployment and closures of many businesses add to stress and may exacerbate preexisting mental and physical health concerns for many; some veterans also may be at increased risk.²⁹ While previous postdisaster research suggests that psychopathology in the general population will significantly remit over time, high-risk groups remain vulnerable to PTSD and bear the brunt of social and economic consequences associated with the crisis.²⁵ Veterans with preexisting trauma histories and mental health conditions are at increased risk for being retraumatized by the current pandemic and impacted by isolation and unplanned job or wage loss from it.²⁹ Compounding this, social distancing serves to protect communities but may amplify isolation and danger in abusive relationships or exacerbate underlying mental illness.^26,30

Thus, as we expand our use of telehealth, replacing our face-to-face visits with virtual encounters, it is critical for clinicians to be mindful that the pandemic and public health responses to it may result in trauma and retraumatization for veterans and other vulnerable patients, which in turn can impact both access and response to care. The application of trauma-informed principles to our virtual encounters has the potential to mitigate some of these health impacts, increase engagement in care, and provide opportunities for protective, healing connections.

In the setting of the continued fear and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe that application of a trauma-informed lens to telehealth efforts is timely. While virtual visits may seem to lack the warmth and immediacy of traditional medical encounters, accumulated experience suggests otherwise.¹⁹ Telehealth is fundamentally more patient-focused than traditional encounters, overcomes service delivery barriers, offers a greater range of options for treatment engagement, and can enhance clinician-patient partnerships.^6,31,32 Although the rapid transition to telehealth may be challenging for those new to it, experienced clinicians and patients express high degrees of satisfaction with virtual care because direct communication is unhampered by in-office challenges and travel logistics.³³

While it may feel daunting to integrate principles of TIC into telehealth during a crisis-driven scale-up, a growing practice and body of research can inform these efforts. To help better understand how trauma-exposed patients respond to telehealth, we reviewed findings from trauma-focused telemental health (TMH) treatment. This research demonstrates that telehealth promotes safety and collaboration—fundamental principles of TIC—that can, in turn, be applied to telehealth visits in primary care and other medical and surgical specialties. When compared with traditional in-person treatment, studies of both individual and group formats of TMH found no significant differences in satisfaction, acceptability, or outcomes (such as reduction in PTSD symptom severity scores³⁴), and TMH did not impede development of rapport.^19,35

Although counterintuitive, the virtual space created by the combined physical and psychological distance of videoconferencing has been shown to promote safety and transparency. In TMH, patients have reported greater honesty due to the protection afforded by this virtual space.³¹ Engaging in telehealth visits from the comfort of one’s home can feel emotionally safer than having to travel to a medical office, resulting in feeling more at ease during encounters.³¹ In one TMH study, veterans with PTSD described high comfort levels and ability to let their guard down during virtual treatment.¹⁹ Similarly, in palliative telehealth care, patients reported that clinicians successfully nurtured an experience of intimacy, expressed empathy verbally and nonverbally, and responded to the patient’s unique situation and emotions.³³

Trauma-Informed Telehealth

We have discussed how telehealth’s greater flexibility may create an ideal environment in which to implement principles of TIC. It may allow increased collaboration and closeness between patients and clinicians, empowering patients to codesign their care.^31,33 The Table reviews 6 core SAMHSA principles of TIC and offers examples of their application to telehealth visits. The following case illustrates the application of trauma-informed telehealth care.

Case Presentation

S is a 45-year-old male veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) who served as a combat medic. He has a history of osteoarthritis and PTSD related to combat experiences like caring for traumatic amputees. Before the pandemic began, he was employed as a server at a local restaurant but was laid off as the business transitioned to takeout orders only. The patient worked near a VA primary care clinic and frequently dropped by to see the staff and to pick up prescriptions. He had never agreed to video visits despite receiving encouragement from his medical team. He was reluctant to try telehealth, but he had developed a painful, itchy rash on his lower leg and was concerned about getting care.

fdp03707302_t.png

For patients like S who may be reluctant to try telehealth, it is important to understand the cause. Potential barriers to telehealth may include lack of Internet access or familiarity with technology, discomfort with being on video, shame about the appearance of one’s home, or a strong cultural preference for face-to-face medical visits. Some may miss the social support benefit of coming into a clinic, particularly in VHA, which is designed specifically for veteran patients. For these reasons it is important to offer the patient a choice and to begin with a supportive phone call that explores and strives to address the patient’s concerns about videoconferencing.

The clinic nurse called S who agreed to try a VVC visit with gentle encouragement. He shared that he was embarrassed about the appearance of his apartment and fearful about pictures being recorded of his body due to “a bad experience in my past.” The patient was reassured that visits are private and will not be recorded. The nurse also reminded him that he can choose the location in which the visit will take place and can turn his camera off at any time. Importantly, the nurse did not ask him to recount additional details of what happened in his past. Next, the nurse verified his location and contact information and explained why obtaining this information was necessary. Next, she asked his consent to proceed with the visit, reminding him that the visit can end at any point if he feels uncomfortable. After finishing this initial discussion, the nurse told him that his primary care physician (PCP) would join the visit and address his concerns with his leg.

S was happy to see his PCP despite his hesitations about video care. The PCP noticed that he seemed anxious and was avoiding talking about the rash. Knowing that he was anxious about this VVC visit, the PCP was careful to look directly at the camera to make eye contact and to be sure her face was well lit and not in shadows. She gave him some time to acclimate to the virtual environment and thanked him for joining the visit. Knowing that he was a combat veteran, she warned him that there have been sudden, loud construction noises outside her window. Although the PCP was pressed for time, she was aware that S may have had a previous difficult experience around images of his body or even combat-related trauma. She gently brought up the rash and asked for permission to examine it, avoiding commands or personalizing language such as “show me your leg” or “take off your pants for me.”³⁶After some hesitation, the patient revealed his leg that appeared to have multiple excoriations and old scars from picking. After the examination, the PCP waited until the patient’s leg was fully covered before beginning a discussion of the care plan. Together they collaboratively reviewed treatments that would soothe the skin. They decided to virtually consult a social worker to obtain emergency economic assistance and to speak with the patient’s care team psychologist to reduce some of the anxiety that may be leading to his leg scratching.

Case Discussion

This case illustrates the ways in which TIC can be applied to telehealth for a veteran with combat-related PTSD who may have experienced additional interpersonal trauma. It was not necessary to know more detail about the veteran’s trauma history to conduct the visit in a trauma-informed manner. Connecting to patients at home while considering these principles may thus foster mutuality, mitigate retraumatization, and cultivate enhanced collaboration with health care teams in this era of social distancing.

While a virtual physical examination creates both limitations and opportunity in telehealth, patients may find the greater degree of choice over their clothing and surroundings to be empowering. Telehealth also can allow for a greater portion of time to be dedicated to quality discussion and collaborative planning, with the clinician hearing and responding to the patient’s needs with reduced distraction. This may include opportunities to discuss mental health concerns openly, normalize emotional reactions, and offer connection to mental health and support services available through telehealth, including for patients who have not previously engaged in such care.

Conclusions

Telehealth expansion is occurring out of necessity in a time of crisis. While VHA is expanding its already robust telehealth program to replace some in-person visits, many other health care systems are just beginning to use telehealth. Trauma-informed virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to ensure and even expand continuity of medical care, offer connection and support to trauma survivors, and enhance patient and clinician resilience in this time of need. Clinicians have a unique opportunity in this pandemic to apply TIC principles early on and to envision how telehealth may contribute to a more meaningful care experience for all and a more equitable future for those we care for.