Search

ImportanceDuring the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a substantial increase in the rate of death in the United States. It is unclear whether those who had access to comprehensive medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system had different death rates compared with the overall US population.ObjectiveTo quantify and compare the increase in death rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic between individuals who received comprehensive medical care through the VA health care system and those in the general US population.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study compared 10.9 million enrollees in the VA, including 6.8 million active users of VA health care (those with a visit in the last 2 years), with the general population of the US, with deaths occurring from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020. Statistical analysis was conducted from May 17, 2021, to March 15, 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresChanges in rates of death from any cause during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with previous years. Changes in all-cause death rates by quarter were stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and region, based on individual-level data. Multilevel regression models were fit in a bayesian setting. Standardized rates were used for comparison between populations.ResultsThere were 10.9 million enrollees in the VA health care system and 6.8 million active users. The demographic characteristics of the VA populations were predominantly male (>85% in the VA health care system vs 49% in the general US population), older (mean [SD], 61.0 [18.2] years in the VA health care system vs 39.0 [23.1] years in the US population), and had a larger proportion of patients who were White (73% in the VA health care system vs 61% in the US population) or Black (17% in the VA health care system vs 13% in the US population). Increases in death rates were apparent across all of the adult age groups (≥25 years) in both the VA populations and the general US population. Across all of 2020, the relative increase in death rates compared with expected values was similar for VA enrollees (risk ratio [RR], 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.29]), VA active users (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), and the general US population (RR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.17-1.22]). Because the prepandemic standardized mortality rates were higher in the VA populations prior to the pandemic, the absolute rates of excess mortality were higher in the VA populations.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, a comparison of excess deaths between populations suggests that active users of the VA health system had similar relative increases in mortality compared with the general US population during the first 10 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Points Question What are veterans’ attitudes and intentions associated with COVID-19 vaccination? Findings In this survey study of 1178 US veterans in March 2021, 71% of veterans reported being vaccinated against COVID-19. Fears about side effects and worry about the newness of vaccines were the primary reasons given for not getting vaccinated, reflecting vaccine skepticism and deliberation. Meaning These findings suggest that targeting veterans’ concerns around the adverse effects and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through conversations with trusted Veterans Health Administration health care practitioners is key to increasing vaccine acceptance., This survey study assesses veterans’ attitudes toward and intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines., Importance Compared with the general population, veterans are at high risk for COVID-19 and have a complex relationship with the government. This potentially affects their attitudes toward receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Objective To assess veterans’ attitudes toward and intentions to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional web-based survey study used data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients’ Veterans Insight Panel, fielded between March 12 and 28, 2021. Of 3420 veterans who were sent a link to complete a 58-item web-based survey, 1178 veterans (34%) completed the survey. Data were analyzed from April 1 to August 25, 2021. Exposures Veterans eligible for COVID-19 vaccines. Main Outcomes and Measures The outcomes of interest were veterans’ experiences with COVID-19, vaccination status and intention groups, reasons for receiving or not receiving a vaccine, self-reported health status, and trusted and preferred sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines. Reasons for not getting vaccinated were classified into categories of vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference, skepticism, and policy and processes. Results Among 1178 respondents, 974 (83%) were men, 130 (11%) were women, and 141 (12%) were transgender or nonbinary; 58 respondents (5%) were Black, 54 veterans (5%) were Hispanic or Latino, and 987 veterans (84%) were non-Hispanic White. The mean (SD) age of respondents was 66.7 (10.1) years. A total of 817 respondents (71%) self-reported being vaccinated against COVID-19. Of 339 respondents (29%) who were not vaccinated, those unsure of getting vaccinated were more likely to report fair or poor overall health (32 respondents [43%]) and mental health (33 respondents [44%]) than other nonvaccinated groups (overall health: range, 20%-32%; mental health: range, 18%-40%). Top reasons for not being vaccinated were skepticism (120 respondents [36%] were concerned about side effects; 65 respondents [20%] preferred using few medications; 63 respondents [19%] preferred gaining natural immunity), deliberation (74 respondents [22%] preferred to wait because vaccine is new), and distrust (61 respondents [18%] did not trust the health care system). Among respondents who were vaccinated, preventing oneself from getting sick (462 respondents [57%]) and contributing to the end of the COVID-19 pandemic (453 respondents [56%]) were top reasons for getting vaccinated. All veterans reported the VA as 1 of their top trusted sources of information. The proportion of respondents trusting their VA health care practitioner as a source of vaccine information was higher among those unsure about vaccination compared with those who indicated they would definitely not or probably not get vaccinated (18 respondents [26%] vs 15 respondents [15%]). There were no significant associations between vaccine intention groups and age (χ24 = 5.90; P = .21) or gender (χ22 = 3.99; P = .14). Conclusions and Relevance These findings provide information needed to develop trusted messages used in conversations between VA health care practitioners and veterans addressing specific vaccine hesitancy reasons, as well as those in worse health. Conversations need to emphasize societal reasons for getting vaccinated and benefits to one’s own health.

This cross-sectional study assesses changes in health care delivery methods, including all forms of care either purchased or provided by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), for VHA enrollees in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Importance Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US, yet many individuals with OUD do not receive treatment. Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of OUD treatments and association of these treatments with outcomes in the US. Design and Setting This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis included a US population with OUD. Interventions Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) with buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable extended-release naltrexone; psychotherapy (beyond standard counseling); overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND); and contingency management (CM). Main Outcomes and Measures Fatal and nonfatal overdoses and deaths throughout 5 years, discounted lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. Results In the base case, in the absence of treatment, 42 717 overdoses (4132 fatal, 38 585 nonfatal) and 12 660 deaths were estimated to occur in a cohort of 100 000 patients over 5 years, and 11.58 discounted lifetime QALYs were estimated to be experienced per person. An estimated reduction in overdoses was associated with MAT with methadone (10.7%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (22.0%), and when combined with CM and psychotherapy (range, 21.0%-31.4%). Estimated deceased deaths were associated with MAT with methadone (6%), MAT with buprenorphine or naltrexone (13.9%), and when combined with CM, OEND, and psychotherapy (16.9%). MAT yielded discounted gains of 1.02 to 1.07 QALYs per person. Including only health care sector costs, methadone cost $16 000/QALY gained compared with no treatment, followed by methadone with OEND ($22 000/QALY gained), then by buprenorphine with OEND and CM ($42 000/QALY gained), and then by buprenorphine with OEND, CM, and psychotherapy ($250 000/QALY gained). MAT with naltrexone was dominated by other treatment alternatives. When criminal justice costs were included, all forms of MAT (with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) were associated with cost savings compared with no treatment, yielding savings of $25 000 to $105 000 in lifetime costs per person. The largest cost savings were associated with methadone plus CM. Results were qualitatively unchanged over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. An analysis using demographic and cost data for Veterans Health Administration patients yielded similar findings. Conclusions and Relevance In this cost-effectiveness analysis, expanded access to MAT, combined with OEND and CM, was associated with cost-saving reductions in morbidity and mortality from OUD. Lack of widespread MAT availability limits access to a cost-saving medical intervention that reduces morbidity and mortality from OUD. Opioid overdoses in the US likely reached a record high in 2020 because of COVID-19 increasing substance use, exacerbating stress and social isolation, and interfering with opioid treatment. It is essential to understand the cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of MAT to treat OUD.

This national cohort study examines changes in the number of vascular surgical procedures completed in the US before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This cohort study compares different machine learning methods in predicting overall mortality in cirrhosis and uses machine learning to select easily scored clinical variables for a novel prognostic model in patients with cirrhosis., Key Points Question Can a blended approach that uses clinical variables selected from machine learning to develop traditional prognostic models improve the accuracy of prediction while addressing challenges related to interpretability? Findings In a prognostic study including a cohort of 107 939 patients with cirrhosis, simple machine learning techniques performed as well as the more advanced ensemble gradient boosting techniques. Using the clinical variables identified from simple machine learning in a cirrhosis mortality model produced a new score more predictive than the traditional Model for End Stage Liver Disease with sodium. Meaning These findings suggest that this blended approach can improve data-driven risk prognostication through the development of new scores that are both more transparent and actionable than machine learning and more predictive than traditional risk scores., Importance Machine-learning algorithms offer better predictive accuracy than traditional prognostic models but are too complex and opaque for clinical use. Objective To compare different machine learning methods in predicting overall mortality in cirrhosis and to use machine learning to select easily scored clinical variables for a novel cirrhosis prognostic model. Design, Setting, and Participants This prognostic study used a retrospective cohort of adult patients with cirrhosis or its complications seen in 130 hospitals and affiliated ambulatory clinics in the integrated, national Veterans Affairs health care system from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2015. Patients were followed up through December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2017, to May 31, 2020. Exposures Potential predictors included demographic characteristics; liver disease etiology, severity, and complications; use of health care resources; comorbid conditions; and comprehensive laboratory and medication data. Patients were randomly selected for model development (66.7%) and validation (33.3%). Three different statistical and machine learning methods were evaluated: gradient descent boosting, logistic regression with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regularization, and logistic regression with LASSO constrained to select no more than 10 predictors (partial pathway model). Predictor inclusion and model performance were evaluated in a 5-fold cross-validation. Last, the predictors identified in the most parsimonious (the partial path) model were refit using maximum-likelihood estimation (Cirrhosis Mortality Model [CiMM]), and its predictive performance was compared with that of the widely used Model for End Stage Liver Disease with sodium (MELD-Na) score. Main Outcomes and Measures All-cause mortality. Results Of the 107 939 patients with cirrhosis (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [9.6] years; 96.6% male; 66.3% white, 18.4% African American), the annual mortality rate ranged from 8.8% to 15.3%. In total, 32.7% of patients died within 3 years, and 46.2% died within 5 years after the index date. Models predicting 1-year mortality had good discrimination for the gradient descent boosting (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUC], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82), logistic regression with LASSO regularization (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.79), and the partial path logistic model (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76-0.78). All models showed good calibration. The final CiMM model with machine learning–derived clinical variables offered significantly better discrimination than the MELD-Na score, with AUCs of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77-0.79) vs 0.67 (95% CI, 0.66-0.68) for 1-year mortality, respectively (DeLong z = 17.00; P

Importance Time constraints, technology, and administrative demands of modern medicine often impede the human connection that is central to clinical care, contributing to physician and patient dissatisfaction. Objective To identify evidence and narrative-based practices that promote clinician presence, a state of awareness, focus, and attention with the intent to understand patients. Evidence Review Preliminary practices were derived through a systematic literature review (from January 1997 to August 2017, with a subsequent bridge search to September 2019) of effective interpersonal interventions; observations of primary care encounters in 3 diverse clinics (n = 27 encounters); and qualitative interviews with physicians (n = 10), patients (n = 27), and nonmedical professionals whose occupations involve intense interpersonal interactions (eg, firefighter, chaplain, social worker; n = 30). After evidence synthesis, promising practices were reviewed in a 3-round modified Delphi process by a panel of 14 researchers, clinicians, patients, caregivers, and health system leaders. Panelists rated each practice using 9-point Likert scales (−4 to +4) that reflected the potential effect on patient and clinician experience and feasibility of implementation; after the third round, panelists selected their “top 5” practices from among those with median ratings of at least +2 for all 3 criteria. Final recommendations incorporate elements from all highly rated practices and emphasize the practices with the greatest number of panelist votes. Findings The systematic literature review (n = 73 studies) and qualitative research activities yielded 31 preliminary practices. Following evidence synthesis, 13 distinct practices were reviewed by the Delphi panel, 8 of which met criteria for inclusion and were combined into a final set of 5 recommendations: (1) prepare with intention (take a moment to prepare and focus before greeting a patient); (2) listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, avoid interruptions); (3) agree on what matters most (find out what the patient cares about and incorporate these priorities into the visit agenda); (4) connect with the patient’s story (consider life circumstances that influence the patient’s health; acknowledge positive efforts; celebrate successes); and (5) explore emotional cues (notice, name, and validate the patient’s emotions). Conclusions and Relevance This mixed-methods study identified 5 practices that have the potential to enhance physician presence and meaningful connection with patients in the clinical encounter. Evaluation and validation of the outcomes associated with implementing the 5 practices is needed, along with system-level interventions to create a supportive environment for implementation.

Key Points Question What is the cost associated with National Quality Forum–identified intensive medical services in the last month of life to beneficiaries and to the health care system? Findings In this cohort study of 48 937 patients with cancer enrolled in Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration, those receiving no intensive service had a health system cost of $7660, whereas for the 59% of patients receiving 1 or more intensive services in the last month of life, the cost was $23 612. Expected beneficiary costs in the last month of life were $133 for patients with no intensive service and $1257 for patients with at least 1 intensive service. Meaning Despite recommendations, more than half of patients with cancer receive intensive services at the end of life at a substantial cost to beneficiaries and the heath system., Importance Despite recommendations to reduce intensive medical treatment at the end of life, many patients with cancer continue to receive such services. Objective To quantify expected beneficiary and health system costs incurred in association with receipt of intensive medical services in the last month of life. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study used data collected nationally from Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration for care provided in fiscal years 2010 to 2014. Participants were 48 937 adults aged 66 years or older who died of solid tumor and were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration in the 12 months prior to death. The data were analyzed from February to August 2019. Exposures American Society of Clinical Oncology metrics regarding medically intensive services provided in the last month of life, including hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, chemotherapy, 2 or more emergency department visits, or hospice for 3 or fewer days. Main Outcomes and Measures Costs in the last month of life associated with receipt of intensive medical services were evaluated for both beneficiaries and the health system. Costs were estimated from generalized linear models, adjusting for patient demographics and comorbidities and conditioning on geographic region. Results Of 48 937 veterans who received care through the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare, most were white (90.8%) and male (98.9%). More than half (58.9%) received at least 1 medically intensive service in the last month of life. Patients who received no medically intensive service generated a mean (SD) health system cost of $7660 ($1793), whereas patients who received 1 or more medically intensive services generated a mean (SD) health system cost of $23 612 ($5528); thus, the additional financial consequence to the health care system for medically intensive services was $15 952 (95% CI, $15 676-$16 206; P, To provide physicians with reference cost estimates, this cohort study quantifies beneficiary and health system costs incurred in association with receipt of intensive medical services in the last month of life among patients with advanced cancer.

Key Points Question For which conditions is timely access to high-quality emergency care associated with morbidity and mortality, and what are the characteristics of emergency department visits for these conditions? Findings In this cross-sectional study, an expert panel identified 51 condition groups as emergency care sensitive. These conditions were associated with substantial emergency department use, inpatient hospitalization, and cost. Meaning Emergency care–sensitive conditions may be used in future efforts to measure the quality of emergency care within a systems framework., This cross-sectional study identifies a set of emergency care–sensitive conditions to provide benchmark US national estimates of acute care utilization for these conditions., Importance Monitoring emergency care quality requires understanding which conditions benefit most from timely, quality emergency care. Objectives To identify a set of emergency care–sensitive conditions (ECSCs) that are treated in most emergency departments (EDs), are associated with a spectrum of adult age groups, and represent common reasons for seeking emergency care and to provide benchmark national estimates of ECSC acute care utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants A modified Delphi method was used to identify ECSCs. In a cross-sectional analysis, ECSC-associated visits by adults (aged ≥18 years) were identified based on International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes and analyzed with nationally representative data from the 2016 US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Data analysis was conducted from January 2018 to December 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures Identification of ECSCs and ECSC-associated ED utilization patterns, length of stay, and charges. Results An expert panel rated 51 condition groups as emergency care sensitive. Emergency care–sensitive conditions represented 16 033 359 of 114 323 044 ED visits (14.0%) in 2016. On average, 8 535 261 of 17 886 220 ED admissions (47.7%) were attributed to ECSCs. The most common ECSC ED visits were for sepsis (1 716 004 [10.7%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1 273 319 [7.9%]), pneumonia (1 263 971 [7.9%]), asthma (970 829 [6.1%]), and heart failure (911 602 [5.7%]) but varied by age group. Median (interquartile range) length of stay for ECSC ED admissions was longer than non-ECSC ED admissions (3.2 [1.7-5.8] days vs 2.7 [1.4-4.9] days; P

IMPORTANCE: The benefits of maintenance dialysis for older adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are uncertain. Whether the setting of pre-ESRD nephrology care influences initiation of dialysis and mortality is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare initiation of dialysis and mortality among older veterans with incident kidney failure who received pre-ESRD nephrology care in fee-for-service Medicare vs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of patients from the US Medicare and VA health care systems evaluated 11 215 veterans aged 67 years or older with incident kidney failure between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2011. Data analysis was performed March 15, 2016, through September 20, 2017. EXPOSURES: Pre-ESRD nephrology care in Medicare vs VA health care systems. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Dialysis treatment and death within 2 years. RESULTS: Of the 11 215 patients included in the study, 11 085 (98.8%) were men; mean (SD) age was 79.1 (6.9) years. Within 2 years of incident kidney failure, 7071 (63.0%) of the patients started dialysis and 5280 (47.1%) died. Patients who received pre-ESRD nephrology care in Medicare were more likely to undergo dialysis compared with patients who received pre-ESRD nephrology care in VA (82% vs 53%; adjusted risk difference, 28 percentage points; 95% CI, 26-30 percentage points). Differences in dialysis initiation between Medicare and VA were more pronounced among patients aged 80 years or older and patients with dementia or metastatic cancer, and less pronounced among patients with paralysis (P

Importance Skin cancer screening may improve melanoma outcomes and keratinocyte carcinoma morbidity, but little is known about the feasibility of skin cancer training and clinical skin examination (CSE) by primary care practitioners (PCPs) in large health care systems. Objective To assess the association of skin cancer training and screening by PCPs with dermatology referral patterns and rates of skin biopsies. Design, Setting, and Participants In this pilot interventional study performed at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, patients 35 years or older scheduled for an annual health habits screen in the PCP general medicine clinics were studied. Interventions Six PCPs underwent Internet Curriculum for Melanoma Early Detection (INFORMED) training in May 2015, and 5 screened patients during the following 14 months. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of dermatology referrals, subsequent skin biopsies, and PCP diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer or precancer compared with dermatologist diagnosis were assessed in screened patients 14 months before the intervention (February 18, 2014, through April 30, 2015) and after the intervention (June 18, 2015, through August 30, 2016). Results Among 258 patients offered screening (median age, 70 years; age range, 35-94 years; 255 [98.8%] male), 189 (73.3%) received CSE and 69 (26.7%) declined. A total of 62 of 189 patients (32.8%) were referred to a dermatologist after intervention: 33 (53.2%) for presumptive skin cancers and 15 (24.2%) for precancers. Nine of 50 patients (18.0%) evaluated in dermatology clinic underwent biopsy to exclude skin cancer. Correct diagnoses were made by PCPs in 13 of 38 patients (34.2%; 4 of 27 patients [14.8%] diagnosed with skin cancers and 5 of 11 patients [45.5%] diagnosed with actinic keratoses). Comparison of all outpatient visits for the 5 main participating PCPs before vs after intervention revealed no significant differences in dermatology referrals overall and those for presumptive skin cancer or actinic keratoses, skin biopsies, or PCP diagnostic accuracy with the exception of significantly fewer postintervention dermatology referrals that lacked specific diagnoses (25 [1.0%] vs 10 [0.4%],P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance This pilot study suggests that PCP-based skin cancer training and screening are feasible and have the potential to improve PCP diagnostic accuracy without increasing specialty referrals or skin biopsies. Additional studies comparing screening rates, specialty referrals, and patient outcomes in trained vs untrained PCPs are needed before screening is widely implemented in large health care systems in the United States.

The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model holds promise for improving primary care delivery, but it has not been adequately tested in teaching settings.We implemented an intervention guided by PCMH principles at a safety-net teaching clinic with resident physician providers. Two similar clinics served as controls.Using a cross-sectional design, we measured the effect on patient and resident satisfaction using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and a validated teaching clinic survey, respectively. Both surveys were conducted at baseline and 1 year after the intervention. We also measured the effect on emergency department and hospital utilization.Following implementation of our intervention, the clinic’s score on the National Committee for Quality Assurance’s PCMH certification tool improved from 35 to 53 of 100 possible points, although our clinic did not achieve all must-pass elements to qualify as a PCMH. During the 1-year study period, 4676 patients were exposed to the intervention; 39.9% of these used at least 1 program component. Compared with baseline, patient-reported access and overall satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the intervention clinic, and the composite satisfaction rating increased from 48% to 65% in the intervention clinic vs from 50% to 59% in the control sites (P = .04). The improvements were particularly notable for questions relating to access. For example, satisfaction with urgent appointment scheduling increased from 12% to 53% in the intervention clinic vs from 14% to 18% in the control clinics (P .001). Resident satisfaction also improved in the intervention clinic: the composite satisfaction score increased from 39% to 51% in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 46% to 42% in the control clinics (P = .01). Emergency department utilization did not differ significantly between the intervention and control clinics, and hospitalizations increased from 26 to 27 visits per 1000 patients per month in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 28 to 25 in the control clinics (P = .02).Our PCMH-guided intervention, which represented a modest but substantive step toward the PCMH vision, had favorable effects on patient and resident satisfaction at a safety-net teaching clinic but did not reduce emergency department or hospital utilization in the first year. Our experience may provide lessons for other teaching clinics in safety-net settings hoping to implement PCMH-guided reforms.

Depression is common among persons with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and is associated with unfavorable outcomes.A single-blind randomized controlled effectiveness trial at 3 Veterans Affairs HIV clinics (HIV Translating Initiatives for Depression Into Effective Solutions [HITIDES]). The HITIDES intervention consisted of an off-site HIV depression care team (a registered nurse depression care manager, pharmacist, and psychiatrist) that delivered up to 12 months of collaborative care backed by a Web-based decision support system. Participants who completed the baseline telephone interview were 249 HIV-infected patients with depression, of whom 123 were randomized to the intervention and 126 to usual care. Participant interview data were collected at baseline and at the 6- and 12-month follow-up visits. The primary outcome was depression severity measured using the 20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) and reported as treatment response (≥50% decrease in SCL-20 item score), remission (mean SCL-20 item score,0.5), and depression-free days. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, health status, HIV symptom severity, and antidepressant or HIV medication regimen adherence.Intervention participants were more likely to report treatment response (33.3% vs 17.5%) (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-4.56) and remission (22.0% vs 11.9%) (2.25; 1.11-4.54) at 6 months but not 12 months. Intervention participants reported more depression-free days during the 12 months (β = 19.3; 95% CI, 10.9-27.6; P.001). Significant intervention effects were observed for lowering HIV symptom severity at 6 months (β = -2.6; 95% CI, -3.5 to -1.8; P.001) and 12 months (β = -0.82; -1.6 to -0.07; P = .03). Intervention effects were not significant for other secondary outcomes.The HITIDES intervention improved depression and HIV symptom outcomes and may serve as a model for collaborative care interventions in HIV and other specialty physical health care settings where patients find their "medical home."clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00304915.

Background Guidelines for care of hypertensive patients have proliferated recently, yet quality assessment remains difficult in the absence of well-defined measurement systems. Existing systems have not always linked process measures to blood pressure outcomes. Methods A quality measurement system was developed and tested on hypertensive women in a West Coast health plan. An expert panel selected clinically detailed, evidence-explicit indicators using a modified Delphi method. Thirteen indicators (1 screening, 5 diagnostic, 5 treatment, and 2 follow-up indicators) were selected by this process. Trained nurses used a laptop-based tool to abstract data from medical records for the most recent 2 years of care. Results Of 15 004 eligible patients with hypertensive and other chronic disease codes, 613 patients were sampled, all eligible for the screening indicator. Of these, 234 women with an average blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or more, or a documented diagnosis of hypertension, were studied for the remaining indicators. The average woman received 64% of the recommended care. Most patients did not receive adequate initial history, physical examination, or laboratory tests. Only 37% of hypertensive women with persistent elevations to more than 160/90 mm Hg had changes in therapy or lifestyle recommended. The average adherence proportion to all indicators was lower in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (>140/90 mm Hg) than in those with controlled blood pressure (54% vs 73%; P Conclusions Quality of hypertensive care falls short of indicators based on randomized controlled trials and national guidelines. Poor performance in essential care processes is associated with poor blood pressure control.

ContextContinuing changes in the health care delivery system make it essential to monitor underuse of needed care, even for relatively well-insured populations. Traditional approaches to measuring underuse have relied on patient surveys and chart reviews, which are expensive, or simple single-condition claims-based indicators, which are not clinically convincing.ObjectiveTo develop a comprehensive, low-cost system for measuring underuse of necessary care among elderly patients using inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims.DesignA 7-member, multispecialty expert physician panel was assembled and used a modified Delphi method to develop clinically detailed underuse indicators likely to be associated with avoidable poor outcomes for 15 common acute and chronic medical and surgical conditions. An automated system was developed to calculate the indicators using administrative data.Setting and SubjectsA total of 345,253 randomly selected elderly US Medicare beneficiaries in 1994-1996.Main Outcome MeasuresProportion of beneficiaries receiving care, stratified by indicators of necessary care (n = 40, including 3 for preventive care), and avoidable outcomes (n = 6).ResultsFor 16 of 40 necessary care indicators (including preventive care indicators), beneficiaries received the indicated care less than two thirds of the time. Of all indicators, African Americans scored significantly worse than whites on 16 and better on 2; residents of poverty areas scored significantly lower than nonresidents on 17 and higher on 1; residents of federally defined Health Professional Shortage Areas scored significantly lower than nonresidents on 16 and higher on none (P