Federal Practitioner

The statistics are shocking: 138,000 registered nurses (RNs) have left the workforce since 2022 and at least 40% plan to retire or leave the profession in the next 5 years — and new updates from the Department of Education could make the national nursing crisis even worse.

The reason? Nursing is no longer considered a professional degree.

A recent Department of Education rulemaking session omitted advanced nursing programs (as well as physician assistance programs, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, social work, and public health programs) from the definition of professional degrees and limited the amount of student loan funding available to pursue advanced practice degrees like Master of Science in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice.

“We have a primary care crisis in this country,” said Deborah Trautman PhD, RN, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). “The omission is not only harmful for nursing; the omission is not good for anyone who needs healthcare.”
 

Limiting Loan Access

The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the Grad PLUS student loan program and amended the list of professional degrees to exclude advanced practice nursing. Although the change doesn’t affect the licensure or legal standing of nurses, it alters access to financial aid and limits advanced education opportunities.

Starting on July 1, 2026, graduate students will be limited to a total of $100,000 in federal student loans, a decrease from the previous cap of $138,500 but loan caps for graduate students in professional degree programs will increase to $200,000. The changes led the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators to declare, “Many will be shut out of graduate education.”

“It would force people who need loan support and don’t have a sufficient amount through a federal loan to seek [private loans], but federal loans have better interest rates and/or other conditions, and some students may not qualify for the private loans,” Trautman said. “The risk then is that students may not pursue these advanced nursing degrees because of the financial barriers that they will face.”

The Department of Education disagrees. In a statement, the federal department said, “Placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt.” So far, Trautman has seen “no evidence” that limiting access to advanced nursing programs would reduce tuition costs.
 

Industry-Wide Impacts

Trautman worries that omitting nursing from the list of professional degrees will reduce access to care.

Nurse practitioners are providing primary care in rural and underserved areas; certified registered nurse anesthetists make up more than 50% of anesthesia providers in the US (a number that jumps to 80% in rural areas); and the percentage of births attended by certified nurse midwives is growing fast.

“These are nurses…who are working to achieve better patient outcomes and to make the health system work better for all of us,” Trautman said. “And we would be compromising this workforce that is so critical to our nation.”

Limiting the federal student loan borrowing cap for advanced nursing degrees could also exacerbate the nursing faculty shortage. In 2023, more than 65,000 qualified applicants were denied admission to baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs; insufficient number of faculty was the top reason.

Colleges depend on nurses with advanced degrees to fill faculty vacancies. In fact, more than 80% of open positions required or preferred a doctoral degree, according to AACN. Removing nursing from the list of professional degree programs and limiting access to student loans will make it even harder to fill vacancies, limiting the number of new nurses entering the profession.

“We’re finalizing the results of [a new national survey] that showed overwhelming feedback from our member deans and students who believe enrollment in advanced nursing programs is going be impacted,” said Trautman. “We’re going to see the faculty shortage worsen; we’re going see increased financial burdens to our students, and we believe it’s going to undermine the stability of the healthcare workforce.”

Industry associations, including the American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nursing, and American Organization for Nursing Leadership have released statements opposing the change and advocating for graduate nursing degrees to be added to the list of professional programs. Trautman hopes that public pressure and cross-sector support will lead the Department of Education to reverse its current position.

“It’s the wrong decision,” she said. “There is an opportunity to make this right, and that is to include nursing on that professional list.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The statistics are shocking: 138,000 registered nurses (RNs) have left the workforce since 2022 and at least 40% plan to retire or leave the profession in the next 5 years — and new updates from the Department of Education could make the national nursing crisis even worse.

The reason? Nursing is no longer considered a professional degree.

A recent Department of Education rulemaking session omitted advanced nursing programs (as well as physician assistance programs, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, social work, and public health programs) from the definition of professional degrees and limited the amount of student loan funding available to pursue advanced practice degrees like Master of Science in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice.

“We have a primary care crisis in this country,” said Deborah Trautman PhD, RN, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). “The omission is not only harmful for nursing; the omission is not good for anyone who needs healthcare.”
 

Limiting Loan Access

The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the Grad PLUS student loan program and amended the list of professional degrees to exclude advanced practice nursing. Although the change doesn’t affect the licensure or legal standing of nurses, it alters access to financial aid and limits advanced education opportunities.

Starting on July 1, 2026, graduate students will be limited to a total of $100,000 in federal student loans, a decrease from the previous cap of $138,500 but loan caps for graduate students in professional degree programs will increase to $200,000. The changes led the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators to declare, “Many will be shut out of graduate education.”

“It would force people who need loan support and don’t have a sufficient amount through a federal loan to seek [private loans], but federal loans have better interest rates and/or other conditions, and some students may not qualify for the private loans,” Trautman said. “The risk then is that students may not pursue these advanced nursing degrees because of the financial barriers that they will face.”

The Department of Education disagrees. In a statement, the federal department said, “Placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt.” So far, Trautman has seen “no evidence” that limiting access to advanced nursing programs would reduce tuition costs.
 

Industry-Wide Impacts

Trautman worries that omitting nursing from the list of professional degrees will reduce access to care.

Nurse practitioners are providing primary care in rural and underserved areas; certified registered nurse anesthetists make up more than 50% of anesthesia providers in the US (a number that jumps to 80% in rural areas); and the percentage of births attended by certified nurse midwives is growing fast.

“These are nurses…who are working to achieve better patient outcomes and to make the health system work better for all of us,” Trautman said. “And we would be compromising this workforce that is so critical to our nation.”

Limiting the federal student loan borrowing cap for advanced nursing degrees could also exacerbate the nursing faculty shortage. In 2023, more than 65,000 qualified applicants were denied admission to baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs; insufficient number of faculty was the top reason.

Colleges depend on nurses with advanced degrees to fill faculty vacancies. In fact, more than 80% of open positions required or preferred a doctoral degree, according to AACN. Removing nursing from the list of professional degree programs and limiting access to student loans will make it even harder to fill vacancies, limiting the number of new nurses entering the profession.

“We’re finalizing the results of [a new national survey] that showed overwhelming feedback from our member deans and students who believe enrollment in advanced nursing programs is going be impacted,” said Trautman. “We’re going to see the faculty shortage worsen; we’re going see increased financial burdens to our students, and we believe it’s going to undermine the stability of the healthcare workforce.”

Industry associations, including the American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nursing, and American Organization for Nursing Leadership have released statements opposing the change and advocating for graduate nursing degrees to be added to the list of professional programs. Trautman hopes that public pressure and cross-sector support will lead the Department of Education to reverse its current position.

“It’s the wrong decision,” she said. “There is an opportunity to make this right, and that is to include nursing on that professional list.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The statistics are shocking: 138,000 registered nurses (RNs) have left the workforce since 2022 and at least 40% plan to retire or leave the profession in the next 5 years — and new updates from the Department of Education could make the national nursing crisis even worse.

The reason? Nursing is no longer considered a professional degree.

A recent Department of Education rulemaking session omitted advanced nursing programs (as well as physician assistance programs, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology, social work, and public health programs) from the definition of professional degrees and limited the amount of student loan funding available to pursue advanced practice degrees like Master of Science in Nursing and Doctor of Nursing Practice.

“We have a primary care crisis in this country,” said Deborah Trautman PhD, RN, president and chief executive officer of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). “The omission is not only harmful for nursing; the omission is not good for anyone who needs healthcare.”
 

Limiting Loan Access

The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the Grad PLUS student loan program and amended the list of professional degrees to exclude advanced practice nursing. Although the change doesn’t affect the licensure or legal standing of nurses, it alters access to financial aid and limits advanced education opportunities.

Starting on July 1, 2026, graduate students will be limited to a total of $100,000 in federal student loans, a decrease from the previous cap of $138,500 but loan caps for graduate students in professional degree programs will increase to $200,000. The changes led the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators to declare, “Many will be shut out of graduate education.”

“It would force people who need loan support and don’t have a sufficient amount through a federal loan to seek [private loans], but federal loans have better interest rates and/or other conditions, and some students may not qualify for the private loans,” Trautman said. “The risk then is that students may not pursue these advanced nursing degrees because of the financial barriers that they will face.”

The Department of Education disagrees. In a statement, the federal department said, “Placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programs to reduce their program costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt.” So far, Trautman has seen “no evidence” that limiting access to advanced nursing programs would reduce tuition costs.
 

Industry-Wide Impacts

Trautman worries that omitting nursing from the list of professional degrees will reduce access to care.

Nurse practitioners are providing primary care in rural and underserved areas; certified registered nurse anesthetists make up more than 50% of anesthesia providers in the US (a number that jumps to 80% in rural areas); and the percentage of births attended by certified nurse midwives is growing fast.

“These are nurses…who are working to achieve better patient outcomes and to make the health system work better for all of us,” Trautman said. “And we would be compromising this workforce that is so critical to our nation.”

Limiting the federal student loan borrowing cap for advanced nursing degrees could also exacerbate the nursing faculty shortage. In 2023, more than 65,000 qualified applicants were denied admission to baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs; insufficient number of faculty was the top reason.

Colleges depend on nurses with advanced degrees to fill faculty vacancies. In fact, more than 80% of open positions required or preferred a doctoral degree, according to AACN. Removing nursing from the list of professional degree programs and limiting access to student loans will make it even harder to fill vacancies, limiting the number of new nurses entering the profession.

“We’re finalizing the results of [a new national survey] that showed overwhelming feedback from our member deans and students who believe enrollment in advanced nursing programs is going be impacted,” said Trautman. “We’re going to see the faculty shortage worsen; we’re going see increased financial burdens to our students, and we believe it’s going to undermine the stability of the healthcare workforce.”

Industry associations, including the American Nurses Association, American Academy of Nursing, and American Organization for Nursing Leadership have released statements opposing the change and advocating for graduate nursing degrees to be added to the list of professional programs. Trautman hopes that public pressure and cross-sector support will lead the Department of Education to reverse its current position.

“It’s the wrong decision,” she said. “There is an opportunity to make this right, and that is to include nursing on that professional list.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine provided protection against RSV illness and associated health care use in nearly 290,000 older US veterans over 2 respiratory illness seasons compared with unvaccinated individuals; however, protection declined over time, particularly among immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers emulated a target trial to assess the long-term effectiveness of a single does of RSV vaccine, administered between September 2023 and March 2024, to prevent RSV infection and associated health care use among older US veterans.
• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test from 14 days after vaccination; secondary outcomes included RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions.
• The median follow-up duration, measured from 14 days after vaccination, was 15.8 months, with a maximum of 19.0 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• The estimated vaccines effectiveness against RSV infection decreased from 82.5% (95% CI, 77.5%-86.9%) over 0 to 1 month to 59.4% (95% CI, 55.6%-63.5%) over 0 to 18 months of follow-up.
• Protection against RSV-associated emergency department and urgent care visits fell from 84.9% over 0 to 1 month to 60.6% over 0 to 18 months, and the estimated effectiveness against hospitalizations decreased from 88.9% to 57.3% over the same interval.
• The estimated effectiveness against RSV-associated ICU admissions reduced from 92.5% (95% CI, 61.1%-100%) over 0 to 1 month to 71.9% (95% CI, 42.8%-90.0%) over 0 to 18 months.
• Among immunocompromised individuals, protection against RSV infection showed the largest decline from 75.2% at 0 to 1 month to 39.7% over 18 months.

IN PRACTICE:

"Boosters may be needed, but for now, our efforts should be focused on saving lives and decreasing disease by encouraging vaccination of persons 75 years and older and those 60 years and older with underlying health issues," experts wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristina L. Bajema, MD, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon. It was published online on November 24, 2025, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

RSV documentation may have been incomplete for veterans who sought care outside the Veterans Health Administration. The cohort was predominantly White men, limiting generalizability. Residual confounding could not be excluded. Estimates of long-term effectiveness should be interpreted cautiously because they reflect patients who remained in care and may differ from the original matched cohort.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and FDA. Two authors reported receiving grants from the study funder and/or the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; one of these authors also reported co-ownership of van Breemen & Hynes, LLC, unrelated to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine provided protection against RSV illness and associated health care use in nearly 290,000 older US veterans over 2 respiratory illness seasons compared with unvaccinated individuals; however, protection declined over time, particularly among immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers emulated a target trial to assess the long-term effectiveness of a single does of RSV vaccine, administered between September 2023 and March 2024, to prevent RSV infection and associated health care use among older US veterans.
• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test from 14 days after vaccination; secondary outcomes included RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions.
• The median follow-up duration, measured from 14 days after vaccination, was 15.8 months, with a maximum of 19.0 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• The estimated vaccines effectiveness against RSV infection decreased from 82.5% (95% CI, 77.5%-86.9%) over 0 to 1 month to 59.4% (95% CI, 55.6%-63.5%) over 0 to 18 months of follow-up.
• Protection against RSV-associated emergency department and urgent care visits fell from 84.9% over 0 to 1 month to 60.6% over 0 to 18 months, and the estimated effectiveness against hospitalizations decreased from 88.9% to 57.3% over the same interval.
• The estimated effectiveness against RSV-associated ICU admissions reduced from 92.5% (95% CI, 61.1%-100%) over 0 to 1 month to 71.9% (95% CI, 42.8%-90.0%) over 0 to 18 months.
• Among immunocompromised individuals, protection against RSV infection showed the largest decline from 75.2% at 0 to 1 month to 39.7% over 18 months.

IN PRACTICE:

"Boosters may be needed, but for now, our efforts should be focused on saving lives and decreasing disease by encouraging vaccination of persons 75 years and older and those 60 years and older with underlying health issues," experts wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristina L. Bajema, MD, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon. It was published online on November 24, 2025, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

RSV documentation may have been incomplete for veterans who sought care outside the Veterans Health Administration. The cohort was predominantly White men, limiting generalizability. Residual confounding could not be excluded. Estimates of long-term effectiveness should be interpreted cautiously because they reflect patients who remained in care and may differ from the original matched cohort.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and FDA. Two authors reported receiving grants from the study funder and/or the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; one of these authors also reported co-ownership of van Breemen & Hynes, LLC, unrelated to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine provided protection against RSV illness and associated health care use in nearly 290,000 older US veterans over 2 respiratory illness seasons compared with unvaccinated individuals; however, protection declined over time, particularly among immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers emulated a target trial to assess the long-term effectiveness of a single does of RSV vaccine, administered between September 2023 and March 2024, to prevent RSV infection and associated health care use among older US veterans.
• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test from 14 days after vaccination; secondary outcomes included RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions.
• The median follow-up duration, measured from 14 days after vaccination, was 15.8 months, with a maximum of 19.0 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• The estimated vaccines effectiveness against RSV infection decreased from 82.5% (95% CI, 77.5%-86.9%) over 0 to 1 month to 59.4% (95% CI, 55.6%-63.5%) over 0 to 18 months of follow-up.
• Protection against RSV-associated emergency department and urgent care visits fell from 84.9% over 0 to 1 month to 60.6% over 0 to 18 months, and the estimated effectiveness against hospitalizations decreased from 88.9% to 57.3% over the same interval.
• The estimated effectiveness against RSV-associated ICU admissions reduced from 92.5% (95% CI, 61.1%-100%) over 0 to 1 month to 71.9% (95% CI, 42.8%-90.0%) over 0 to 18 months.
• Among immunocompromised individuals, protection against RSV infection showed the largest decline from 75.2% at 0 to 1 month to 39.7% over 18 months.

IN PRACTICE:

"Boosters may be needed, but for now, our efforts should be focused on saving lives and decreasing disease by encouraging vaccination of persons 75 years and older and those 60 years and older with underlying health issues," experts wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristina L. Bajema, MD, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon. It was published online on November 24, 2025, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

RSV documentation may have been incomplete for veterans who sought care outside the Veterans Health Administration. The cohort was predominantly White men, limiting generalizability. Residual confounding could not be excluded. Estimates of long-term effectiveness should be interpreted cautiously because they reflect patients who remained in care and may differ from the original matched cohort.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and FDA. Two authors reported receiving grants from the study funder and/or the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; one of these authors also reported co-ownership of van Breemen & Hynes, LLC, unrelated to the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: A novel single-incision robotic surgery technique for colorectal procedures demonstrated feasibility with 0% conversion to open surgery rate; only 1 case required additional ports. The technique achieved a 30-day all-severity morbidity rate of 20% and major morbidity of 6%.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers conducted a retrospective review to report a unique, single-incision robotic surgery technique that uses a fascial wound protector device and multiport robotic surgical system in colorectal surgery.
• Analysis included 50 patients (60% women) with mean ages of 53.5 years and median BMI of 27.2 kg/m².
• Study was performed at a single quaternary, urban, academic institution from December 2023 to April 2025.
• Patients aged ≥ 18 years with colorectal indications who underwent robotic single-incision surgery using a Da Vinci multiport robotic platform were included.

TAKEAWAY:

• Conversion to open surgery rate was 0%; 1 case required additional robotic ports.
• The 30-day all-severity morbidity rate was 20%; 30-day major morbidity was 6%.
• Pathologies treated included Crohn's disease (26%), diverticulitis (22%), colon cancer (16%), colostomy status (8%), and rectal cancer (4%).
• Successful procedures included right-sided colectomies (14%), left-sided colectomies (28%), total colectomy (4%), rectal resection (4%), small bowel procedures (22%), and ostomy creation/reversal (18%).

IN PRACTICE: "Our rSIS technique utilizing a multiport robotic system is safe and feasible across a wide spectrum of colorectal procedures," wrote the study authors.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, reproducible successful completion of surgeries using this technique may be challenging in populations requiring deep pelvic dissections, especially in narrow male pelvis cases, and in patients with very high BMI and significant intra-abdominal adipose tissue.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: A novel single-incision robotic surgery technique for colorectal procedures demonstrated feasibility with 0% conversion to open surgery rate; only 1 case required additional ports. The technique achieved a 30-day all-severity morbidity rate of 20% and major morbidity of 6%.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers conducted a retrospective review to report a unique, single-incision robotic surgery technique that uses a fascial wound protector device and multiport robotic surgical system in colorectal surgery.
• Analysis included 50 patients (60% women) with mean ages of 53.5 years and median BMI of 27.2 kg/m².
• Study was performed at a single quaternary, urban, academic institution from December 2023 to April 2025.
• Patients aged ≥ 18 years with colorectal indications who underwent robotic single-incision surgery using a Da Vinci multiport robotic platform were included.

TAKEAWAY:

• Conversion to open surgery rate was 0%; 1 case required additional robotic ports.
• The 30-day all-severity morbidity rate was 20%; 30-day major morbidity was 6%.
• Pathologies treated included Crohn's disease (26%), diverticulitis (22%), colon cancer (16%), colostomy status (8%), and rectal cancer (4%).
• Successful procedures included right-sided colectomies (14%), left-sided colectomies (28%), total colectomy (4%), rectal resection (4%), small bowel procedures (22%), and ostomy creation/reversal (18%).

IN PRACTICE: "Our rSIS technique utilizing a multiport robotic system is safe and feasible across a wide spectrum of colorectal procedures," wrote the study authors.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, reproducible successful completion of surgeries using this technique may be challenging in populations requiring deep pelvic dissections, especially in narrow male pelvis cases, and in patients with very high BMI and significant intra-abdominal adipose tissue.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: A novel single-incision robotic surgery technique for colorectal procedures demonstrated feasibility with 0% conversion to open surgery rate; only 1 case required additional ports. The technique achieved a 30-day all-severity morbidity rate of 20% and major morbidity of 6%.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Researchers conducted a retrospective review to report a unique, single-incision robotic surgery technique that uses a fascial wound protector device and multiport robotic surgical system in colorectal surgery.
• Analysis included 50 patients (60% women) with mean ages of 53.5 years and median BMI of 27.2 kg/m².
• Study was performed at a single quaternary, urban, academic institution from December 2023 to April 2025.
• Patients aged ≥ 18 years with colorectal indications who underwent robotic single-incision surgery using a Da Vinci multiport robotic platform were included.

TAKEAWAY:

• Conversion to open surgery rate was 0%; 1 case required additional robotic ports.
• The 30-day all-severity morbidity rate was 20%; 30-day major morbidity was 6%.
• Pathologies treated included Crohn's disease (26%), diverticulitis (22%), colon cancer (16%), colostomy status (8%), and rectal cancer (4%).
• Successful procedures included right-sided colectomies (14%), left-sided colectomies (28%), total colectomy (4%), rectal resection (4%), small bowel procedures (22%), and ostomy creation/reversal (18%).

IN PRACTICE: "Our rSIS technique utilizing a multiport robotic system is safe and feasible across a wide spectrum of colorectal procedures," wrote the study authors.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, reproducible successful completion of surgeries using this technique may be challenging in populations requiring deep pelvic dissections, especially in narrow male pelvis cases, and in patients with very high BMI and significant intra-abdominal adipose tissue.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.

How the Treatment Works

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.

It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.

What Trials Showed

The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.

In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.

Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.

Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.

Safety and Tolerability

Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.

Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.

The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.

How the Treatment Works

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.

It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.

What Trials Showed

The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.

In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.

Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.

Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.

Safety and Tolerability

Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.

Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.

The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has approved tisotumab vedotin (Genmab AS) for adults with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

The decision, made via the International Recognition Procedure, applies to patients whose disease has progressed after prior systemic therapy. It provides a new treatment option for a high-risk group with limited alternatives.

How the Treatment Works

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate that combines a tissue factor-directed human monoclonal antibody with monomethyl auristatin E, a microtubule-disrupting agent. The therapy targets tissue factor, which is overexpressed in a several solid tumours, including recurrent cervical cancer.

It is administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks.

What Trials Showed

The approval is based on evidence from multiple clinical studies demonstrating tisotumab vedotin's efficacy in previously treated patients.

In the phase 2 innovaTV 204 study, 102 patients were enrolled and 101 received at least 1 dose of tisotumab vedotin. The confirmed objective response rate was 24%, including seven complete responses and 17 partial responses, demonstrating clinically meaningful activity in a heavily pretreated population.

Further evidence came from the phase 3 innovaTV-301 trial, which randomly assigned 502 patients to receive either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's-choice chemotherapy.

Median overall survival was 11.5 months with the new therapy compared with 9.5 months in the chemotherapy arm, translating to roughly a 30% reduction in the risk for death. The confirmed objective response rate was also significantly higher with tisotumab vedotin—17.8% vs 5.2%—underscoring its advantage over standard treatment options.

Safety and Tolerability

Ocular toxicity and peripheral neuropathy were the most notable adverse reactions.

Common treatment-related events in the phase 2 study included alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea, conjunctivitis (26%), and fatigue (26%).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in about 28% of patients. Clinicians should be alert to conjunctivitis and keratitis as well as sensory neuropathic symptoms (numbness, tingling, or a burning sensation in the hands and feet).

Julian Beach, interim executive director of healthcare quality and access at the MHRA, said that patient safety is the agency's "top priority." "We will continue to monitor its safety closely as it becomes more widely used," he added.

The Summary of Product Characteristics and Patient Information Leaflets will be published on the MHRA website within 7 days of approval.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The more than 2 million women US veterans are the fastest-growing military population. While research into women veterans has traditionally lagged, more recently studies have begun to focus on their needs impacts of combat and service on women. These studies have found that women veterans preferred tailored solutions focused on women veterans.

A November 2025 study is one of the first to examine the impact of combat on women veterans. It found that those in combat roles had higher levels of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociation, and overall poorer health compared with civilians and noncombat women military personnel. Previous research had found that women veterans had higher rates of lifetime and past-year PTSD (13.4%) compared with female civilians (8.0%), male veterans (7.7%), and male civilians (3.4%). A 2020 US Department of Veterans (VA) study of 4,928,638 men and 448,455 women similarly found that women had nearly twice the rates of depression and anxiety compared with men.

For many veterans, mental health issues may develop or be exacerbated in their return to civilian life. That transition can be especially confusing and isolating for women veterans, according to a 2024 study: “They neither fit in the military due to gendered relations centered on masculinity, or civilian life where they are largely misunderstood as ‘veterans.’ This ‘no woman’s land’ is poorly understood.” Few programs for transitioning veterans have been found effective for women veterans because they’ve been developed for a largely male veteran population. That includes mental health support programs.

Some women may prefer women-only groups, and even that choice may be dependent on their background, service history, socioeconomic level, and other factors. They may feel more comfortable in women-only groups if they’ve experienced MST. Others who have served in combat may choose mixed-gender programs. One study found that some women benefited from being in a mixed-gender group because it enabled them to work on difficulties with men in a safe environment. Other research has found that women veterans with substance use disorders are reluctant to seek help alongside men in the same facilities. 

Accessing care may be especially challenging for rural women veterans. However, separate facilities and women-only groups are not always available, particularly in rural areas where there may be very few women veterans. And even if they are available, rural women are often up against barriers that urban women do not face, such as having to travel long distances to get care. Clinicians also may be hard to find in rural areas. Some participants in a 2025 study were hampered not only by a lack of female practitioners, but practitioners who were well trained to understand and treat the unique needs of female veterans: “[It’s] incredibly difficult to find a mental health practitioner that understands a veteran’s unique experience as a woman,” a participant said.

The more than 2 million women US veterans are the fastest-growing military population. While research into women veterans has traditionally lagged, more recently studies have begun to focus on their needs impacts of combat and service on women. These studies have found that women veterans preferred tailored solutions focused on women veterans.

A November 2025 study is one of the first to examine the impact of combat on women veterans. It found that those in combat roles had higher levels of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociation, and overall poorer health compared with civilians and noncombat women military personnel. Previous research had found that women veterans had higher rates of lifetime and past-year PTSD (13.4%) compared with female civilians (8.0%), male veterans (7.7%), and male civilians (3.4%). A 2020 US Department of Veterans (VA) study of 4,928,638 men and 448,455 women similarly found that women had nearly twice the rates of depression and anxiety compared with men.

For many veterans, mental health issues may develop or be exacerbated in their return to civilian life. That transition can be especially confusing and isolating for women veterans, according to a 2024 study: “They neither fit in the military due to gendered relations centered on masculinity, or civilian life where they are largely misunderstood as ‘veterans.’ This ‘no woman’s land’ is poorly understood.” Few programs for transitioning veterans have been found effective for women veterans because they’ve been developed for a largely male veteran population. That includes mental health support programs.

Some women may prefer women-only groups, and even that choice may be dependent on their background, service history, socioeconomic level, and other factors. They may feel more comfortable in women-only groups if they’ve experienced MST. Others who have served in combat may choose mixed-gender programs. One study found that some women benefited from being in a mixed-gender group because it enabled them to work on difficulties with men in a safe environment. Other research has found that women veterans with substance use disorders are reluctant to seek help alongside men in the same facilities. 

Accessing care may be especially challenging for rural women veterans. However, separate facilities and women-only groups are not always available, particularly in rural areas where there may be very few women veterans. And even if they are available, rural women are often up against barriers that urban women do not face, such as having to travel long distances to get care. Clinicians also may be hard to find in rural areas. Some participants in a 2025 study were hampered not only by a lack of female practitioners, but practitioners who were well trained to understand and treat the unique needs of female veterans: “[It’s] incredibly difficult to find a mental health practitioner that understands a veteran’s unique experience as a woman,” a participant said.

The more than 2 million women US veterans are the fastest-growing military population. While research into women veterans has traditionally lagged, more recently studies have begun to focus on their needs impacts of combat and service on women. These studies have found that women veterans preferred tailored solutions focused on women veterans.

A November 2025 study is one of the first to examine the impact of combat on women veterans. It found that those in combat roles had higher levels of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociation, and overall poorer health compared with civilians and noncombat women military personnel. Previous research had found that women veterans had higher rates of lifetime and past-year PTSD (13.4%) compared with female civilians (8.0%), male veterans (7.7%), and male civilians (3.4%). A 2020 US Department of Veterans (VA) study of 4,928,638 men and 448,455 women similarly found that women had nearly twice the rates of depression and anxiety compared with men.

For many veterans, mental health issues may develop or be exacerbated in their return to civilian life. That transition can be especially confusing and isolating for women veterans, according to a 2024 study: “They neither fit in the military due to gendered relations centered on masculinity, or civilian life where they are largely misunderstood as ‘veterans.’ This ‘no woman’s land’ is poorly understood.” Few programs for transitioning veterans have been found effective for women veterans because they’ve been developed for a largely male veteran population. That includes mental health support programs.

Some women may prefer women-only groups, and even that choice may be dependent on their background, service history, socioeconomic level, and other factors. They may feel more comfortable in women-only groups if they’ve experienced MST. Others who have served in combat may choose mixed-gender programs. One study found that some women benefited from being in a mixed-gender group because it enabled them to work on difficulties with men in a safe environment. Other research has found that women veterans with substance use disorders are reluctant to seek help alongside men in the same facilities. 

Accessing care may be especially challenging for rural women veterans. However, separate facilities and women-only groups are not always available, particularly in rural areas where there may be very few women veterans. And even if they are available, rural women are often up against barriers that urban women do not face, such as having to travel long distances to get care. Clinicians also may be hard to find in rural areas. Some participants in a 2025 study were hampered not only by a lack of female practitioners, but practitioners who were well trained to understand and treat the unique needs of female veterans: “[It’s] incredibly difficult to find a mental health practitioner that understands a veteran’s unique experience as a woman,” a participant said.

TOPLINE:

Message-based psychotherapy (MBP), which uses asynchronous emails or texts, showed effectiveness comparable with that of video-based psychotherapy (VBP) for the treatment of depression on a commercial digital mental health platform, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a pragmatic sequential multiple-assignment randomized clinical trial from 2022 to 2024 involving 850 adult patients with a diagnosis of depression (mean age, 34 years; 66% women; 60% White, 22% Black and 14% Hispanic).
• Patients were initially randomly assigned to receive weekly MBP (n = 423) or VBP (n = 427), with nonresponders randomly assigned at week 6 to receive combination therapy of MBP plus weekly or monthly VBP. All patients received treatment for up to 12 weeks.
• Primary outcomes included depression severity measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), social functioning measured by the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders 8-item tool, response to treatment (≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 total score or Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score ≤ 2), and remissions (PHQ-9 score < 5).
• Secondary outcomes were treating disengagement, therapeutic alliance measured on the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised, quality of care in the past 4 weeks, and treatment satisfaction.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rates of response (47.5% and 47.2%, respectively) and remission (31.4% and 30.3%, respectively) were not significantly different at week 12 between the MBP and VBP groups or for nonresponders rerandomized to either group.
• There were also no significant differences in depression change scores between the MBP and VBP groups or for nonresponders rerandomized to either group.
• Treatment disengagement by week 5 was significantly higher in the VBP vs MBP group (21.3% vs 13.2%; P = .003); VBP responders had stronger initial therapeutic alliance at week 4 than MBP responders (P < .001).
• No significant differences were observed in the quality of care among those who responded only after the second randomization to MBP or VBP.

IN PRACTICE:

"Findings reinforced MBP as viable alternative to VBP. Broader insurance reimbursement for MBP could improve access to evidence-based care," the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michael D. Pullmann, PhD, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online on October 30 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of a waiting list or a no-treatment control group made it difficult to rule out regression to the mean as an explanation for improvements. Additionally, missing data may have affected the robustness of some findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Several investigators reported having financial ties with various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Message-based psychotherapy (MBP), which uses asynchronous emails or texts, showed effectiveness comparable with that of video-based psychotherapy (VBP) for the treatment of depression on a commercial digital mental health platform, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a pragmatic sequential multiple-assignment randomized clinical trial from 2022 to 2024 involving 850 adult patients with a diagnosis of depression (mean age, 34 years; 66% women; 60% White, 22% Black and 14% Hispanic).
• Patients were initially randomly assigned to receive weekly MBP (n = 423) or VBP (n = 427), with nonresponders randomly assigned at week 6 to receive combination therapy of MBP plus weekly or monthly VBP. All patients received treatment for up to 12 weeks.
• Primary outcomes included depression severity measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), social functioning measured by the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders 8-item tool, response to treatment (≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 total score or Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score ≤ 2), and remissions (PHQ-9 score < 5).
• Secondary outcomes were treating disengagement, therapeutic alliance measured on the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised, quality of care in the past 4 weeks, and treatment satisfaction.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rates of response (47.5% and 47.2%, respectively) and remission (31.4% and 30.3%, respectively) were not significantly different at week 12 between the MBP and VBP groups or for nonresponders rerandomized to either group.
• There were also no significant differences in depression change scores between the MBP and VBP groups or for nonresponders rerandomized to either group.
• Treatment disengagement by week 5 was significantly higher in the VBP vs MBP group (21.3% vs 13.2%; P = .003); VBP responders had stronger initial therapeutic alliance at week 4 than MBP responders (P < .001).
• No significant differences were observed in the quality of care among those who responded only after the second randomization to MBP or VBP.

IN PRACTICE:

"Findings reinforced MBP as viable alternative to VBP. Broader insurance reimbursement for MBP could improve access to evidence-based care," the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michael D. Pullmann, PhD, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online on October 30 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of a waiting list or a no-treatment control group made it difficult to rule out regression to the mean as an explanation for improvements. Additionally, missing data may have affected the robustness of some findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Several investigators reported having financial ties with various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Message-based psychotherapy (MBP), which uses asynchronous emails or texts, showed effectiveness comparable with that of video-based psychotherapy (VBP) for the treatment of depression on a commercial digital mental health platform, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a pragmatic sequential multiple-assignment randomized clinical trial from 2022 to 2024 involving 850 adult patients with a diagnosis of depression (mean age, 34 years; 66% women; 60% White, 22% Black and 14% Hispanic).
• Patients were initially randomly assigned to receive weekly MBP (n = 423) or VBP (n = 427), with nonresponders randomly assigned at week 6 to receive combination therapy of MBP plus weekly or monthly VBP. All patients received treatment for up to 12 weeks.
• Primary outcomes included depression severity measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), social functioning measured by the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders 8-item tool, response to treatment (≥ 50% reduction in PHQ-9 total score or Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score ≤ 2), and remissions (PHQ-9 score < 5).
• Secondary outcomes were treating disengagement, therapeutic alliance measured on the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised, quality of care in the past 4 weeks, and treatment satisfaction.

TAKEAWAY:

• Rates of response (47.5% and 47.2%, respectively) and remission (31.4% and 30.3%, respectively) were not significantly different at week 12 between the MBP and VBP groups or for nonresponders rerandomized to either group.
• There were also no significant differences in depression change scores between the MBP and VBP groups or for nonresponders rerandomized to either group.
• Treatment disengagement by week 5 was significantly higher in the VBP vs MBP group (21.3% vs 13.2%; P = .003); VBP responders had stronger initial therapeutic alliance at week 4 than MBP responders (P < .001).
• No significant differences were observed in the quality of care among those who responded only after the second randomization to MBP or VBP.

IN PRACTICE:

"Findings reinforced MBP as viable alternative to VBP. Broader insurance reimbursement for MBP could improve access to evidence-based care," the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Michael D. Pullmann, PhD, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. It was published online on October 30 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of a waiting list or a no-treatment control group made it difficult to rule out regression to the mean as an explanation for improvements. Additionally, missing data may have affected the robustness of some findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Several investigators reported having financial ties with various sources. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There are 2.7 million (48%) rural veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).¹ Many VHA-enrolled rural veterans are aged ≥ 65 years (54%), a medically complex population that requires more extensive health care.¹ These veterans may live far from US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) and often receive most of their care at rural community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). In addition to face-to-face (F2F) services provided at these clinics, many patient care needs may be met using telehealth technology, which can connect veterans at CBOCs with remote health care practitioners (HCPs).

This technology is used across medical specialties throughout the VA and has expanded into neuropsychology services to improve access amid the shortage of rural neuropsychologists. Prior research suggests that access to neuropsychology services improves the functional outcomes of people with diverse medical conditions, including dementia, brain injury, and epilepsy, and reduces emergency department visits, hospitalization duration, and health care costs.^2-6 Given that veterans unable to access neuropsychology services may be at risk for poorer outcomes, identifying ways to improve access is a priority. Tele-neuropsychology (teleNP) has been used to expand access for rural veterans in need of these services.^7,8 

TeleNP is the application of audiovisual technologies to enable remote clinical encounters for neuropsychological assessments.⁹ TeleNP has been shown to be generally equivalent to F2F care, without significant differences compared with in-person visits.^10-13 TeleNP was increasingly implemented following the COVID-19 pandemic and remains an enduring and expanding feature of neuropsychology care delivery.^8,14-18 TeleNP services can increase access to care, especially for rural veterans and those with limited transportation. 

Research in non-VA samples suggests a high level of clinician satisfaction with teleNP.16 In VA samples, research has found high levels of patient satisfaction with teleNP both within Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 20 and in a VA health care system outside VISN 20.^7,19 Investigating staff perceptions of these services and their utility compared with non-VA F2F visits is pertinent to the overall feasibility and effectiveness of teleNP. 

TELE-NEUROPSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM 

A clinical resource hub (CRH) is a VISN-governed program that provides veteran health care when local VHA facilities have service gaps.^20,21 CRH 20 serves several Pacific Northwest VISN 20 health care systems and began providing teleNP in 2015. The CRH 20 teleNP service serves older adults in rural settings with > 570 teleNP evaluations completed over a recent 12-month period (May 2023 to May 2024). In the CRH 20 teleNP program, veterans are offered services by CRH 20 neuropsychologists via telehealth to a patient’s local VAMC, larger health care clinic, CBOC, or via Veterans Video Connect to the home. 

Referral pathways to the CRH 20 teleNP program differ across sites. For VISN 20 sites that do not have any in-house neuropsychology services, referrals are initiated by HCPs from any discipline. At 2 sites with in-house neuropsychology programs, CRH 20 teleNP referrals typically are forwarded from the inhouse service whenever the veteran prefers to be seen at an outlying clinic. All sites, including the CBOCs, are equipped fully for testing, and the HCP encounters veterans in a private office via video-based telehealth technology after a telehealth technician orients them to the space. The private office minimizes environmental disruptions and uses standardized technology to ensure valid results. A limited number of evaluations are offered at home (< 5% of the evaluations) if the veteran is unable to come to a VHA facility, has access to reliable internet, and a minimally distracting home setting. 

In VISN 20, teleNP is a routine practice for delivering services to rural sites, most of which lack neuropsychologists. However, there is limited information about the extent to which the referral sources find the service useful. This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to better understand how well-established teleNP services were received by referral sources/stakeholders and how services could be improved. Prior to the advent of the CRH 20 teleNP program, staff had the option of referring for F2F evaluations in the local community (outside the VA) at some sites, an option that remains. This QI project examined staff perspectives on the usefulness of CRH 20 teleNP services compared with non-VA F2F services. We administered an anonymous, confidential survey examining these factors to VISN 20 staff within 4 VA health care systems. 

METHODS 

This QI project used a mixed quantitative and qualitative descriptive survey design to elicit feedback. The authors (3 neuropsychologists, 1 geropsychologist, and 1 research coordinator) developed the survey questions. The 13-question survey was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential, and respondents were given an opportunity to ask questions, with the first author serving as the point of contact. 

The survey ascertained information about respondents and their work setting (ie, facility type, specific work setting and location, profession, and rurality of patients). First respondents were asked whether they have referred patients to neuropsychology services in the past year. Those who had not referred patients during the past year were asked about reasons for nonreferral with an option to provide an open-ended response. Respondents who did refer were asked how they refer for neuropsychology services and about the usefulness and timeliness of both teleNP and non-VA F2F services. Respondents were asked to respond with their preference for teleNP vs non-VA F2F with an open-ended prompt. Finally, respondents were invited to share any feedback for improvement regarding teleNP services. 

A link to the survey, hosted on the VA Research Electronic Data Capture system, was emailed to facility and service line leaders at the 4 VISN 20 health care systems for distribution to the staff. All staff were included because in many of the facilities, particularly those that are highly rural with low staffing, it is not uncommon for technicians, nurses, and other support staff to assist with placing consults. In particular, VISN 20 nurses often have an optimal understanding of referral pathways to care for patients and are positioned to give and receive feedback about the utility of neuropsychological evaluations. The Research and Development Committee at the Boise VA Medical Center determined this project to be QI and exempt from institutional review board oversight. The VISN 20 employee labor relations HR supervisor approved this survey, with union awareness. Responses were anonymous. 

Data were imported into Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS Statistics for further analysis. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages. Nonparametric χ² and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to test for differences. An inductive approach to develop codes was used for the 3 open-ended questions. Two authors (CC, CEG) independently coded the responses and reviewed discrepancies. Final code applications were based on consensus. 

RESULTS 

The survey was deployed for 1 month between February 7, 2024, and June 15, 2024, at each of the 4 health care systems. Thirty-three staff members responded; of these, 1 person did not respond to an item on whether they referred for neuropsychology services. Eighteen of 33 respondents reported referring patients to teleNP or F2F neuropsychology services in the past year. Fourteen of the 33 respondents stated they did not refer; of these, 2 were unfamiliar with the teleNP service and 12 provided other reasons (eg, new to VA, not in their professional scope to order consults, did not have patients needing services). 

The analysis focused on the 18 respondents who referred for neuropsychology services. Thirteen were within health care system A, and 5 were within health care system B (which had no nearby non-VA contracted neuropsychology services) and none were in the other 2 health care systems. Ten of 18 respondents (56%) stated they practiced primarily in a rural setting. Five respondents worked in a CBOC, 12 in a main VA facility, 9 in a primary care setting, 8 in a mental health setting, and 3 in other settings (eg, domiciliary). Participants could select > 1 setting. The 18 respondents who referred to neuropsychology services included 7 psychologists, 1 nurse, 2 social workers, 1 social services assistant, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 physicians, and 1 unknown HCP. 

When asked to categorize the usefulness of services, more respondents characterized teleNP as very much so (1 on a 5-point scale) than F2F referrals (Figure). The mean (SD) of 1.5 (0.8) for teleNP usefulness fell between very much so and mostly and 1 respondent indicated not applicable. Similarly, the mean (SD) for non-VA F2F usefulness was 1.7 (0.9); 9 respondents rated this item as not applicable. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test of related samples indicated no significant differences between the pairs of ratings (Z = 1.50; P = .41). 

Respondents with rural patients were more likely to refer them to teleNP services compared with respondents with nonrural patients (χ² = 5.7; P = .02). However, ratings of teleNP usefulness did not significantly differ for those serving rural vs with nonrural patients (χ² = 1.4; P = .49). Mean (SD) rating of teleNP usefulness was 1.3 (0.7) for the 9 rural subgroup respondents (between very much so and mostly) vs 1.8 (0.9) for the 8 nonrural subgroup respondents (between very much so and mostly). The mean (SD) rating for non-VA F2F usefulness was 1.8 (1.0) for the 4 rural subgroup respondents and 1.6 (0.8) for the 5 nonrural subgroup, between very much so and mostly for both groups. 

Most respondents had no preference between teleNP or F2F. Notably, the responses underlying this group were multifaceted and corresponded to multiple codes (ie, access, preference for in-person services, technology, space and logistics, and service boundaries and requirements). According to 1 respondent, “the logistics of scheduling/room availability, technological challenges, and client behavioral issues that are likely to occur could possibly be more easily addressed via in-person sessions for some clients and providers.” 

Six of 18 respondents preferred teleNP, citing timeliness, ease of access, and evaluation quality. One respondent noted that the “majority of my veterans live in extremely remote areas” and may need to take a plane for their visit. The 3 respondents who preferred in-person neuropsychology services cited veterans’ preference for in-person services. 

Open-Ended Feedback 

Thirteen respondents offered feedback on what is working well with teleNP services. Reasons mentioned were related to the service (ie, timeliness, access, quality) and the neuropsychologist (ie, communication and HCP skills). One respondent described the service and neuropsychologists positively, stating that they were “responsive, notes are readily available, clear assessments and recommendations, being available by [Microsoft] Teams/email.” 

Ten respondents provided suggestions for improvement. Suggestions focused on expanding services, such as to “all veterans with cognitive/memory concerns that desire testing,” individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and co-occurring mental health concerns, and those in residential programs. Suggestions included hiring psychology technicians or more staff and providing education at local clinics. 

DISCUSSION 

This QI project examines VA staff perspectives on the usefulness of CRH 20 teleNP services and non-VA F2F services. While the small sample size limits generalizability, this preliminary study suggests that VA teleNP evaluations were similar to those conducted F2F in non-VA settings. While ratings of teleNP usefulness did not differ significantly for those serving rural vs nonrural veterans, respondents serving rural patients were more likely to refer patients to teleNP, suggesting that teleNP may increase access in rural settings, consistent with other studies.^7,8,13 This article also presents qualitative suggestions for improving teleNP delivery within the VHA. This is the first known initiative to report on VHA staff satisfaction with a teleNP service and expands the limited literature to date on satisfaction with teleNP services. The findings provide initial support for continued use and, potentially, expansion of teleNP services within this CRH remote hub-and-spoke model. 

Limitations 

A significant limitation of the current work is the small sample size of survey respondents. In particular, while teleNP turnaround time was perceived as faster than non-VA F2F care, only 8 respondents reported on timeliness of F2F evaluation results, which renders it difficult to draw conclusions. Interestingly, not all respondents reported referring to neuropsychology services within the previous year; the most common reasons reflect the perception that referral to neuropsychology was outside of that staff member’s role or not clinically indicated. 

One additional possible explanation for the absence of reporting on utility of teleNP specifically is that respondents did not track whether their patient was seen by teleNP or F2F services, based on how the referral process varies at each health care system. For example, in health care system C, a large number of referrals are forwarded to the service by local VA F2F neuropsychologists. This may speak to the seamlessness of the teleNP process, such that local staff and/or referring HCPs are unaware of the modality over which neuropsychology is being conducted. It is plausible that the reason behind this smaller response rate in health care systems B and C relates to how neuropsychology consults are processed at these local VAMCs. We suspect that in these settings, the HCPs referring for neuropsychological evaluations (eg, primary care, mental health) may be unaware that their referrals are being triaged to neuropsychologists in a different program (CRH 20 teleNP). Therefore, they would not necessarily know that they used teleNP and didn’t complete the survey. 

The referral process for these 2 sites contrasts with the process for other VISN 20 sites where there is no local neuropsychology program triaging. In these settings, referrals from local HCPs come directly to teleNP; thus, it is more likely that these HCPs are aware of teleNP services. There were only 2 physicians who completed the survey, which may relate to their workload and a workflow where other staff have been increasingly requested to order the consults for the physician. This type of workflow results in an increase in the number of VHA staff involved in patient care. Ratings of usefulness were highest in health care system B, which does not have neuropsychology services at the facility or in the community; this may relate to elevated teleNP satisfaction ratings. 

Further work may help identify which aspects of a teleNP service make it more useful than F2F care for this population or determine whether there were HCPor setting-specific factors that influenced the ratings (ie, preference for VA care or comparison of favorability ratings for the HCPs who conduct teleNP and F2F within the same system). The latter comparisons could not be drawn in the current systems due to the absence of HCPs who provide both teleNP and F2F modalities within VISN 20. Another consideration for future work would be to use a previously published/validated survey measure and piloting of questions with a naive sample before implementation. 

CONCLUSIONS 

This analysis provides initial support for feasibility and acceptability of teleNP as an alternative to traditional in-person neuropsychological evaluations. The small number of survey respondents may reflect the multiple pathways through which consults are forwarded to CRH 20, which includes both direct HCP referrals and forwarded consults from local neuropsychology services. CRH 20 has completed > 570 teleNP evaluations within 1 year, suggesting that lack of awareness may not be hindering veteran access to the service. Replication with a larger sample that is more broadly representative of key stakeholders in veteran care, identification of populations that would benefit most from teleNP services, and dissemination studies of the expansion of teleNP services are all important directions for future work. The robustness and longevity of the VISN 20 teleNP program, coupled with the preliminary positive findings from this project, demonstrate support for further assessment of the potential impact of telehealth on neuropsychological care within the VHA and show that barriers associated with access to health care services in remote settings may be mitigated through teleNP service delivery.

There are 2.7 million (48%) rural veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).¹ Many VHA-enrolled rural veterans are aged ≥ 65 years (54%), a medically complex population that requires more extensive health care.¹ These veterans may live far from US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) and often receive most of their care at rural community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). In addition to face-to-face (F2F) services provided at these clinics, many patient care needs may be met using telehealth technology, which can connect veterans at CBOCs with remote health care practitioners (HCPs).

This technology is used across medical specialties throughout the VA and has expanded into neuropsychology services to improve access amid the shortage of rural neuropsychologists. Prior research suggests that access to neuropsychology services improves the functional outcomes of people with diverse medical conditions, including dementia, brain injury, and epilepsy, and reduces emergency department visits, hospitalization duration, and health care costs.^2-6 Given that veterans unable to access neuropsychology services may be at risk for poorer outcomes, identifying ways to improve access is a priority. Tele-neuropsychology (teleNP) has been used to expand access for rural veterans in need of these services.^7,8 

TeleNP is the application of audiovisual technologies to enable remote clinical encounters for neuropsychological assessments.⁹ TeleNP has been shown to be generally equivalent to F2F care, without significant differences compared with in-person visits.^10-13 TeleNP was increasingly implemented following the COVID-19 pandemic and remains an enduring and expanding feature of neuropsychology care delivery.^8,14-18 TeleNP services can increase access to care, especially for rural veterans and those with limited transportation. 

Research in non-VA samples suggests a high level of clinician satisfaction with teleNP.16 In VA samples, research has found high levels of patient satisfaction with teleNP both within Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 20 and in a VA health care system outside VISN 20.^7,19 Investigating staff perceptions of these services and their utility compared with non-VA F2F visits is pertinent to the overall feasibility and effectiveness of teleNP. 

TELE-NEUROPSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM 

A clinical resource hub (CRH) is a VISN-governed program that provides veteran health care when local VHA facilities have service gaps.^20,21 CRH 20 serves several Pacific Northwest VISN 20 health care systems and began providing teleNP in 2015. The CRH 20 teleNP service serves older adults in rural settings with > 570 teleNP evaluations completed over a recent 12-month period (May 2023 to May 2024). In the CRH 20 teleNP program, veterans are offered services by CRH 20 neuropsychologists via telehealth to a patient’s local VAMC, larger health care clinic, CBOC, or via Veterans Video Connect to the home. 

Referral pathways to the CRH 20 teleNP program differ across sites. For VISN 20 sites that do not have any in-house neuropsychology services, referrals are initiated by HCPs from any discipline. At 2 sites with in-house neuropsychology programs, CRH 20 teleNP referrals typically are forwarded from the inhouse service whenever the veteran prefers to be seen at an outlying clinic. All sites, including the CBOCs, are equipped fully for testing, and the HCP encounters veterans in a private office via video-based telehealth technology after a telehealth technician orients them to the space. The private office minimizes environmental disruptions and uses standardized technology to ensure valid results. A limited number of evaluations are offered at home (< 5% of the evaluations) if the veteran is unable to come to a VHA facility, has access to reliable internet, and a minimally distracting home setting. 

In VISN 20, teleNP is a routine practice for delivering services to rural sites, most of which lack neuropsychologists. However, there is limited information about the extent to which the referral sources find the service useful. This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to better understand how well-established teleNP services were received by referral sources/stakeholders and how services could be improved. Prior to the advent of the CRH 20 teleNP program, staff had the option of referring for F2F evaluations in the local community (outside the VA) at some sites, an option that remains. This QI project examined staff perspectives on the usefulness of CRH 20 teleNP services compared with non-VA F2F services. We administered an anonymous, confidential survey examining these factors to VISN 20 staff within 4 VA health care systems. 

METHODS 

This QI project used a mixed quantitative and qualitative descriptive survey design to elicit feedback. The authors (3 neuropsychologists, 1 geropsychologist, and 1 research coordinator) developed the survey questions. The 13-question survey was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential, and respondents were given an opportunity to ask questions, with the first author serving as the point of contact. 

The survey ascertained information about respondents and their work setting (ie, facility type, specific work setting and location, profession, and rurality of patients). First respondents were asked whether they have referred patients to neuropsychology services in the past year. Those who had not referred patients during the past year were asked about reasons for nonreferral with an option to provide an open-ended response. Respondents who did refer were asked how they refer for neuropsychology services and about the usefulness and timeliness of both teleNP and non-VA F2F services. Respondents were asked to respond with their preference for teleNP vs non-VA F2F with an open-ended prompt. Finally, respondents were invited to share any feedback for improvement regarding teleNP services. 

A link to the survey, hosted on the VA Research Electronic Data Capture system, was emailed to facility and service line leaders at the 4 VISN 20 health care systems for distribution to the staff. All staff were included because in many of the facilities, particularly those that are highly rural with low staffing, it is not uncommon for technicians, nurses, and other support staff to assist with placing consults. In particular, VISN 20 nurses often have an optimal understanding of referral pathways to care for patients and are positioned to give and receive feedback about the utility of neuropsychological evaluations. The Research and Development Committee at the Boise VA Medical Center determined this project to be QI and exempt from institutional review board oversight. The VISN 20 employee labor relations HR supervisor approved this survey, with union awareness. Responses were anonymous. 

Data were imported into Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS Statistics for further analysis. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages. Nonparametric χ² and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to test for differences. An inductive approach to develop codes was used for the 3 open-ended questions. Two authors (CC, CEG) independently coded the responses and reviewed discrepancies. Final code applications were based on consensus. 

RESULTS 

The survey was deployed for 1 month between February 7, 2024, and June 15, 2024, at each of the 4 health care systems. Thirty-three staff members responded; of these, 1 person did not respond to an item on whether they referred for neuropsychology services. Eighteen of 33 respondents reported referring patients to teleNP or F2F neuropsychology services in the past year. Fourteen of the 33 respondents stated they did not refer; of these, 2 were unfamiliar with the teleNP service and 12 provided other reasons (eg, new to VA, not in their professional scope to order consults, did not have patients needing services). 

The analysis focused on the 18 respondents who referred for neuropsychology services. Thirteen were within health care system A, and 5 were within health care system B (which had no nearby non-VA contracted neuropsychology services) and none were in the other 2 health care systems. Ten of 18 respondents (56%) stated they practiced primarily in a rural setting. Five respondents worked in a CBOC, 12 in a main VA facility, 9 in a primary care setting, 8 in a mental health setting, and 3 in other settings (eg, domiciliary). Participants could select > 1 setting. The 18 respondents who referred to neuropsychology services included 7 psychologists, 1 nurse, 2 social workers, 1 social services assistant, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 physicians, and 1 unknown HCP. 

When asked to categorize the usefulness of services, more respondents characterized teleNP as very much so (1 on a 5-point scale) than F2F referrals (Figure). The mean (SD) of 1.5 (0.8) for teleNP usefulness fell between very much so and mostly and 1 respondent indicated not applicable. Similarly, the mean (SD) for non-VA F2F usefulness was 1.7 (0.9); 9 respondents rated this item as not applicable. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test of related samples indicated no significant differences between the pairs of ratings (Z = 1.50; P = .41). 

Respondents with rural patients were more likely to refer them to teleNP services compared with respondents with nonrural patients (χ² = 5.7; P = .02). However, ratings of teleNP usefulness did not significantly differ for those serving rural vs with nonrural patients (χ² = 1.4; P = .49). Mean (SD) rating of teleNP usefulness was 1.3 (0.7) for the 9 rural subgroup respondents (between very much so and mostly) vs 1.8 (0.9) for the 8 nonrural subgroup respondents (between very much so and mostly). The mean (SD) rating for non-VA F2F usefulness was 1.8 (1.0) for the 4 rural subgroup respondents and 1.6 (0.8) for the 5 nonrural subgroup, between very much so and mostly for both groups. 

Most respondents had no preference between teleNP or F2F. Notably, the responses underlying this group were multifaceted and corresponded to multiple codes (ie, access, preference for in-person services, technology, space and logistics, and service boundaries and requirements). According to 1 respondent, “the logistics of scheduling/room availability, technological challenges, and client behavioral issues that are likely to occur could possibly be more easily addressed via in-person sessions for some clients and providers.” 

Six of 18 respondents preferred teleNP, citing timeliness, ease of access, and evaluation quality. One respondent noted that the “majority of my veterans live in extremely remote areas” and may need to take a plane for their visit. The 3 respondents who preferred in-person neuropsychology services cited veterans’ preference for in-person services. 

Open-Ended Feedback 

Thirteen respondents offered feedback on what is working well with teleNP services. Reasons mentioned were related to the service (ie, timeliness, access, quality) and the neuropsychologist (ie, communication and HCP skills). One respondent described the service and neuropsychologists positively, stating that they were “responsive, notes are readily available, clear assessments and recommendations, being available by [Microsoft] Teams/email.” 

Ten respondents provided suggestions for improvement. Suggestions focused on expanding services, such as to “all veterans with cognitive/memory concerns that desire testing,” individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and co-occurring mental health concerns, and those in residential programs. Suggestions included hiring psychology technicians or more staff and providing education at local clinics. 

DISCUSSION 

This QI project examines VA staff perspectives on the usefulness of CRH 20 teleNP services and non-VA F2F services. While the small sample size limits generalizability, this preliminary study suggests that VA teleNP evaluations were similar to those conducted F2F in non-VA settings. While ratings of teleNP usefulness did not differ significantly for those serving rural vs nonrural veterans, respondents serving rural patients were more likely to refer patients to teleNP, suggesting that teleNP may increase access in rural settings, consistent with other studies.^7,8,13 This article also presents qualitative suggestions for improving teleNP delivery within the VHA. This is the first known initiative to report on VHA staff satisfaction with a teleNP service and expands the limited literature to date on satisfaction with teleNP services. The findings provide initial support for continued use and, potentially, expansion of teleNP services within this CRH remote hub-and-spoke model. 

Limitations 

A significant limitation of the current work is the small sample size of survey respondents. In particular, while teleNP turnaround time was perceived as faster than non-VA F2F care, only 8 respondents reported on timeliness of F2F evaluation results, which renders it difficult to draw conclusions. Interestingly, not all respondents reported referring to neuropsychology services within the previous year; the most common reasons reflect the perception that referral to neuropsychology was outside of that staff member’s role or not clinically indicated. 

One additional possible explanation for the absence of reporting on utility of teleNP specifically is that respondents did not track whether their patient was seen by teleNP or F2F services, based on how the referral process varies at each health care system. For example, in health care system C, a large number of referrals are forwarded to the service by local VA F2F neuropsychologists. This may speak to the seamlessness of the teleNP process, such that local staff and/or referring HCPs are unaware of the modality over which neuropsychology is being conducted. It is plausible that the reason behind this smaller response rate in health care systems B and C relates to how neuropsychology consults are processed at these local VAMCs. We suspect that in these settings, the HCPs referring for neuropsychological evaluations (eg, primary care, mental health) may be unaware that their referrals are being triaged to neuropsychologists in a different program (CRH 20 teleNP). Therefore, they would not necessarily know that they used teleNP and didn’t complete the survey. 

The referral process for these 2 sites contrasts with the process for other VISN 20 sites where there is no local neuropsychology program triaging. In these settings, referrals from local HCPs come directly to teleNP; thus, it is more likely that these HCPs are aware of teleNP services. There were only 2 physicians who completed the survey, which may relate to their workload and a workflow where other staff have been increasingly requested to order the consults for the physician. This type of workflow results in an increase in the number of VHA staff involved in patient care. Ratings of usefulness were highest in health care system B, which does not have neuropsychology services at the facility or in the community; this may relate to elevated teleNP satisfaction ratings. 

Further work may help identify which aspects of a teleNP service make it more useful than F2F care for this population or determine whether there were HCPor setting-specific factors that influenced the ratings (ie, preference for VA care or comparison of favorability ratings for the HCPs who conduct teleNP and F2F within the same system). The latter comparisons could not be drawn in the current systems due to the absence of HCPs who provide both teleNP and F2F modalities within VISN 20. Another consideration for future work would be to use a previously published/validated survey measure and piloting of questions with a naive sample before implementation. 

CONCLUSIONS 

This analysis provides initial support for feasibility and acceptability of teleNP as an alternative to traditional in-person neuropsychological evaluations. The small number of survey respondents may reflect the multiple pathways through which consults are forwarded to CRH 20, which includes both direct HCP referrals and forwarded consults from local neuropsychology services. CRH 20 has completed > 570 teleNP evaluations within 1 year, suggesting that lack of awareness may not be hindering veteran access to the service. Replication with a larger sample that is more broadly representative of key stakeholders in veteran care, identification of populations that would benefit most from teleNP services, and dissemination studies of the expansion of teleNP services are all important directions for future work. The robustness and longevity of the VISN 20 teleNP program, coupled with the preliminary positive findings from this project, demonstrate support for further assessment of the potential impact of telehealth on neuropsychological care within the VHA and show that barriers associated with access to health care services in remote settings may be mitigated through teleNP service delivery.

There are 2.7 million (48%) rural veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).¹ Many VHA-enrolled rural veterans are aged ≥ 65 years (54%), a medically complex population that requires more extensive health care.¹ These veterans may live far from US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs) and often receive most of their care at rural community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). In addition to face-to-face (F2F) services provided at these clinics, many patient care needs may be met using telehealth technology, which can connect veterans at CBOCs with remote health care practitioners (HCPs).

This technology is used across medical specialties throughout the VA and has expanded into neuropsychology services to improve access amid the shortage of rural neuropsychologists. Prior research suggests that access to neuropsychology services improves the functional outcomes of people with diverse medical conditions, including dementia, brain injury, and epilepsy, and reduces emergency department visits, hospitalization duration, and health care costs.^2-6 Given that veterans unable to access neuropsychology services may be at risk for poorer outcomes, identifying ways to improve access is a priority. Tele-neuropsychology (teleNP) has been used to expand access for rural veterans in need of these services.^7,8 

TeleNP is the application of audiovisual technologies to enable remote clinical encounters for neuropsychological assessments.⁹ TeleNP has been shown to be generally equivalent to F2F care, without significant differences compared with in-person visits.^10-13 TeleNP was increasingly implemented following the COVID-19 pandemic and remains an enduring and expanding feature of neuropsychology care delivery.^8,14-18 TeleNP services can increase access to care, especially for rural veterans and those with limited transportation. 

Research in non-VA samples suggests a high level of clinician satisfaction with teleNP.16 In VA samples, research has found high levels of patient satisfaction with teleNP both within Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 20 and in a VA health care system outside VISN 20.^7,19 Investigating staff perceptions of these services and their utility compared with non-VA F2F visits is pertinent to the overall feasibility and effectiveness of teleNP. 

TELE-NEUROPSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM 

A clinical resource hub (CRH) is a VISN-governed program that provides veteran health care when local VHA facilities have service gaps.^20,21 CRH 20 serves several Pacific Northwest VISN 20 health care systems and began providing teleNP in 2015. The CRH 20 teleNP service serves older adults in rural settings with > 570 teleNP evaluations completed over a recent 12-month period (May 2023 to May 2024). In the CRH 20 teleNP program, veterans are offered services by CRH 20 neuropsychologists via telehealth to a patient’s local VAMC, larger health care clinic, CBOC, or via Veterans Video Connect to the home. 

Referral pathways to the CRH 20 teleNP program differ across sites. For VISN 20 sites that do not have any in-house neuropsychology services, referrals are initiated by HCPs from any discipline. At 2 sites with in-house neuropsychology programs, CRH 20 teleNP referrals typically are forwarded from the inhouse service whenever the veteran prefers to be seen at an outlying clinic. All sites, including the CBOCs, are equipped fully for testing, and the HCP encounters veterans in a private office via video-based telehealth technology after a telehealth technician orients them to the space. The private office minimizes environmental disruptions and uses standardized technology to ensure valid results. A limited number of evaluations are offered at home (< 5% of the evaluations) if the veteran is unable to come to a VHA facility, has access to reliable internet, and a minimally distracting home setting. 

In VISN 20, teleNP is a routine practice for delivering services to rural sites, most of which lack neuropsychologists. However, there is limited information about the extent to which the referral sources find the service useful. This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to better understand how well-established teleNP services were received by referral sources/stakeholders and how services could be improved. Prior to the advent of the CRH 20 teleNP program, staff had the option of referring for F2F evaluations in the local community (outside the VA) at some sites, an option that remains. This QI project examined staff perspectives on the usefulness of CRH 20 teleNP services compared with non-VA F2F services. We administered an anonymous, confidential survey examining these factors to VISN 20 staff within 4 VA health care systems. 

METHODS 

This QI project used a mixed quantitative and qualitative descriptive survey design to elicit feedback. The authors (3 neuropsychologists, 1 geropsychologist, and 1 research coordinator) developed the survey questions. The 13-question survey was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential, and respondents were given an opportunity to ask questions, with the first author serving as the point of contact. 

The survey ascertained information about respondents and their work setting (ie, facility type, specific work setting and location, profession, and rurality of patients). First respondents were asked whether they have referred patients to neuropsychology services in the past year. Those who had not referred patients during the past year were asked about reasons for nonreferral with an option to provide an open-ended response. Respondents who did refer were asked how they refer for neuropsychology services and about the usefulness and timeliness of both teleNP and non-VA F2F services. Respondents were asked to respond with their preference for teleNP vs non-VA F2F with an open-ended prompt. Finally, respondents were invited to share any feedback for improvement regarding teleNP services. 

A link to the survey, hosted on the VA Research Electronic Data Capture system, was emailed to facility and service line leaders at the 4 VISN 20 health care systems for distribution to the staff. All staff were included because in many of the facilities, particularly those that are highly rural with low staffing, it is not uncommon for technicians, nurses, and other support staff to assist with placing consults. In particular, VISN 20 nurses often have an optimal understanding of referral pathways to care for patients and are positioned to give and receive feedback about the utility of neuropsychological evaluations. The Research and Development Committee at the Boise VA Medical Center determined this project to be QI and exempt from institutional review board oversight. The VISN 20 employee labor relations HR supervisor approved this survey, with union awareness. Responses were anonymous. 

Data were imported into Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS Statistics for further analysis. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages. Nonparametric χ² and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to test for differences. An inductive approach to develop codes was used for the 3 open-ended questions. Two authors (CC, CEG) independently coded the responses and reviewed discrepancies. Final code applications were based on consensus. 

RESULTS 

The survey was deployed for 1 month between February 7, 2024, and June 15, 2024, at each of the 4 health care systems. Thirty-three staff members responded; of these, 1 person did not respond to an item on whether they referred for neuropsychology services. Eighteen of 33 respondents reported referring patients to teleNP or F2F neuropsychology services in the past year. Fourteen of the 33 respondents stated they did not refer; of these, 2 were unfamiliar with the teleNP service and 12 provided other reasons (eg, new to VA, not in their professional scope to order consults, did not have patients needing services). 

The analysis focused on the 18 respondents who referred for neuropsychology services. Thirteen were within health care system A, and 5 were within health care system B (which had no nearby non-VA contracted neuropsychology services) and none were in the other 2 health care systems. Ten of 18 respondents (56%) stated they practiced primarily in a rural setting. Five respondents worked in a CBOC, 12 in a main VA facility, 9 in a primary care setting, 8 in a mental health setting, and 3 in other settings (eg, domiciliary). Participants could select > 1 setting. The 18 respondents who referred to neuropsychology services included 7 psychologists, 1 nurse, 2 social workers, 1 social services assistant, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 physicians, and 1 unknown HCP. 

When asked to categorize the usefulness of services, more respondents characterized teleNP as very much so (1 on a 5-point scale) than F2F referrals (Figure). The mean (SD) of 1.5 (0.8) for teleNP usefulness fell between very much so and mostly and 1 respondent indicated not applicable. Similarly, the mean (SD) for non-VA F2F usefulness was 1.7 (0.9); 9 respondents rated this item as not applicable. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test of related samples indicated no significant differences between the pairs of ratings (Z = 1.50; P = .41). 

Respondents with rural patients were more likely to refer them to teleNP services compared with respondents with nonrural patients (χ² = 5.7; P = .02). However, ratings of teleNP usefulness did not significantly differ for those serving rural vs with nonrural patients (χ² = 1.4; P = .49). Mean (SD) rating of teleNP usefulness was 1.3 (0.7) for the 9 rural subgroup respondents (between very much so and mostly) vs 1.8 (0.9) for the 8 nonrural subgroup respondents (between very much so and mostly). The mean (SD) rating for non-VA F2F usefulness was 1.8 (1.0) for the 4 rural subgroup respondents and 1.6 (0.8) for the 5 nonrural subgroup, between very much so and mostly for both groups. 

Most respondents had no preference between teleNP or F2F. Notably, the responses underlying this group were multifaceted and corresponded to multiple codes (ie, access, preference for in-person services, technology, space and logistics, and service boundaries and requirements). According to 1 respondent, “the logistics of scheduling/room availability, technological challenges, and client behavioral issues that are likely to occur could possibly be more easily addressed via in-person sessions for some clients and providers.” 

Six of 18 respondents preferred teleNP, citing timeliness, ease of access, and evaluation quality. One respondent noted that the “majority of my veterans live in extremely remote areas” and may need to take a plane for their visit. The 3 respondents who preferred in-person neuropsychology services cited veterans’ preference for in-person services. 

Open-Ended Feedback 

Thirteen respondents offered feedback on what is working well with teleNP services. Reasons mentioned were related to the service (ie, timeliness, access, quality) and the neuropsychologist (ie, communication and HCP skills). One respondent described the service and neuropsychologists positively, stating that they were “responsive, notes are readily available, clear assessments and recommendations, being available by [Microsoft] Teams/email.” 

Ten respondents provided suggestions for improvement. Suggestions focused on expanding services, such as to “all veterans with cognitive/memory concerns that desire testing,” individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and co-occurring mental health concerns, and those in residential programs. Suggestions included hiring psychology technicians or more staff and providing education at local clinics. 

DISCUSSION 

This QI project examines VA staff perspectives on the usefulness of CRH 20 teleNP services and non-VA F2F services. While the small sample size limits generalizability, this preliminary study suggests that VA teleNP evaluations were similar to those conducted F2F in non-VA settings. While ratings of teleNP usefulness did not differ significantly for those serving rural vs nonrural veterans, respondents serving rural patients were more likely to refer patients to teleNP, suggesting that teleNP may increase access in rural settings, consistent with other studies.^7,8,13 This article also presents qualitative suggestions for improving teleNP delivery within the VHA. This is the first known initiative to report on VHA staff satisfaction with a teleNP service and expands the limited literature to date on satisfaction with teleNP services. The findings provide initial support for continued use and, potentially, expansion of teleNP services within this CRH remote hub-and-spoke model. 

Limitations 

A significant limitation of the current work is the small sample size of survey respondents. In particular, while teleNP turnaround time was perceived as faster than non-VA F2F care, only 8 respondents reported on timeliness of F2F evaluation results, which renders it difficult to draw conclusions. Interestingly, not all respondents reported referring to neuropsychology services within the previous year; the most common reasons reflect the perception that referral to neuropsychology was outside of that staff member’s role or not clinically indicated. 

One additional possible explanation for the absence of reporting on utility of teleNP specifically is that respondents did not track whether their patient was seen by teleNP or F2F services, based on how the referral process varies at each health care system. For example, in health care system C, a large number of referrals are forwarded to the service by local VA F2F neuropsychologists. This may speak to the seamlessness of the teleNP process, such that local staff and/or referring HCPs are unaware of the modality over which neuropsychology is being conducted. It is plausible that the reason behind this smaller response rate in health care systems B and C relates to how neuropsychology consults are processed at these local VAMCs. We suspect that in these settings, the HCPs referring for neuropsychological evaluations (eg, primary care, mental health) may be unaware that their referrals are being triaged to neuropsychologists in a different program (CRH 20 teleNP). Therefore, they would not necessarily know that they used teleNP and didn’t complete the survey. 

The referral process for these 2 sites contrasts with the process for other VISN 20 sites where there is no local neuropsychology program triaging. In these settings, referrals from local HCPs come directly to teleNP; thus, it is more likely that these HCPs are aware of teleNP services. There were only 2 physicians who completed the survey, which may relate to their workload and a workflow where other staff have been increasingly requested to order the consults for the physician. This type of workflow results in an increase in the number of VHA staff involved in patient care. Ratings of usefulness were highest in health care system B, which does not have neuropsychology services at the facility or in the community; this may relate to elevated teleNP satisfaction ratings. 

Further work may help identify which aspects of a teleNP service make it more useful than F2F care for this population or determine whether there were HCPor setting-specific factors that influenced the ratings (ie, preference for VA care or comparison of favorability ratings for the HCPs who conduct teleNP and F2F within the same system). The latter comparisons could not be drawn in the current systems due to the absence of HCPs who provide both teleNP and F2F modalities within VISN 20. Another consideration for future work would be to use a previously published/validated survey measure and piloting of questions with a naive sample before implementation. 

CONCLUSIONS 

This analysis provides initial support for feasibility and acceptability of teleNP as an alternative to traditional in-person neuropsychological evaluations. The small number of survey respondents may reflect the multiple pathways through which consults are forwarded to CRH 20, which includes both direct HCP referrals and forwarded consults from local neuropsychology services. CRH 20 has completed > 570 teleNP evaluations within 1 year, suggesting that lack of awareness may not be hindering veteran access to the service. Replication with a larger sample that is more broadly representative of key stakeholders in veteran care, identification of populations that would benefit most from teleNP services, and dissemination studies of the expansion of teleNP services are all important directions for future work. The robustness and longevity of the VISN 20 teleNP program, coupled with the preliminary positive findings from this project, demonstrate support for further assessment of the potential impact of telehealth on neuropsychological care within the VHA and show that barriers associated with access to health care services in remote settings may be mitigated through teleNP service delivery.

Magnetic resonance image (MRI) contrast agents can induce profound complications, including gadolinium encephalopathy, kidney injury, gadolinium-associated plaques, and progressive systemic fibrosis, which can be fatal.^1-10 About 50% of MRIs use gadolinium-based contrast (Gd³⁺), a toxic rare earth metal ion that enhances imaging but requires binding with pharmaceutical ligands to reduce toxicity and promote renal elimination (Figure 1). Despite these measures, Gd³⁺ can persist in the body, including the brain.^11,12 Wastewater treatment fails to remove these agents, making Gd³⁺ a growing pollutant in water and the food chain.^13-15 Because Gd³⁺ is a rare earth metal ion in the milieu intérieur, there is an urgent need to study its biological and long-term effects (Appendix 1). 

Case Presentation

A 65-year-old Vietnam-era veteran presented to nephrology at the Raymond G. Murphy Veterans Affairs Medical Center (RGMVAMC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for evaluation of gadolinium-induced symptoms. His medical history included metabolic syndrome, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hypogonadism, cervical spondylosis, and an elevated prostate-specific antigen, previously assessed with a contrast-enhanced MRI in 2019 (Gadobenic acid, 19 mL). Surgical history included cervical fusion and ankle hardware.

The patient had a scheduled MRI 25 days earlier, following an elevated prostate specific antigen test result, prompting urologic surveillance and concern for malignancy. In preparation for the contrast-enhanced MRI, his right arm was cannulated with a line primed with gadobenic acid contrast. Though the technician stated the infusion had not started, the patient’s symptoms began shortly after entry into the scanner, before any programmed pulse sequences. The patient experienced claustrophobia, diaphoresis, palpitations, xerostomia, dysgeusia, shortness of breath, and a sensation of heat in his groin, chest, “kidneys,” and lower back. The MRI was terminated prematurely in response to the patient’s acute symptomatology. The patient continued experiencing new symptoms intermittently during the following week, including lightheadedness, headaches, right clavicular pain, raspy voice, edema, and a sense of doom.

The patient presented to the RGMVAMC emergency department (ED) 8 days after the MRI with worsening symptoms and was hospitalized for 10 days. During this time, he was referred to nephrology for outpatient evaluation. While awaiting his nephrology appointment, the patient presented to the RGMVAMC ED 20 days after the initial episode with ongoing symptoms. “I thought I was dying,” he said. Laboratory results and a 12-lead electrocardiogram showed a finely static background, wide P waves (> 80 ms) with notching in lead II, sinusoidal P waves in V1, R transition in V2, RR’ in V2, ST flat in lead III, and sinus bradycardia (Table 1 and Appendix 2).

The patient’s medical and surgical histories were reviewed at the nephrology evaluation 25 days following the MRI. He reported that household water was sourced from a well and that he filtered his drinking water with a reverse osmosis system. He served in the US Army for 10 years as an engineer specializing in mechanical systems, power generation, and vehicles. Following Army retirement, the patient served in the US Air Force Reserves for 15 years, working as a crew chief in pneudraulics. The patient reported stopping tobacco use 1 year before and also reported regular use of a broad array of prescription medications and dietary supplements, including dexamethasone (4 mg twice daily), fluticasone nasal spray (50 mcg per nostril, twice daily), ibuprofen (400 mg twice daily, as needed), loratadine (10 mg daily), aspirin (81 mg daily), and metoprolol succinate (50 mg nightly). In addition, he reported consistent use of cholecalciferol (3000 IU daily), another supplemental vitamin D preparation, chelated magnesium glycinate (3 tablets daily for bone issues), turmeric (1 tablet daily), a multivitamin (Living Green Liquid Gel, daily), and a mega-B complex.

Physical examination revealed a well-nourished, tall man with hypertension (145/87 mmHg) and bilateral lower extremity edema. Oral examination showed poor dentition, including missing molars (#1-3, #14-16, #17-19, #30-31), with the anterior teeth replaced by bridges supported by dental implants. The review of systems was otherwise unremarkable, with nocturia noted before the consultation.

Serum and urine gadolinium testing, (Mayo Clinic Laboratories) revealed gadolinium levels of 0.3 mcg/24 h in the urine and 0.1 ng/mL in the serum. Nonzero values indicated detectable gadolinium, suggesting retention. The patient had a prior gadolinium exposure during a 2019 MRI (about 1340 days before) and suspected a repeat exposure on day 0, although the MRI technician stated that no contrast was administered. Given his elevated vitamin D levels, the patient was advised to minimize dietary supplements, particularly vitamin D, to avoid confounding symptoms. The plan included monitoring symptoms and a follow-up evaluation with repeat laboratory tests on day 116.

At the nephrology follow-up 4 months postexposure, the patient's symptoms had primarily abated, with a marked reduction in the previously noted metallic dysgeusia. Physical examination remained consistent with prior findings. He was afebrile (97.7 °F) with a blood pressure of 111/72 mmHg, a pulse of 63 beats per minute, and an oxygen saturation of 98% on ambient air. Laboratory analysis revealed serum and urine gadolinium levels below detectable thresholds (< 0.1 ng/mL and < 0.1 mcg/24 h). A 24-hour creatinine clearance, calculated from a urine volume of 1300 mL, measured at an optimal 106 mL/min, indicating preserved renal function (Tables 2 and 3). Of note, his 24-hour oxalate was above the reference range, with a urine pH below the reference range and a high supersaturation index for calcium oxalate.

Discussion

Use of enhanced MRI has increased in the Veterans Health Administration (Figure 2). A growing range of indications for enhanced procedures (eg, cardiac MRI) has contributed to this rise. The market has grown with new gadolinium-based contrast agents, such as gadopiclenol. However, reliance on untested assumptions about the safety of newer agents and need for robust clinical trials pose potential risks to patient safety.

Without prospective evidence, the American College of Radiology (ACR) classifies gadolinium-based contrast agents into 3 groups: Group 1, associated with the highest number of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis cases; Group 2, linked to few, if any, unconfounded cases; and Group 3, where data on nephrogenic systemic fibrosis risk have been limited. As of April 2024, the ACR reclassified Group 3 agents (Ablavar/Vasovist/Angiomark and Primovist/Eovist) into Group 2. Curiously, Vueway and Elucirem were approved in late 2022 and should clearly be categorized as Group 3 (Table 4).There were 19 cases of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis or similar manifestations, 8 of which were unconfounded by other factors. These patients had been exposed to gadobutrol, often combined with other agents. Gadobutrol—like other Group 2 agents—has been associated with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.^16,17 Despite US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documentation of rising reports, many clinicians remain unaware that nephrogenic systemic fibrosis is increasingly linked to Group 2 agents classified by the ACR.¹⁸ While declines in reported cases of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis may suggest reduced incidence, this trend may reflect diminished clinical vigilance and underreporting, particularly given emerging evidence implicating even Group 2 gadolinium-based contrast agents in delayed and underrecognized presentations. This information has yet to permeate the medical community, particularly among nephrologists. Considering these cases, revisiting the ACR guidelines may be prudent. 

To address this growing concern, clinicians must adopt stricter vigilance and actively pursue updated information to mitigate patient risks tied to these contrast agents. 

There exists an illusion of knowledge in disregarding the confounded exposures of MRI contrast agents. Ten distinct brands of contrast agents have been approved for clinical use. With repeated imaging, patients are often exposed to varying formulations of gadolinium-based agents. Yet investigators commonly discard these data points when assessing risk. By doing so, they assume—without evidence—that some formulations are inherently less likely to provoke adverse effects (AEs) than others. This untested presumption becomes perilous, especially given the limited understanding of the mechanisms underlying gadolinium-induced pathologies. As Aldous Huxley warned, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”¹⁹

Gadolinium Persistence

Contrary to expectations, gadolinium persists in the body far longer than initially presumed. Symptoms associated with gadolinium exposure (SAGE) encapsulate the chronic, often enigmatic maladies tied to MRI contrast agents.²⁰ The prolonged retention of this rare earth metal offers a compelling hypothesis for the etiology of SAGE. It has been hypothesized that Lewis base-rich metabolites increase susceptibility to gadolinium-based contrast agent complications.²¹

The blood and urine concentration elimination curves of gadolinium are exponential and categorized as fast, intermediate, and long-term.¹ For urinary elimination, the function of the curves is exponential. The quantity of gadolinium in the urine at a time (t) after exposure (D_[Gd](t)) is equal to the product of the amount of gadolinium in the sample (urine or blood) at the end of the fast elimination period (D_[Gd](t₀)) and the exponential decay with k being a rate constant.

To the authors’ knowledge, we are the only research team currently investigating the rate constant for the intermediate- and long-term phase gadolinium elimination. The Retention and Toxicity of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents study was approved by the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center Institutional Review Board on May 27, 2020 (IRB ID 19-660). The data for the patient in this case were compared with preliminary results for patients with exposure-to-measurement intervals < 100 days. 

The patient in this case presented with detectable gadolinium levels in urine and serum shortly after an attempted contrast-enhanced MRI procedure (Figure 3). The presence of detectable gadolinium levels in the patient’s urine and serum suggests a likely exposure to a contrast agent about 27 days before his consultation. While the technician reported that no contrast was administered during the attempted MRI, it remains possible that a small amount was introduced during cannulation, potentially triggering the patient’s symptoms. Linear modeling of semilogarithmic plots for participants exposed to contrast agents within 100 days (urine: P = 1.8 × 10^ˉ8, adjusted r² = 0.62; blood: P = .005, adjusted r² = 0.21) provided clearance rates (k values) for urine and blood. Extrapolating from these models to the presumed exposure date, the intercepts estimate that the patient received between 0.5% and 8% of a standard contrast dose.

MRI contrast agents can cause skin disease. Systemic fibrosis is considered one of the most severe AEs. Skin pathophysiology involving myeloid cells is driven by elevated levels of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, which recruits circulating fibroblasts via the C-C chemokine receptor 2.^22,23 This occurs alongside activation of NADPH oxidase Nox4.^4,24,25 Intracellular gadolinium-rich nanoparticles likely serve as catalysts for this reactive cascade.^{2,18,22,26,27} These particles assemble around intracellular lipid droplets and ferrule them in spiculated rare earth-rich shells that compromise cellular architecture.^{2,18,21,22,26,27} Frequently sequestered within endosomal compartments, they disrupt vesicular integrity and threaten cellular homeostasis. Interference with degradative systems such as the endolysosomal axis perturbs energy-recycling pathways—an insidious disturbance, particularly in cells with high metabolic demand. Skin-related symptoms are among the most frequently reported AEs, according to the FDA AE reporting system.¹⁸ 

Studies indicate repeated exposure to MRI contrast agents can lead to permanent gadolinium retention in the brain and other vital organs. Intravenous (IV) contrast agents cross the blood-brain barrier rapidly, while intrathecal administration has been linked to significant and lasting neurologic effects.¹⁸ 

Gadolinium is chemically bound to pharmaceutical ligands to enhance renal clearance and reduce toxicity. However, available data from human samples suggest potential ligand exchanges with undefined physiologic substances. This exchange may facilitate gadolinium precipitation and accumulation within cells into spiculated nanoparticles. Transmission electron microscopy reveals the formation of unilamellar bodies associated with mitochondriopathy and cellular damage, particularly in renal proximal tubules.^{2,18,22,26,27} It is proposed that intracellular nanoparticle formation represents a key mechanism driving the systemic symptoms observed in patients.^{1,2,18, 22,26,27} 

Any hypothesis based on free soluble gadolinium—or concept derived from it—should be discarded. The high affinity of pharmaceutical ligands for gadolinium suggests that the cationic rare earth metal remains predominantly in a ligand-bound, soluble form. It is hypothesized that gadolinium undergoes ligand exchange with physiologic substances, directly leading to nanoparticle formation. Current data demonstrate gadolinium precipitation according to the Le Chatelier’s principle. Since precipitated gadolinium does not readily re-equilibrate with pharmaceutical ligands, repeated administration of different contrast agent brands may contribute to nanoparticle growth.²⁶

Meanwhile, a growing number of patients are turning to chelation therapy, a largely untested treatment. The premise of chelation therapy is rooted in several unproven assumptions.^18,21 First, it assumes that clinically significant amounts of gadolinium persist in compartments such as the extracellular space, where they can be effectively chelated and cleared. Second, it presumes that free gadolinium is the primary driver of chronic symptoms, an assertion that remains scientifically unsubstantiated. Finally, chelation proponents overlook the potential harm caused by depleting essential physiological metals during the process, assuming without evidence that the scant removal of gadolinium outweighs the risk of physiological mineral depletion. 

These assumptions underpin an unproven remedy that demands critical scrutiny. Recent findings reveal that gadolinium deposits in the skin and kidney often take the form of intracellular nanoparticles, directly challenging the foundation of chelation therapy. Chelation advocates must demonstrate that these intracellular gadolinium deposits neither trigger cellular toxicity nor initiate a cytokine cascade. Chelation supporters must prove that the systemic response to these foreign particles is unrelated to the symptoms reported by patients. Until then, the validity of chelation therapy remains highly questionable.

The causality of the symptoms, mainly whether IV gadolinium was administered, was examined. The null hypothesis stated that the patient was not exposed to gadolinium. However, this hypothesis was contradicted by the detection of gadolinium in the serum and urine 27 days after the potential exposure. 

Two plausible explanations exist for the nonzero gadolinium levels detected in the serum and urine. The first possibility is that minute quantities of gadolinium were introduced during cannulation, with the amount being sufficient to persist in measurable concentrations 27 days postexposure. The second possibility is that the gadolinium originated from an MRI contrast agent administered 4 years earlier. In this scenario, gadolinium stored in organ reservoirs such as bone, liver, or kidneys may have been mobilized into the extracellular fluid compartment due to the administration of high-dose steroids 20 days after the recent contrast-enhanced MRI procedure attempt. Coyte et al reported elevated gadolinium levels in the serum, cord blood, breast milk, and placenta of pregnant women with prior exposure to MRI contrast agents.²⁸ These findings suggest that gadolinium, stored in organs such as bone may be remobilized by variables affecting bone remodeling (eg, high-dose steroids). 

Significantly, the patient exhibited elevated urinary oxalate levels. Previous research has found that oxalic acid reacts rapidly with MRI contrast agents, forming digadolinium trioxalate. While the gadolinium-rich nanoparticles identified in tissues such as the skin and kidney (including the human kidney) are amorphous, these in vitro findings establish a proof-of-concept: the intracellular environment facilitates gadolinium dissociation from pharmaceutical chelates. 

Furthermore, in vitro experiments show that proteins and lysosomal pH promote this dissociation, underscoring how human metabolic conditions—particularly oxalic acid concentration—may drive intracellular gadolinium deposition.

Patient Perspective

“They put something into my body that they cannot get out.” This stark realization underpins the patient’s profound concern about gadolinium-based contrast agents and their potential long-term effects. Reflecting on his experience, the patient expressed deep fears about the unknown future impacts: “I’m concerned about my kidneys, I’m concerned about my heart, and I’m concerned about my brain. I don’t know how this stuff is going to affect me in the future.”

He drew an unsettling parallel between gadolinium and heavy metals: “Heavy metal is poison. The body does not produce this kind of stuff on its own.” His reaction to the procedure left a lasting impression, prompting him to question the logic of using a substance that cannot be purged: “Why would you put something into someone’s body that you cannot extract? Nobody—nobody—should experience what I went through.”

The patient emphasized the lack of clear research on long-term outcomes, which compounds his anxiety: “If there was research that said, ‘Well, this is only going to affect these organs for this long,’ OK, I might be able to accept that. But there is no research like that. Nobody can tell me what’s going to happen in 5 years.”

Strengths and Limitations

A significant strength of this approach is the ability to track gadolinium elimination and symptom resolution over time, supported by unique access to intermediate and long-term clearance data from our ongoing research protocol. The investigators were equipped to back-extrapolate the exposure, which provided a rare opportunity to correlate gadolinium levels with clinical outcomes. The primary limitation is the lack of a defined clinical case definition for gadolinium toxicity and limited mechanistic understanding of SAGE, which hinders diagnosis and management.

Metabolites, proteins, and lipids rich in Lewis bases could initiate this process as substrates for intracellular gadolinium sedimentation. Future studies should investigate whether metabolic conditions such as oxalate burden or altered parathyroid hormone levels modulate gadolinium compartmentalization and tissue retention. If gadolinium-rich nanoparticle formation and accumulation disrupt cellular equilibrium, it underscores an urgent need to understand the implications of long-term gadolinium retention. The research team continues to gather evidence that the gadolinium cation remains chelated from the moment MRI contrast agents are administered through to the formation of intracellular nanoparticles. Retained gadolinium nanoparticles may act as a nidus, triggering cellular signaling cascades that lead to multisymptomatic illnesses. Intracellular and insoluble retained gadolinium challenges proponents of untested chelation therapies.

Conclusions

This case highlights emerging clinical and ethical concerns surrounding gadolinium-based contrast agent use. Clinicians may benefit from considering gadolinium retention as a contributor to persistent, unexplained symptoms—particularly in patients with recent imaging exposure. As contrast use continues to rise within federal health systems, regulatory and administrative stakeholders would do well to re-examine current safety frameworks. Informed consent should reflect what is known: gadolinium can remain in the body long after administration, potentially indefinitely. The long-term consequences of cumulative exposure remain poorly defined, but the presence of a lanthanide element in human tissue warrants greater attention from researchers and regulators alike. Interest in alternative imaging modalities and long-term safety monitoring would mark progress toward more transparent, accountable care.

Magnetic resonance image (MRI) contrast agents can induce profound complications, including gadolinium encephalopathy, kidney injury, gadolinium-associated plaques, and progressive systemic fibrosis, which can be fatal.^1-10 About 50% of MRIs use gadolinium-based contrast (Gd³⁺), a toxic rare earth metal ion that enhances imaging but requires binding with pharmaceutical ligands to reduce toxicity and promote renal elimination (Figure 1). Despite these measures, Gd³⁺ can persist in the body, including the brain.^11,12 Wastewater treatment fails to remove these agents, making Gd³⁺ a growing pollutant in water and the food chain.^13-15 Because Gd³⁺ is a rare earth metal ion in the milieu intérieur, there is an urgent need to study its biological and long-term effects (Appendix 1). 

Case Presentation

A 65-year-old Vietnam-era veteran presented to nephrology at the Raymond G. Murphy Veterans Affairs Medical Center (RGMVAMC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for evaluation of gadolinium-induced symptoms. His medical history included metabolic syndrome, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hypogonadism, cervical spondylosis, and an elevated prostate-specific antigen, previously assessed with a contrast-enhanced MRI in 2019 (Gadobenic acid, 19 mL). Surgical history included cervical fusion and ankle hardware.

The patient had a scheduled MRI 25 days earlier, following an elevated prostate specific antigen test result, prompting urologic surveillance and concern for malignancy. In preparation for the contrast-enhanced MRI, his right arm was cannulated with a line primed with gadobenic acid contrast. Though the technician stated the infusion had not started, the patient’s symptoms began shortly after entry into the scanner, before any programmed pulse sequences. The patient experienced claustrophobia, diaphoresis, palpitations, xerostomia, dysgeusia, shortness of breath, and a sensation of heat in his groin, chest, “kidneys,” and lower back. The MRI was terminated prematurely in response to the patient’s acute symptomatology. The patient continued experiencing new symptoms intermittently during the following week, including lightheadedness, headaches, right clavicular pain, raspy voice, edema, and a sense of doom.

The patient presented to the RGMVAMC emergency department (ED) 8 days after the MRI with worsening symptoms and was hospitalized for 10 days. During this time, he was referred to nephrology for outpatient evaluation. While awaiting his nephrology appointment, the patient presented to the RGMVAMC ED 20 days after the initial episode with ongoing symptoms. “I thought I was dying,” he said. Laboratory results and a 12-lead electrocardiogram showed a finely static background, wide P waves (> 80 ms) with notching in lead II, sinusoidal P waves in V1, R transition in V2, RR’ in V2, ST flat in lead III, and sinus bradycardia (Table 1 and Appendix 2).

The patient’s medical and surgical histories were reviewed at the nephrology evaluation 25 days following the MRI. He reported that household water was sourced from a well and that he filtered his drinking water with a reverse osmosis system. He served in the US Army for 10 years as an engineer specializing in mechanical systems, power generation, and vehicles. Following Army retirement, the patient served in the US Air Force Reserves for 15 years, working as a crew chief in pneudraulics. The patient reported stopping tobacco use 1 year before and also reported regular use of a broad array of prescription medications and dietary supplements, including dexamethasone (4 mg twice daily), fluticasone nasal spray (50 mcg per nostril, twice daily), ibuprofen (400 mg twice daily, as needed), loratadine (10 mg daily), aspirin (81 mg daily), and metoprolol succinate (50 mg nightly). In addition, he reported consistent use of cholecalciferol (3000 IU daily), another supplemental vitamin D preparation, chelated magnesium glycinate (3 tablets daily for bone issues), turmeric (1 tablet daily), a multivitamin (Living Green Liquid Gel, daily), and a mega-B complex.

Physical examination revealed a well-nourished, tall man with hypertension (145/87 mmHg) and bilateral lower extremity edema. Oral examination showed poor dentition, including missing molars (#1-3, #14-16, #17-19, #30-31), with the anterior teeth replaced by bridges supported by dental implants. The review of systems was otherwise unremarkable, with nocturia noted before the consultation.

Serum and urine gadolinium testing, (Mayo Clinic Laboratories) revealed gadolinium levels of 0.3 mcg/24 h in the urine and 0.1 ng/mL in the serum. Nonzero values indicated detectable gadolinium, suggesting retention. The patient had a prior gadolinium exposure during a 2019 MRI (about 1340 days before) and suspected a repeat exposure on day 0, although the MRI technician stated that no contrast was administered. Given his elevated vitamin D levels, the patient was advised to minimize dietary supplements, particularly vitamin D, to avoid confounding symptoms. The plan included monitoring symptoms and a follow-up evaluation with repeat laboratory tests on day 116.

At the nephrology follow-up 4 months postexposure, the patient's symptoms had primarily abated, with a marked reduction in the previously noted metallic dysgeusia. Physical examination remained consistent with prior findings. He was afebrile (97.7 °F) with a blood pressure of 111/72 mmHg, a pulse of 63 beats per minute, and an oxygen saturation of 98% on ambient air. Laboratory analysis revealed serum and urine gadolinium levels below detectable thresholds (< 0.1 ng/mL and < 0.1 mcg/24 h). A 24-hour creatinine clearance, calculated from a urine volume of 1300 mL, measured at an optimal 106 mL/min, indicating preserved renal function (Tables 2 and 3). Of note, his 24-hour oxalate was above the reference range, with a urine pH below the reference range and a high supersaturation index for calcium oxalate.

Discussion

Use of enhanced MRI has increased in the Veterans Health Administration (Figure 2). A growing range of indications for enhanced procedures (eg, cardiac MRI) has contributed to this rise. The market has grown with new gadolinium-based contrast agents, such as gadopiclenol. However, reliance on untested assumptions about the safety of newer agents and need for robust clinical trials pose potential risks to patient safety.

Without prospective evidence, the American College of Radiology (ACR) classifies gadolinium-based contrast agents into 3 groups: Group 1, associated with the highest number of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis cases; Group 2, linked to few, if any, unconfounded cases; and Group 3, where data on nephrogenic systemic fibrosis risk have been limited. As of April 2024, the ACR reclassified Group 3 agents (Ablavar/Vasovist/Angiomark and Primovist/Eovist) into Group 2. Curiously, Vueway and Elucirem were approved in late 2022 and should clearly be categorized as Group 3 (Table 4).There were 19 cases of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis or similar manifestations, 8 of which were unconfounded by other factors. These patients had been exposed to gadobutrol, often combined with other agents. Gadobutrol—like other Group 2 agents—has been associated with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.^16,17 Despite US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documentation of rising reports, many clinicians remain unaware that nephrogenic systemic fibrosis is increasingly linked to Group 2 agents classified by the ACR.¹⁸ While declines in reported cases of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis may suggest reduced incidence, this trend may reflect diminished clinical vigilance and underreporting, particularly given emerging evidence implicating even Group 2 gadolinium-based contrast agents in delayed and underrecognized presentations. This information has yet to permeate the medical community, particularly among nephrologists. Considering these cases, revisiting the ACR guidelines may be prudent. 

To address this growing concern, clinicians must adopt stricter vigilance and actively pursue updated information to mitigate patient risks tied to these contrast agents. 

There exists an illusion of knowledge in disregarding the confounded exposures of MRI contrast agents. Ten distinct brands of contrast agents have been approved for clinical use. With repeated imaging, patients are often exposed to varying formulations of gadolinium-based agents. Yet investigators commonly discard these data points when assessing risk. By doing so, they assume—without evidence—that some formulations are inherently less likely to provoke adverse effects (AEs) than others. This untested presumption becomes perilous, especially given the limited understanding of the mechanisms underlying gadolinium-induced pathologies. As Aldous Huxley warned, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”¹⁹

Gadolinium Persistence

Contrary to expectations, gadolinium persists in the body far longer than initially presumed. Symptoms associated with gadolinium exposure (SAGE) encapsulate the chronic, often enigmatic maladies tied to MRI contrast agents.²⁰ The prolonged retention of this rare earth metal offers a compelling hypothesis for the etiology of SAGE. It has been hypothesized that Lewis base-rich metabolites increase susceptibility to gadolinium-based contrast agent complications.²¹

The blood and urine concentration elimination curves of gadolinium are exponential and categorized as fast, intermediate, and long-term.¹ For urinary elimination, the function of the curves is exponential. The quantity of gadolinium in the urine at a time (t) after exposure (D_[Gd](t)) is equal to the product of the amount of gadolinium in the sample (urine or blood) at the end of the fast elimination period (D_[Gd](t₀)) and the exponential decay with k being a rate constant.