Search

Sickness presenteeism among healthcare workers (HCW) risks nosocomial infection, but its prevalence among HCW with COVID-19 is unknown. Contemporaneous interviews revealed a sickness presenteeism prevalence of 49.8% among 255 HCW with symptomatic COVID-19. Presenteeism prevalence did not differ among HCW with and without specific COVID-19 symptoms or direct patient care.

The present study sought to understand the antecedents to COVID-19 vaccination among those reporting a change in vaccine intention in order to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the United States. We employed semi-structured interviews and one focus group discussion with vaccinated and unvaccinated Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees and Veterans at three Veterans' Affairs medical centers between January and June 2021. A subset of these participants (n=21) self-reported a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention and were selected for additional analysis. We combined thematic analysis using the 5C scale (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints) as our theoretical framework with a constant comparative method from codes based on the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy. We generated 13 themes distributed across the 5C constructs that appeared to be associated with a change in COVID-19 vaccine intention. Themes included a trusted family member, friend or colleague in a healthcare field, a trusted healthcare professional, distrust of government or politics (confidence); duty to family and protection of others (collective responsibility); perceived health status and normative beliefs (complacency); perceived vaccine safety, perceived risk-benefit, and orientation towards deliberation (calculation); and ease of process (constraints). Key factors in promoting vaccine uptake included a desire to protect family; and conversations with as key factors in promoting vaccine uptake. Constructs from the 5C scale are useful in understanding intrapersonal changes in vaccine intentions over time, which may help public health practitioners improve future vaccine uptake.In this study of the Veteran and VA employee population, we aimed to understand what factors led to a decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of a quality improvement project, we interviewed individuals at three Veterans’ Affairs sites in the first six months of 2021. We then used a smaller sample of 21 participants who reported a change in their intentions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine to analyze for this study. This analysis utilizes constructs from the 5C scale, which was developed to understand the conditions required for an individual to decide to receive a vaccine (confidence, collective responsibility, complacency, calculation, constraints). The coding process revealed a number of recurring themes across the interviews falling under each of the five constructs, but concepts relating to vaccine confidence (i.e., level of trust in those developing and disseminating the vaccine) were most common, and constraints (i.e., psychological and structural barriers that stand in the way of vaccination) appeared least frequently in our interviews. We found that significant motivators to receive the vaccine included a desire to protect family and conversations with trusted clinicians, particularly mental healthcare providers. Our study was unique in using the 5Cs to understand changes in vaccine changes over time. Findings show that change in vaccine attitudes is possible even in the presence of concerns and shed light on approaches that public health providers could use to improve vaccine and booster rates.

We assessed an intervention aimed at improving adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV (PPWLH). We randomized 133 pregnant women initiating ART in Uganda to receive text reminders generated by real time-enabled electronic monitors and data-informed counseling through 3 months postpartum (PPM3) or standard care. Intention-to-treat analyses found low adherence levels and no intervention impact. Proportions achieving ≥95% adherence in PPM3 were 16.4% vs. 9.1% (t = -1.14, p = 0.26) in intervention vs. comparison groups, respectively; 30.9% vs. 29.1% achieved ≥80% adherence. Additional analyses found significant adherence declines after delivery, and no effect on disease progression (CD4-cell count, viral load), though treatment interruptions were significantly fewer in intervention participants. Per-protocol analyses encompassing participants who used adherence monitors as designed experienced better outcomes, suggesting potential benefit for some PPWLH. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT02396394).

Resurgences of COVID-19 cases are a grave public health concern. Hence, there is an urgent need for health care systems to rapidly and systematically learn from their responses to earlier waves of COVID-19. To meet this need, this article delineates how we adapted the World Health Organization's After Action Review (AAR) framework to use within our health care system of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. An AAR is a structured, methodical evaluation of actions taken in response to an event (e.g., recent waves of COVID-19). It delivers an actionable report regarding (i) what was expected, (ii) what actually happened, (iii) what went well, and (iv) what could have been done differently, and thus what changes are needed for future situations. We share as an example our examination of Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs in Massachusetts (a COVID-19 hotspot). Our work can be further adapted, beyond residential treatment, as a consistent framework for reviewing COVID-19 responses across multiple health care programs. This will identify both standardized and tailored preparations that the programs can make for future waves of the pandemic. Given the expected resurgences of COVID-19 cases, the time to apply AAR is now.

To support translation of evidence-based interventions into practice for HIV patients at high risk of treatment failure, we conducted qualitative research in Cape Town, South Africa. After local health officials vetted interventions as potentially scalable, we held 41 in-depth interviews with patients with elevated viral load or a 3-month treatment gap at community clinics, followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) with 20 providers (physicians/nurses, counselors, and community health care workers). Interviews queried treatment barriers, solutions, and specific intervention options, including motivational text messages, data-informed counseling, individual counseling, peer support groups, check-in texts, and treatment buddies. Based on patients' preferences, motivational texts and treatment buddies were removed from consideration in subsequent FGDs. Patients most preferred peer support groups and check-in texts while individual counseling garnered the broadest support among providers. Check-in texts, peer support groups, and data-informed counseling were also endorsed by provider sub-groups. These strategies warrant attention for scale-up in South Africa and other resource-constrained settings.

Background: While teledermatology is well-established in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), its implementation is far from complete. To facilitate consultative teledermatology and extend its ...

Background Rising rates of substance use, particularly synthetic opioids, have led to increases in fatal overdoses and injection-associated infections. Harm reduction, including infection prevention via provision of supplies and education, is an approach to minimize risk of severe outcomes. Although harm reduction services (HRS) are highly evidence-based, implementation in most healthcare settings is limited. The aim of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers to the implementation of HRS to inform strategies for increasing access and adoption of a comprehensive bundle of harm reduction resources within the VHA. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide and explored how harm reduction is currently understood and implemented by VHA providers and was designed to identify perceived gaps and barriers. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis. After barriers and facilitators were identified, they were mapped to relevant implementation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research - Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR – ERIC) tool. Results 15 interviews with VHA providers (physicians, social workers, pharmacists, and directors of addiction and mental health services) were conducted across 5 sites. Multiple barriers and few facilitators to the provision of HRS were identified (Table 1). Currently, HRS were thought to be fragmented and dependent on the knowledge, time, and comfort level of individual providers. Participants also highlighted stigma around substance use, limited support, and burdensome regulatory requirements. Existing infrastructure, social programming, and local champions were highlighted as facilitators. Given these factors, implementation strategies that may be bundled to promote adoption of HRS include engagement of champions, communications and educational strategies, existing policies, and creation of dashboards and tracking and feedback systems (Table 1). Conclusion HRS are effective, evidence-based, and patient-centered tools. Mapping of barriers to evidence-based implementation strategies may help improve integration of HRS into VHA healthcare, however, challenges addressing stigma remain a substantial barrier. Disclosures Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, MMSc, DLA Piper,LLC/Medtronic: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Pharmaceuticals: Grant/Research Support.

Introduction The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program developed and manages a framework for identification, replication, and diffusion of promising practices throughout the nation's largest integrated health care system. DoE identifies promising practices through a “Shark Tank” competition with winning bidders receiving external implementation facilitation. DoE further supports diffusion of successful practices across the VHA. Methods This article presents results of a mixed methods implementation evaluation of DoE, focusing on program reach, program participation and decisions to adopt innovative practices, implementation processes, and practice sustainment. Data sources include practice adoption metrics, focus groups with bidders (two focus groups), observations of DoE events (seven events), surveys of stakeholders (five separate surveys), and semistructured interviews of facility directors, practice developers, implementation teams, and facilitators (133 participants). Results In the first four Shark Tank cohorts (2016–2018), 1,676 practices were submitted; 47 were designated Gold Status Practices (practices with facilitated implementation). Motivation for participation varied. Generally, staff led projects targeting problems they felt passionate about, facility directors focused on big-picture quality metrics and getting middle manager support, and frontline staff displayed variable motivation to implement new projects. Approximately half of facilitated implementation efforts were successful; barriers included insufficient infrastructure, staff, and resources. At the facility level, 73.3% of facilities originating or receiving facilitated implementation support have maintained the practice. VHA-wide, 834 decisions to adopt these practices were made. Conclusion DoE has resulted in the identification of many candidate practices, promoted adoption of promising practices by facility directors, and supported practice implementation and diffusion across the VHA.

Introduction: Few systematic evaluations of implementing teledermatology programs in large health care systems exist. We conducted a longitudinal evaluation of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) initiative to expand asynchronous consultative teledermatology services for rural veterans. Methods: The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework guided the evaluation, which included analysis of quantitative VA administrative data as well as an online survey completed by participating facilities. The first 2 years of the program were compared with the year before the start of funding. Results: Sixteen hub facilities expanded teledermatology's reach over the 2-year period, increasing the number of referral spoke sites, unique patients served, and teledermatology encounters. Effectiveness was reflected as teledermatology constituted an increasing fraction of dermatology activity and served more remotely located patients. Adoption through defined stages of implementation progressed as facilities engaged in a variety of strategies to enhance teledermatology implementation, and facilitators and barriers were identified. Program maintenance was assessed by Program Sustainability Index scores, which reflected the importance of executive support, and ongoing concerns about staffing and longitudinal funding. Discussion: Enabling hubs to create solutions that best fit their needs and culture likely increased reach and effectiveness. Important facilitators included organizational leadership and encouraging communication between stakeholders before and during the intervention. Conclusions: A systematic analysis of teledermatology implementation to serve rural sites in VA documented a high degree of implementation and sustainability as well as areas for improvement.

Background: Rising rates of substance use, particularly the use of synthetic opioids, have led to increases in fatal overdoses and injection-associated infections. Harm reduction, including infection prevention via provision of educational interventions and sterile syringes and other supplies, is an approach to minimize risk of severe outcomes. Although harm reduction services (HRS) are highly evidence-based, implementation in most healthcare settings has been limited. The aim of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers to the implementation of HRS to inform strategies for increasing access and facilitating the adoption of a comprehensive bundle of harm reduction resources within the VHA. Methods:Qualitative interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews explored how harm reduction is currently understood and implemented by VHA providers and elicited input on perceived facilitators and barriers to implementation. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis. After barriers and facilitators were identified, they were mapped to relevant implementation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research - Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (CFIR – ERIC) tool. Results:15 interviews with VHA providers (physicians, social workers, pharmacists, and directors of addiction and mental health services) were conducted across 5 sites. Multiple barriers and few facilitators to the provision of HRS were identified. Existing HRS were thought to be fragmented and dependent on the knowledge, time, and comfort level of individual providers. Participants also highlighted stigma around substance use, limited support, and burdensome regulatory requirements. Existing infrastructure, social programming, and local champions were highlighted as facilitators. Given these factors, implementation strategies that may be bundled to promote adoption of HRS include engagement of champions, communications and educational strategies, existing policies, and creation of dashboards, tracking, and feedback systems. Conclusions: HRS are effective and evidence-based, yet their adoption into traditional healthcare settings has been limited. Mapping of barriers to evidence-based implementation strategies may help improve integration of HRS into VHA healthcare, however, challenges addressing stigma remain a substantial barrier. More research is needed to identify implementation strategies that are most effective for addressing barriers imposed by stigma.

Background: Adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV) in Vietnam are known to struggle with adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Objective: To examine treatment challenges and facilitators experienced by ALHIV from the perspective of adolescents, their caregivers, and providers, and to inform an adherence intervention. Methods: In-depth Interviews (IDIs) of adolescent/caregiver dyads and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with adolescents, caregivers, and clinicians were conducted in Hanoi, Vietnam. We used semi-structured guides to encourage open-ended responses. We queried the challenges adolescents experience taking ART medications and being adherent, their awareness of disease status, and facilitators to support high adherence. Audio-recorded IDIs were translated into English, and coded and analyzed in NVivo using a thematic approach. Results: A total of 78 individuals participated in the study. Forty individuals participated in IDIs (20 adolescents and 20 caregivers). All adolescents had acquired HIV perinatally. We conducted six FGDs: four with adolescents, and one each with caregivers and clinicians. We identified major themes regarding awareness of HIV status (most caregivers reported they had disclosed to their child, while few adolescents revealed the knowledge of their status); perceived barriers to adherence (medication-related challenges, stigma, school-associated issues, financial obstacles, system challenges, awareness of HIV status); and adherence facilitators (development of dose-taking habits, reminder systems, social support). Differences between adolescents and caregivers related to key issues were evident. Conclusion: Further research is needed to elucidate discrepancies in adolescent-caregiver viewpoints and develop interventions tailored to both ALHIV and their caregivers.

We tested an intervention that aimed to increase retention in antiretroviral therapy (ART) among HIV-positive pregnant and postpartum women, a population shown to be vulnerable to poor ART outcomes. 133 pregnant women initiating ART at 2 hospitals in Uganda used real time-enabled wireless pill monitors (WPM) for 1 month, and were then randomized to receive text message reminders (triggered by late dose-taking) and data-informed counseling through 3 months postpartum or standard care. We assessed “full retention” (proportion attending all monthly clinic visits and delivering at a study facility; “visit retention” (proportion of clinic visits attended); and “postpartum retention” (proportion retained at 3 months postpartum). Intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses found that retention was relatively low and similar between groups, with no significant differences. Retention declined significantly post-delivery. The intervention was unsuccessful in this population, which experiences suboptimal ART retention and is in urgent need of effective interventions.

Background Injection drug use–associated bacterial and viral infections are increasing. Expanding access to harm reduction services, such as safe injection education, are effective prevention strategies. However, these strategies have had limited uptake. New tools are needed to improve provider capacity to facilitate dissemination of these evidence-based interventions. Methods The “Six Moments of Infection Prevention in Injection Drug Use” provider educational tool was developed using a global, rather than pathogen-specific, infection prevention framework, highlighting the prevention of invasive bacterial and fungal infections in additional to viral pathogens. The tool’s effectiveness was tested using a short, paired pre/post survey that assessed provider knowledge and attitudes about harm reduction. Results Seventy-five respondents completed the paired surveys. At baseline, 17 respondents (22.6%) indicated that they had received no prior training in harm reduction and 28 (37.3%) reported discomfort counseling people who inject drugs (PWID). Sixty respondents (80.0%) reported they had never referred a patient to a syringe service program (SSP); of those, 73.3% cited lack of knowledge regarding locations of SSPs and 40.0% reported not knowing where to access information regarding SSPs. After the training, 66 (88.0%) reported that they felt more comfortable educating PWID (P Conclusions The Six Moments model emphasizes the importance of a global approach to infection prevention and harm reduction. This educational intervention can be used as part of a bundle of implementation strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in PWID.

Healthcare must rapidly and systematically learn from earlier COVID-19 responses to prepare for future crises. This is critical for VA's Mental Health Residential Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs (RRTPs), offering 24/7 care to Veterans for behavioral health and/or homelessness. We adapted the World Health Organization's After Action Review (AAR) to conduct semi-structured small-group discussions with staff from two RRTPs and Veterans who received RRTP care during COVID-19, to examine COVID-19's impact on these programs. Six thematic categories emerged through qualitative analysis (participant-checked and contextualized with additional input from program leadership), representing participants' recommendations including: Keep RRTPs open (especially when alternative programs are inaccessible), convey reasons for COVID-19 precautions and programming changes to Veterans, separate recovery-oriented programming from COVID-19-related information-sharing, ensure Wi-Fi availability for telehealth and communication, provide technology training during orientation, and establish safe procedures for off-site appointments. AAR is easily applicable for organizations to debrief and learn from past experiences.

Although COVID-19 vaccines have been available to many U.S. Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system employees and Veteran patients since early 2021, vaccine receipt data indicates some groups are not receiving them. Our objective was to conduct a rapid qualitative assessment of Veterans' and VA employees' views on COVID-19 vaccination to inform clinical leaders' ongoing efforts to increase vaccine uptake across the VA. We employed semi-structured interviews and a focus group involving employees and Veterans as part of a quality improvement project between January and June 2021 at three VA medical centers. Thirty-one employees and 27 Veterans participated in semi-structured interviews; 5 Veterans from a national stakeholder organization participated in a focus group. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, involving an a priori coding framework comprised of four domains with subcodes under each: contextual influences, barriers and facilitators, vaccine-specific issues, and VA/military experiences. We then classified initial codes into five categories of hesitancy: vaccine deliberation, dissent, distrust, indifference and skepticism. A subset of Veterans (n = 14) and employees (n = 8) identified as vaccine hesitant. Vaccine hesitancy categories were represented by subcodes of religion, culture, gender or socio-economic factors, perceptions of politics and policies, role of healthcare providers, and historical influences; (contextual influences); knowledge or awareness of vaccines, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and beliefs and attitudes about health and illness (barriers and facilitators); vaccine development process (vaccine-specific issues) and military experiences (VA/military factors). Facilitators involved talking with trusted others, ease of vaccine access, and perceptions of family and societal benefits of vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is multi-faceted and likely requires multiple strategies for engaging in conversations to address Veteran and VA employee concerns. Messages should involve patient-centered communication strategies delivered by trusted healthcare providers and peers and should focus on addressing expected benefits for family, friends, and society.

Background There are challenges associated with measuring sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). First, the terms sustainability and sustainment are often falsely conflated: sustainability assesses the likelihood of an EBP being in use in the future while sustainment assesses the extent to which an EBP is (or is not) in use. Second, grant funding often ends before sustainment can be assessed. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) is one of few large-scale models of diffusion; it seeks to identify and disseminate practices across the VHA system. The DoE sponsors “Shark Tank” competitions, in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a practice with 6 months of implementation support. As part of an ongoing evaluation of the DoE, we sought to develop and administer a pragmatic instrument to assess sustainment of DoE practices.Methods In June 2020, surveys were sent to 64 facilities that were part of the DoE evaluation. We began analysis by comparing alignment of quantitative and qualitative responses; some facility representatives reported in the open text box of the survey that their practice was on a temporary hold due to COVID-19 but answered the primary outcome question differently. As a result, the team reclassified the primary outcome of these facilities to Sustained: Temporary COVID-Hold. Following this reclassification, the number and percent of facilities in each category was calculated. We used directed content analysis, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), to analyze open text box responses. Results A representative from forty-one facilities (64%) completed the survey. Among responding facilities, 29/41 sustained their practice, 1/41 partially sustained their practice, 8/41 had not sustained their practice, and 3/41 had never implemented their practice. Sustainment rates increased between Cohorts 1 – 4. Conclusions The development and administration of our pragmatic survey allowed us to assess sustainment of DoE practices. Planned updates to the survey will enable flexibility in assessing sustainment and its determinants at any phase after adoption. This assessment approach can flex with the longitudinal and dynamic nature of sustainment, including capturing nuances in outcomes when practices are on a temporary hold.

Purpose. We investigated how health care systems should communicate with patients about possible exposures to blood-borne pathogens that may have occurred during their care. Our goal was to determine how best to communicate uncertain risk information in a way that would minimize harm to patients, maintain their trust, and encourage patients to seek follow-up treatment. Methods. Participants ( N = 1103) were randomized to receive one of six vignette surveys; 997 (98.4%) responded. All vignettes described the same event, but differed by risk level and recommendations (lower risk v. higher risk) and by communication mode (telephone, letter, social media). We measured participants’ perceived risk of blood-borne infection, trust in the health care system, and shared decision making about next clinical steps. Open-ended questions were analyzed using grounded thematic analysis. Results. When the vignette requested patients to undergo testing and practice certain health behaviors (higher risk), participants’ likelihood of seeking follow-up testing for blood-borne pathogens and their understanding of health issues increased. Perceived trust was unaffected by risk level or communication processes. Qualitative data indicated a desire for telephone communication from providers known to the patient. Limitations. It is not clear whether higher risk language or objective risk levels in vignettes motivated patients’ behavioral intentions. Conclusion. Using higher risk language when disclosing large-scale adverse events increased participants’ willingness to seek follow-up care. Implications. Health care organizations’ disclosures should focus on the next steps to take after health care exposures. This communication should involve helping patients to understand their personal health issues better, make them feel that they know which steps to take following the receipt of this information, and encouraging them to seek follow-up infectious disease testing in order to better take care of themselves.

Graphical Abstract Image, graphical abstract, Highlights • Healthcare workers know and mostly follow respiratory protection protocols. • Social norms encourage protocol adherence during high-risk situations. • Diagnostic uncertainty and mistrust of protocols may lead to inappropriate use. • Clinical experience served as a personal protocol in cases of uncertainty. • Respiratory protective equipment nonadherence includes overuse., Background Little is known about health care workers’ (HCW) perceptions of, or experiences using, respiratory protective equipment (RPE). We sought to characterize their perceptions and identify reasons underlying inappropriate use. Methods We conducted 12 focus groups with nurses and nursing assistants at 4 medical centers. We analyzed the thematic content of 73 discrete “stories” told by focus group participants. Results We identified 5 story types surrounding RPE use: 1) policies are known and seen during work routines; 2) during protocol lapses, use is reinforced through social norms; 3) clinical experiences sometimes supersede protocol adherence; 4) when risk perception is high, we found concern regarding accessing RPE; and 5) HCWs in emergency departments were viewed as not following protocol because risk was ever-present. Discussion HCWs were aware of the importance of RPE and protocols for using it, and these supported use when protocol lapses occurred. However, protocol adherence was undermined by clinical experience, perceived risk, and the distinct context of the emergency department where patients continually arrive with incomplete or delayed diagnoses. Conclusions Protocols, visual cues, and social norms contribute to a culture of safety. This culture can be undermined when HCWs experience diagnostic uncertainty or they mistrust the protocol and instead rely on their clinical experiences.

We conducted a process evaluation in the context of a Hybrid Type 1 randomized controlled trial testing two treatments for post-traumatic stress, using a web-based social network survey and semi-structured interviews to illustrate the relationship between providers' influence and likelihood of referring patients to the RCT. Providers with high indegree centrality (designated by other providers as someone they seek information from) were significantly more likely to refer patients to the RCT, and serve as an influence to others' referral behavior. Interviews provided additional data to consider for future studies aimed at increasing the uptake of evidence-based practices.

We constructed a novel measure of homelessness to examine differences in hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence across 3 categories of unstably housed and homeless veterans and across US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center facilities. We used Veterans Affairs administrative data to classify a cohort of 434 240 veterans as at risk of homelessness, currently homeless, or formerly homeless, and we examined variation in HCV prevalence by using descriptive measures and mixed-effect logistic regression models. HCV prevalence was highest among veterans who were formerly homeless (16.7%; 32 490 of 195 000), followed by currently homeless (12.4%; 22 050 of 178 056) and at risk of homelessness (8.2%; 5015 of 61 184). Veterans Affairs Medical Center–level prevalence ranged from 5.4% to 21.5%. Differences in HCV prevalence were significant by sex, race/ethnicity, and age. Targeting specific populations of homeless veterans for tailored HCV interventions and allocating additional resources to certain Veterans Affairs Medical Centers may be warranted.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in virtual care (VC) across outpatient specialties, but little is known regarding provider acceptance of VC. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess provider perceptions of the quality, efficiency, and challenges of VC versus in-person care with masks. Design: This was a voluntary survey. Participants: Mental health (MH), primary care, medical specialty, and surgical specialty providers across the 8 VA New England Healthcare System medical centers. Measures: Provider ratings of: (1) quality and efficiency of VC (phone and video telehealth) compared with in-person care with masks; (2) challenges of VC; and (3) percentage of patients that providers are comfortable seeing via VC in the future. Results: The sample included 998 respondents (49.8% MH, 20.6% primary care, 20.4% medical specialty, 9.1% surgical specialty; 61% response rate). Most providers rated VC as equivalent to or higher in quality and efficiency compared with in-person care with masks. Quality ratings were significantly higher for video versus phone (χ2=61.4, P24.1, Ps12.2, Ps

OBJECTIVE: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment has experienced a rapid transformation in the USA. New direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications make treatment easier, less toxic, and more successful (90% or greater viral cure) than prior, interferon-based HCV medications. We sought to determine whether DAAs may have improved access to HCV treatment for hard-to-reach populations such as the homeless. METHODS: In a retrospective study of VA electronic medical record data, a cohort was created of 63,586 veterans with a positive HCV RNA or genotype test taken at any point from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2016. Patient data were examined for up to 5 years using a discrete time survival model to assess the relationship between their housing status and receipt of HCV medications in 6-month time periods in both the interferon and DAA eras. RESULTS: In the interferon era, the probability of HCV treatment in a given 6-month window among housed veterans, at 6.2% (95% CI: 5.3–7.1%) was significantly higher than among veterans who were homeless or unstably housed; for example, among currently homeless veterans, the probability of treatment initiation, in a given 6-month window, was 2.6% (95% CI: 1.9–3.3%). With the arrival of DAAs, each housing category had an increased probability of treatment initiation. For housed veterans, the probability was 8.6% (95% CI: 8.3–8.9%) while for currently homeless veterans, it was 6.3% (95% CI: 5.7–6.9%). CONCLUSIONS: We found a clear indication that the likelihood of treatment initiation was greater for all veterans in the DAA era as compared to the interferon era. However, disparities in treatment initiation rates between housed and homeless veterans that were observed in the interferon era persisted in the DAA era. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06933-z.

Background Patients’ life contexts are increasingly recognized as important, as evidenced by growing attention to the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH). This attention may be particularly valuable for patients with complex needs, like those with HIV, who are more likely to experience age-related comorbidities, mental health or substance use issues. Understanding patient perceptions of their life context can advance SDoH approaches. Objectives We sought to understand how aging patients with HIV think about their life context and explored if and how their reported context was documented in their electronic medical records (EMRs). Design We combined life story interviews and EMR data to understand the health-related daily life experiences of patients with HIV. Patients over 50 were recruited from two US Department of Veterans Affairs HIV clinics. Narrative analysis was used to organize data by life events and health-related metrics. Key results EMRs of 15 participants documented an average of 19 diagnoses and 10 medications but generally failed to include social contexts salient to patients. In interviews, HIV was discussed primarily in response to direct interviewer questions. Instead, participants raised past trauma, current social engagement, and concern about future health with varying salience. This led us to organize the narratives temporally according to past-, present-, or future-orientation. “Past-focused” narratives dwelled on unresolved experiences with social institutions like the school system, military or marriage. “Present-focused” narratives emphasized daily life challenges, like social isolation. “Future-focused” narratives were dominated by concerns that aging would limit activities. Conclusions A temporally informed understanding of patients’ life circumstances that are the foundation of their individualized SDoH could better focus care plans by addressing contextual concerns salient to patients. Trust-building may be a critical first step in caring for past-focused patients. Present-focused patients may benefit from support groups. Future-focused patients may desire discussing long term care options.

Clinician attitudes toward telehealth may impact utilization rates, and findings may differ based on specialty.To determine whether clinician beliefs regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with the proportion of care delivered via video, phone, and in-person across specialties.This survey study used a voluntary, anonymous survey conducted from August to September 2021 in the Department of Veterans Affairs New England Healthcare System (VANEHS). Mental health (MH), primary care (PC), and specialty care (SC) clinicians were invited to participate. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to January 2022.Participation in a 32-item survey.The main outcomes were clinicians' views on relative quality of video, phone, and in-person care; factors contributing to clinicians' modality choice; telehealth challenges; and clinician modality preferences and utilization when treating new and established patients.There were 866 survey respondents (estimated 64% response rate); 52 respondents reported no video or phone telehealth use in the 3 months prior to survey completion and were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 814 respondents. Respondents were divided among MH (403 respondents [49.5%]), PC (153 respondents [18.8%]), and SC (258 respondents [31.7%]). Compared with PC and SC clinicians, MH clinicians rated the quality of video care the highest (eg, compared with in-person care with masks when treating new patients: χ2 = 147.8; P .001) and were more likely to prefer video over phone when treating both new (χ2 = 26.6; P .001) and established (χ2 = 100.4; P .001) patients remotely. PC and SC clinicians were more likely to rate phone care as being at least equivalent in quality to video for both new (χ2 = 26.3; P .001) and established (χ2 = 33.5; P .001) patients. PC and SC clinicians were also more likely to endorse challenges of video care, including patient barriers and the inability to conduct a physical examination (χ2 = 292.0; P .001). Most PC and SC clinicians either had no preference (46 PC respondents [36.2%]; 59 SC respondents [28.4%]) or preferred phone (36 PC respondents [28.3%]; 67 SC respondents [32.2%]) for remote care of established patients. Findings aligned with utilization rates within VANEHS, with MH clinicians conducting significantly more of their encounters via video (36 734 encounters [40.3%]) than PC (3201 encounters [3.9%]) and SC (1157 encounters [4.9%]) clinicians.These findings suggest that clinician attitudes regarding telehealth quality and ease of use were associated with utilization rates. Moving forward, clinician use of telehealth may be impacted by additional data regarding the relative effectiveness of modalities as well as improvements in video telehealth workflows.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Large health care systems and organizations face the challenge of identifying, replicating, and spreading evidence‐based innovation across health care system locations. The Diffusion of Excellence (DoE) program aims to incentivize implementing and spreading innovations across the nationwide Veterans Health Administration (VHA). VHA frontline staff submit successfully implemented innovations/practices to a “Shark Tank” competition, in which VHA facility directors place bids to support further implementation. DoE designates the best submission as Gold Status Practices (GSPs), and “winning” bidders receive 6‐months of external facilitation to implement their GSP. DoE then provides national support for diffusing successful GSPs across the VHA. We present results from a mixed‐methods evaluation focused on motivations for program participation, adopting innovations, predictors of implementation, and innovation maintenance/sustainability. STUDY DESIGN: The evaluation utilizes the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data sources include: (a) metrics on innovation adoptions linked to VHA facility characteristics; (b) tracking of project specific metrics for practices receiving intensive support for national spread (e.g., potential costs averted, individuals served); (c) 2 focus groups with bidders; (d) observations of 7 DoE events; (e) 143 participants in semi‐structured interview of facility leaders, innovation developers, teams implementing Shark Tank innovations, and implementation facilitators; and (f) 4 surveys of DoE stakeholders. Results are summarized based on the RE‐AIM (Reach‐Effectiveness‐Adoption‐Implementation‐Maintenance) evaluation framework. POPULATION STUDIED: Innovations aimed at 146 VHA facilities/individual health care systems. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: REACH—In the first four Shark Tank rounds, 1676 promising innovations/practices were submitted, with 47 designated as GSPs. EFFECTIVENESS—The impact of specific practices varied. However, impacts have been associated with greater use of evidence‐based services and improved administrative functioning. ADOPTION—Motivations for participating in the DoE process varied among individuals with key roles. Innovations frequently arose from “passion” projects to address identified issues. VA facility/medical center leaders often focus on “big picture” quality metrics and getting middle manager support. Front‐line staff varied in their motivation to implement new projects, potentially leading to a mismatch in stakeholder motivation. IMPLEMENTATION success—approximately half of facilitated‐implementation efforts were fully successful. CFIR themes of Engaging Key Stakeholders and Available Resources received ratings that varied based on level of successful implementation (i.e., fully, partially, or not successful). While sites reported some degree of concern with External Policies and Incentives (e.g., challenges quickly hiring staff), all tried to overcome these challenges with the assistance of External Change Agents (e.g., facilitators and practice developers). MAINTENANCE—At the facility‐level, 74% of facilities originating or receiving facilitated‐implementation support have maintained the practice, including facilities that may have taken longer than 6 months for initial implementation. VHA‐wide, 834 decisions to adopt GSPs have been documented. CONCLUSIONS: DoE’s innovative Shark Tank approach identified a large number of candidate practices, successfully promoted adoption of promising practices by facility directors, and supported practice implementation and diffusion across VHA. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: As health systems grow in size and complexity, they face additional challenges in identifying, prioritizing, replicating, and spreading best practices. DoE offers a potential model for other health systems and can be a key strategy to move toward being a learning health system. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs.

BackgroundOne goal of health systems seeking to evolve into learning health systems is to accelerate the implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs). As part of this evolution, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed the Innovation Ecosystem, which includes the Diffusion of Excellence (DoE), a program that identifies and diffuses Gold Status Practices (GSPs) across facilities. The DoE hosts an annual “Shark Tank” competition in which leaders bid on the opportunity to implement a GSP with 6 months of implementation support. Over 750 diverse practices were submitted in cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank; 23 were designated GSPs and were implemented in 31 VA networks or facilities. As part of a national evaluation of the DoE, we identified factors contributing to GSP implementation and sustainment.MethodsOur sequential mixed methods evaluation of cohorts 2 and 3 of Shark Tank included semi-structured interviews with at least one representative from 30/31 implementing teams (N= 78/105 people invited) and survey responses from 29/31 teams (N= 39/47 invited). Interviews focused on factors influencing implementation and future sustainment. Surveys focused on sustainment 1.5–2 years after implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed data collection and directed content analysis. Ordinal scales were developed inductively to rank implementation and sustainment outcomes.ResultsOver 50% of teams (17/30) successfully implemented their GSP within the 6-month implementation period. Despite extensive implementation support, significant barriers related to centralized decision-making, staffing, and resources led to partial (n= 6) or no (n= 7) implementation for the remaining teams. While 12/17 initially successful implementation teams reported sustained use of their GSP, over half of the initially unsuccessful teams (n= 7/13) also reported sustained GSP use 1.5 years after the initial implementation period. When asked at 6 months, 18/27 teams with complete data accurately anticipated their future sustainability based on reported sustainment an average of 1.5 years later.ConclusionsMost teams implemented within 6 months and/or sustained their GSP 1.5 years later. High levels of implementation and sustainment across diverse practices and teams suggest that VHA’s DoE is a successful large-scale model of diffusion. Team predictions about sustainability after the first 6 months of implementation provide a promising early assessment and point of intervention to increase sustainability.

We tested an intervention that aimed to increase retention in antiretroviral therapy (ART) among HIV-positive pregnant and postpartum women, a population shown to be vulnerable to poor ART outcomes. 133 pregnant women initiating ART at 2 hospitals in Uganda used real time-enabled wireless pill monitors (WPM) for 1 month, and were then randomized to receive text message reminders (triggered by late dose-taking) and data-informed counseling through 3 months postpartum or standard care. We assessed "full retention" (proportion attending all monthly clinic visits and delivering at a study facility; "visit retention" (proportion of clinic visits attended); and "postpartum retention" (proportion retained at 3 months postpartum). Intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses found that retention was relatively low and similar between groups, with no significant differences. Retention declined significantly post-delivery. The intervention was unsuccessful in this population, which experiences suboptimal ART retention and is in urgent need of effective interventions.

Background and Objectives With increasing access to antiretroviral therapy, HIV-infected youth are living longer, but are vulnerable as they navigate the transition to adulthood while managing a highly stigmatized condition. Knowing one's HIV status is critical to assuming responsibility for one's health. The process of disclosure to adolescents living with HIV is not well understood globally, even less so in China. To help address this gap, we explored practices for disclosure to adolescents living with HIV (ALHIV) among Chinese caregivers and clinicians, and the disclosure experiences of the adolescents themselves using qualitative methods. Design and Setting The study was conducted in 2014 at the Guangxi Center for Disease Control and Prevention ART (CDC-ART) clinic in Nanning, China. We used a qualitative design, incorporating in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). Patients and Methods We conducted IDIs with 19 adolescent/caregiver dyads and five FGDs with adolescents and clinicians. Adolescent participants were aged 10–15 years, and had contracted HIV perinatally. Using NVivoTM software, we summarized major themes. Results Only 6/19 caregivers reported disclosing to their child; matched adolescents' statements indicate that 9/19 children knew their HIV status. Caregivers planned to disclose when children were 14 years or older. Concerns about stigma toward children and families were associated with reluctance to disclose. Conclusion Disclosure to adolescents living with HIV in China was delayed compared with recommended guidelines. Culturally appropriate disclosure strategies should be developed, focused on supporting caregivers and de-stigmatizing HIV.

Background:Few Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) adherence trials investigate the reasons for intervention success or failure among HIV-positive individuals.Objectives:To conduct qualitative research to explore the reasons for effectiveness of a 6-month mHealth (mobile health) trial that improved adherence among ART patients in China. The intervention utilized Wireless Pill Containers (WPCs) to provide, real-time SMS reminders, WPC-generated adherence reports, and report-informed counseling.Methods:We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 intervention-arm participants immediately following the trial. Sampling was purposeful to ensure inclusion of participants with varied adherence histories. Questions covered adherence barriers and facilitators, and intervention experiences. We analyzed data in nVivo using a thematic approach.Results:Of participants, 14 (70%) were male; 7 (35%) had used injectable drugs. Pre-intervention, 11 were optimal adherers and 9 were suboptimal adherers, using a 95% threshold. In the final intervention month, all but 3 (85%) attained optimal adherence. Participants identified a range of adherence barriers and facilitators, and described various mechanisms for intervention success. Optimal adherers at baseline were motivated by positive adherence reports at monthly clinic visits-similar to receiving A+ grades. For suboptimal adherers, reminders facilitated the establishment of adherence-promoting routines; data-guided counseling helped identify strategies to overcome specific barriers.Conclusion:Different behavioral mechanisms appear to explain the success of an mHealth adherence intervention among patients with varying adherence histories. Positive reinforcement was effective for optimal adherers, while struggling patients benefitted from reminders and data-informed counseling. These findings are relevant for the design and scalability of mHealth interventions and warrant further investigation.

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.

Objective To test the effectiveness of a collaborative depression care model in improving depression and hepatitis C virus (HCV) care. Data Sources/Study Setting Hepatitis C virus clinic patients who screened positive for depression at four Veterans Affairs Hospitals. Study Design We compared off-site depression collaborative care (delivered by depression care manager, pharmacist, and psychiatrist) with usual care in a randomized trial. Primary depression outcomes were treatment response (≥50 percent decrease in 20-item Hopkins Symptoms Checklist [SCL-20] score), remission (mean SCL-20 score

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: In fiscal year (FY) 2017, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Rural Teledermatology Program was established to enhance access to dermatology services via store‐and‐forward teledermatology, which allows primary care providers to consult with dermatologists to diagnose and manage dermatologic conditions via digital transmission of clinical history and skin images. In addition to specific guidance on expanding teledermatology programs, grantees/teledermatology hub sites were funded to support primary care staff effort and training to manage teledermatology patients and dermatologist effort to review consults. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed‐methods evaluation of the VA Rural Teledermatology Program was based on Glasgow (reach‐effectiveness‐adoption‐implementation‐maintenance) implementation evaluation framework. Data were obtained on the utilization of teledermatology services from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. 14 grantee facilities completed a site report covering the degree of teledermatology implementation, barriers to and facilitators of teledermatology implementation, and state of program sustainability/maintenance for FY‐2019. POPULATION STUDIED: 14 primary hub grantees/facilities supporting 247 additional “spoke” care locations, with 235,544 unique dermatology encounters for Veterans in FY‐2019. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Reach: Participating hub and spoke sites had 47 342 teledermatology encounters among 44 774 unique patients in FY‐2019, a 42.4% increase since FY‐2016 (year before program began) (P

The prevalence and risk factors for non-adherence to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) in clinical practice settings are under-studied.(1) To quantify DAA non-adherence in the total cohort and among subgroups with and without mental health conditions, alcohol use, and substance use, and (2) to investigate patient- and treatment-level risk factor non-adherence.Prospective, observational cohort study.A total of 1562 patients receiving DAAs between January 2016 and October 2017 at 11 US medical centers including academic and community practices.Self-reported medication non-adherence, defined as any missed doses in the past 7 days, surveyed early (T2: at 4 ± 2 weeks) and late in treatment (T3: 2-3 weeks prior to end of treatment). Non-adherence to post-treatment follow-up visits was defined as absence of lab results after DAA therapy completion.Of 1447 patients, 162 (11%) reported non-adherence at T2 or T3. Medical records indicated 262 (17%) of the 1562 participants had not returned for post-treatment visits. At baseline, 37% of patients reported mental health conditions, 15% reported alcohol use, and 23% reported using substances in the previous year. Baseline characteristics associated with DAA non-adherence included alcohol use (OR 1.96), younger age (35 years vs.55 years: OR 3.40), non-white race (OR2.26), and DAA treatment cohort, but not substance use or mental health condition. Non-adherence to follow-up exhibited association with younger age and a higher baseline overall symptom burden. Among 1287 patients with evaluable sustained virologic response (SVR) data, 53 patients (4%) did not achieve SVR. The bivariate correlation between adherence and SVR was negligible (r = 0.01).DAA non-adherence was low and SVR rates were high. Mental health conditions, substance use, and alcohol use should not disqualify patients from DAA therapy. Patients with alcohol use disorder before DAA therapy initiation may benefit from targeted on-treatment support.