Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Defense (DOD) provide care each year for approximately 75,000 people with first-episode psychoses or schizophrenia, but neither has formal, evidence-based guidance for treating these conditions. Recognition of this gap, together with guidance from Congress, led the Departments to develop clinical practice guidelines for first-episode psychosis and schizophrenia. This synopsis summarizes the psychopharmacological and other somatic treatment recommendations. An interdisciplinary panel of VA and DOD mental health and primary care providers was created following methods specified by the VA/DOD Evidence-Based Practice Guideline Work Group. The panel formulated key questions that guided a comprehensive search of the intervention literature from November 2011 to December 2021, with evidence limited to findings from randomized clinical trials. Recommendations were based on evaluation of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The VA/DOD guideline panel developed 15 pharmacological and somatic treatment recommendations, including those on antipsychotic medication use for the treatment of first-episode psychosis and schizophrenia, use of clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, treatment of clozapine non-responders, and side effect management. There was insufficient evidence to provide recommendations for or against the use of non-antipsychotic medications or somatic treatments to treat negative or cognitive symptoms. The VA/DOD guideline panel developed 15 pharmacological and somatic treatment recommendations to promote optimal, evidence-based care for active service members and Veterans. However, there remain multiple treatment planning decision points for which there is a lack of data and/or effective treatments.

Despite the large number of people treated for first-episode psychosis and schizophrenia within the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA), neither the DOD nor VA had established formal recommendations for the treatment of these conditions. This gap led Congress to require the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the treatment of schizophrenia. This paper reports on the psychosocial and rehabilitative recommendations presented in the VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of First-Episode Psychosis and Schizophrenia. The CPG was developed by an interdisciplinary panel of mental health and primary care providers from DOD and VA following methods specified by the VA/DOD Evidence-Based Practice Guideline Work Group. The panel formulated key questions and identified critical outcomes that guided a comprehensive search of the literature published from November 2011 to December 2021. The evidence considered was limited to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials. Recommendations were based on the evaluation of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The review process produced 4 psychosocial/rehabilitative treatment recommendations for first-episode psychosis (early intervention services, family interventions, individual placement and support (IPS), and cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis) and 11 recommendations for schizophrenia (family and caregiver services, assertive community treatment, IPS, smoking cessation, skills training, cognitive training, psychotherapies, aerobic exercise, yoga, weight management, and telephone-based care management). The VA/DOD CPG reflects the expansion of treatments for first-episode psychosis and schizophrenia and highlights the challenges in developing clinical practice guidelines.

Abstract Description The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense (DoD) revised the 2010 clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of opioid therapy for chronic pain, considering the specific needs of the VA and DoD and new evidence regarding prescribing opioid medication for non-end-of-life-related chronic pain. This paper summarizes the major recommendations and compares them with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline for prescribing opioids. Patient Population This Opioid Therapy CPG was developed for VA-DoD service members, veterans, and their families. Methods The VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a VA/DoD guideline renewal development effort and conformed to the guidelines established by the VA/DoD Joint Executive Council (JEC) and VA/DoD Health Executive Council (HEC). The panel developed questions, searched and evaluated the literature, developed recommendations using GRADE methodology, and developed algorithms. Passage of the CARA Act by Congress compelled consideration and comparison with the CDC opioid therapy guideline mid-development. Results There were 18 recommendations made. This article focuses on guideline development and key recommendations with CDC comparisons taken from four major areas, including: initiation and continuation of opioids;type, dose, follow-up, and taper of opioids;risk mitigation;acute pain. Conclusions Guideline development and recommendations are presented. There was substantial overlap with the CDC opioid guideline. Additionally, there were items particularly relevant to the VA-DoD, including risk mitigation, suicide prevention, and preventing opioid use disorder in young patients. Our guideline highlights avoiding opioid therapy longer than 90 days as a critical juncture.

BackgroundThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has a long history of addressing social determinants of health, including housing. In 2012, the VA integrated a two-question Homelessness Screening Clinical Reminder (HSCR) into the electronic medical record in outpatient clinics to identify Veterans experiencing housing instability and ensure referral to appropriate services.ObjectiveThis study explores perspectives of VA clinical providers regarding administration of the HSCR, their role in addressing housing status, and how a patient’s housing status impacts clinical decision-making.DesignWe conducted a qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviewing.ParticipantsTwenty-two providers were interviewed (20 physicians and two nurse practitioners) between March and September 2016.ApproachInterviews were conducted with Veterans Health Administration (VHA) physician and non-physician practitioners who had administered the HSCR and documented at least five positive screens between 2013 and 2015. Our interview guide investigated provider experiences with administering the HSCR and addressing affirmative responses. The guide also elicited details about how patients’ housing instability was identified (if at all) prior to implementation of the screening reminder, and how practices changed following implementation of the HSCR. Transcripts were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach.Key ResultsProviders reported that the HSCR prompted them to incorporate patient housing status into routine assessment, which they typically did not do prior to its implementation. Providers discussed adverse impacts of housing instability on patients’ overall health and described how they factored patients’ housing instability into clinical decision-making. Although providers viewed the health system as having an important role in addressing housing concerns, there were mixed opinions on whether it was the role of providers to directly administer the screening.ConclusionsIntegration of a screener for housing instability into the electronic medical record increased provider attention to housing instability into the social history, and positive responses commonly impacted plans of care.

Background Poor communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists is a significant problem and a detriment to effective care coordination. Inconsistency in the quality of primary–specialty communication persists even in environments with integrated delivery systems and electronic medical records (EMRs), such as the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Objective The purpose of this study was to measure ease of communication and to characterize communication challenges perceived by PCPs and primary care personnel in the VHA, with a particular focus on challenges associated with referral communication. Design The study utilized a convergent mixed-methods design: online cross-sectional survey measuring PCP-reported ease of communication with specialists, and semi-structured interviews characterizing primary–specialty communication challenges. Participants 191 VHA PCPs from one regional network were surveyed (54 % response rate), and 41 VHA PCPs and primary care staff were interviewed. Main Measures/Approach PCP-reported ease of communication mean score (survey) and recurring themes in participant descriptions of primary–specialty referral communication (interviews) were analyzed. Key Results Among PCPs, ease-of-communication ratings were highest for women’s health and mental health (mean score of 2.3 on a scale of 1–3 in both), and lowest for cardiothoracic surgery and neurology (mean scores of 1.3 and 1.6, respectively). Primary care personnel experienced challenges communicating with specialists via the EMR system, including difficulty in communicating special requests for appointments within a certain time frame and frequent rejection of referral requests due to rigid informational requirements. When faced with these challenges, PCPs reported using strategies such as telephone and e-mail contact with specialists with whom they had established relationships, as well as the use of an EMR-based referral innovation called “eConsults” as an alternative to a traditional referral. Conclusions Primary–specialty communication is a continuing challenge that varies by specialty and may be associated with the likelihood of an established connection already in place between specialty and primary care. Improvement in EMR systems is needed, with more flexibility for the communication of special requests. Building relationships between PCPs and specialists may also facilitate referral communication.

ABSTRACT The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has undertaken a major initiative to transform primary care delivery through implementation of Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs). Based on the patient-centered medical home concept, PACTs aim to improve access, continuity, coordination, and comprehensiveness using team-based care that is patient driven and patient centered. However, how PACT principles should be applied to meet the needs of special populations, including women veterans, is not entirely clear. While historical differences in military participation meant women veterans were rarely seen in VA healthcare settings, they now represent the fastest growing segment of new VA users. They also have complex healthcare needs, adding gender-specific services and other needs to the spectrum of services that the VA must deliver. These trends are changing the VA landscape, introducing challenges to how VA care is organized, how VA providers need to be trained, and how VA considers implementation of new initiatives, such as PACT. We briefly describe the evolution of VA primary care delivery for women veterans, review VA policy for delivering gender-sensitive comprehensive primary care for women, and discuss the challenges that women veterans’ needs pose in the context of PACT implementation. We conclude with recommendations for addressing some of these challenges moving forward.

ObjectiveMany healthcare systems employ population-based risk scores to prospectively identify patients at high risk of poor outcomes, but it is unclear whether single point-in-time scores adequately represent future risk. We sought to identify and characterize latent subgroups of high-risk patients based on risk score trajectories.Study DesignObservational study of 7289 patients discharged from Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals during a 1-week period in November 2012 and categorized in the top 5th percentile of risk for hospitalization.MethodsUsing VA administrative data, we calculated weekly risk scores using the validated Care Assessment Needs model, reflecting the predicted probability of hospitalization. We applied the non-parametric k-means algorithm to identify latent subgroups of patients based on the trajectory of patients’ hospitalization probability over a 2-year period. We then compared baseline sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, health service use, and social instability markers between identified latent subgroups.ResultsThe best-fitting model identified two subgroups: moderately high and persistently high risk. The moderately high subgroup included 65% of patients and was characterized by moderate subgroup-level hospitalization probability decreasing from 0.22 to 0.10 between weeks 1 and 66, then remaining constant through the study end. The persistently high subgroup, comprising the remaining 35% of patients, had a subgroup-level probability increasing from 0.38 to 0.41 between weeks 1 and 52, and declining to 0.30 at study end. Persistently high-risk patients were older, had higher prevalence of social instability and comorbidities, and used more health services.ConclusionsOn average, one third of patients initially identified as high risk stayed at very high risk over a 2-year follow-up period, while risk for the other two thirds decreased to a moderately high level. This suggests that multiple approaches may be needed to address high-risk patient needs longitudinally or intermittently.

Abstract Objective To examine patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with opioid use among Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) who receive chiropractic care, and to explore the relationship between timing of a chiropractic visit and receipt of an opioid prescription. Methods Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data on OEF/OIF/OND veterans who had at least one visit to a Veterans Affairs (VA) chiropractic clinic between 2004 and 2014. Opioid receipt was defined as at least one prescription within a window of 90 days before to 90 days after the index chiropractic clinic visit. Results We identified 14,025 OEF/OIF/OND veterans with at least one chiropractic visit, and 4,396 (31.3%) of them also received one or more opioid prescriptions. Moderate/severe pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.72–2.03), PTSD (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.41–1.69), depression (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.29–1.53), and current smoking (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.26–1.52) were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. The percentage of veterans receiving opioid prescriptions was lower in each of the three 30-day time frames assessed after the index chiropractic visit than before. Conclusions Nearly one-third of OEF/OIF/OND veterans receiving VA chiropractic services also received an opioid prescription, yet the frequency of opioid prescriptions was lower after the index chiropractic visit than before. Further study is warranted to assess the relationship between opioid use and chiropractic care.

BackgroundResearch using the Veterans Health Administration (VA) electronic medical records (EMR) has been limited by a lack of reliable smoking data.ObjectiveTo evaluate the validity of using VA EMR “Health Factors” data to determine smoking status among veterans with recent military service.DesignSensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC), and kappa statistics were used to evaluate concordance between VA EMR smoking status and criterion smoking status.ParticipantsVeterans (N = 2025) with service during the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan who participated in the VA Mid-Atlantic Post-Deployment Mental Health (PDMH) Study.Main MeasuresCriterion smoking status was based on self-report during a confidential study visit. VA EMR smoking status was measured by coding health factors data entries (populated during automated clinical reminders) in three ways: based on the most common health factor, the most recent health factor, and the health factor within 12 months of the criterion smoking status data collection date.Key ResultsConcordance with PDMH smoking status (current, former, never) was highest when determined by the most commonly observed VA EMR health factor (κ = 0.69) and was not significantly impacted by psychiatric status. Agreement was higher when smoking status was dichotomized: current vs. not current (κ = 0.73; sensitivity = 0.84; specificity = 0.91; AUC = 0.87); ever vs. never (κ = 0.75; sensitivity = 0.85; specificity = 0.90; AUC = 0.87). There were substantial missing Health Factors data when restricting analyses to a 12-month period from the criterion smoking status date. Current smokers had significantly more Health Factors entries compared to never or former smokers.ConclusionsThe use of computerized tobacco screening data to determine smoking status is valid and feasible. Results indicating that smokers have significantly more health factors entries than non-smokers suggest that caution is warranted when using the EMR to select cases for cohort studies as the risk for selection bias appears high.

Amid the ongoing U.S. opioid crisis, achieving safe and effective chronic pain management while reducing opioid-related morbidity and mortality is likely to require multi-level efforts across health systems, including the Military Health System (MHS), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and civilian sectors. We conducted a series of qualitative panel discussions with national experts to identify core challenges and elicit recommendations toward improving the safety of opioid prescribing in the U.S. We invited national experts to participate in qualitative panel discussions regarding challenges in opioid risk mitigation and how best to support providers in delivery of safe and effective opioid prescribing across MHS, VA, and civilian health systems. Eighteen experts representing primary care, emergency medicine, psychology, pharmacy, and public health/policy participated. Six qualitative panel discussions were conducted via teleconference with experts. Transcripts were coded using team-based qualitative content analysis to identify key challenges and recommendations in opioid risk mitigation. Panelists provided insight into challenges across multiple levels of the U.S. health system, including the technical complexity of treating chronic pain, the fraught national climate around opioids, the need to integrate surveillance data across a fragmented U.S. health system, a lack of access to non-pharmacological options for chronic pain care, and difficulties in provider and patient communication. Participating experts identified recommendations for multi-level change efforts spanning policy, research, education, and the organization of healthcare delivery. Reducing opioid risk while ensuring safe and effective pain management, according to participating experts, is likely to require multi-level efforts spanning military, veteran, and civilian health systems. Efforts to implement risk mitigation strategies at the patient level should be accompanied by efforts to increase education for patients and providers, increase access to non-pharmacological pain care, and support use of existing clinical decision support, including state-level prescription drug monitoring programs.