Primary care clerical staff may experience burnout if not adequately prepared and supported for patient-facing customer service tasks. Guided by the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, we use national survey data from 707 primary care clerks at 349 VA clinics (2018; response rate: 12%) to evaluate associations between clerks' perceptions of tasks, work environment, training, and burnout. We found challenges with customer-facing tasks contribute to higher burnout, and supportive work environment was associated with lower burnout. Although perceptions of training were not associated with burnout, our results combined with the JD-R model suggest that customer service training may protect against burnout.

Background

Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home.

Objective

Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study.

Participants

Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care.

Intervention

PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff.

Main measures

Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction.

Key results

Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance.

Conclusions

Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

Background

Improving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed.

Objective

To identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).

Design

Qualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews.

Participants

Fourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems.

Interventions

This paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings.

Approach

We conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers.

Key results

PACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs.

Conclusion

In the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals.

Objective

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducted a randomized quality improvement evaluation to determine whether augmenting patient-centered medical homes with Primary care Intensive Management (PIM) decreased utilization of acute care and health care costs among patients at high risk for hospitalization. PIM was cost-neutral in the first year; we analyzed changes in utilization and costs in the second year.

Data sources

VHA administrative data for five demonstration sites from August 2013 to March 2019.

Data sources

Administrative data extracted from VHA's Corporate Data Warehouse.

Study design

Veterans with a risk of 90-day hospitalization in the top 10th percentile and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit were randomly assigned to usual primary care vs primary care augmented by PIM. PIM included interdisciplinary teams, comprehensive patient assessment, intensive case management, and care coordination services. We compared the change in mean VHA inpatient and outpatient utilization and costs (including PIM expenses) per patient for the 12-month period before randomization and 13-24 months after randomization for PIM vs usual care using difference-in-differences.

Principal findings

Both PIM patients (n = 1902) and usual care patients (n = 1882) had a mean of 5.6 chronic conditions. PIM patients had a greater number of primary care visits compared to those in usual care (mean 4.6 visits/patient/year vs 3.7 visits/patient/year, p < 0.05), but ED visits (p = 0.45) and hospitalizations (p = 0.95) were not significantly different. We found a small relative increase in outpatient costs among PIM patients compared to those in usual care (mean difference + $928/patient/year, p = 0.053), but no significant differences in mean inpatient costs (+$245/patient/year, p = 0.97). Total mean health care costs were similar between the two groups during the second year (mean difference + $1479/patient/year, p = 0.73).

Conclusions

Approaches that target patients solely based on the high risk of hospitalization are unlikely to reduce acute care use or total costs in VHA, which already offers patient-centered medical homes.

Objective

With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research.

Methods

Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted.

Results

CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations.

Conclusions

Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.

Objective

To compare health care system problems or "hassles" experienced by Veterans receiving VA health care only versus those receiving dual care from both VA and non-VA community providers.

Data sources

We collected survey data in 2017-2018 from 2444 randomly selected Veterans with four or more primary care visits in the prior year at one of 12 VA primary care clinics located in four geographically diverse regions of the United States.

Study design

We used baseline surveys from the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching quality improvement project to explore Veterans' experience of hassles (dependent variable), source of health care, self-rated physical and mental health, and sociodemographics.

Data collection

Participants responded to mailed surveys by mail, telephone, or online.

Principal findings

The number of reported hassles ranged from 0 to 16; 79 percent of Veterans reported experiencing one or more hassles. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and self-rated physical and mental health, zero-inflated negative binominal regression indicated that dual care users experienced more hassles than VA-only users (adjusted predicted average 5.5 [CI: 5.2, 5.8] vs 4.3 [CI: 4.1, 4.6] hassles [P < .0001]).

Conclusions

Anticipated increases in Veterans accessing community-based care may require new strategies to help VA primary care teams optimize care coordination for dual care users.

Background

Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value.

Objective

To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients.

Design

A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation.

Participants

High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites.

Approach

We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects.

Key results

Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization.

Conclusions

Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).

Background

Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination.

Objective

The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics.

Design

Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative.

Participants

Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs.

Interventions

We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months.

Main measures

We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects.

Key results

N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone.

Conclusion

Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.