Program Profile

PURPOSE

To improve germline genetic testing among Veterans with high risk, very high risk and metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND

During our Commission on Cancer survey in 2021, it was noted that the Detroit VA’s referrals for germline genetic testing and counseling were extremely low. In 2020, only 1 Veteran was referred for prostate germline genetic testing and counseling and only 8 Veterans were referred in 2021. It was felt that the need to refer Veterans outside of the Detroit VA may have contributed to these low numbers. Our Cancer Committee chose prostate cancer as a disease to focus on. We chose a timeline of one year to implement our process.

METHODS

We made testing and counseling locally accessible to Veterans and encouraged medical oncology providers to make it part of the care of Veterans with high risk, very high risk and metastatic prostate cancer. We sought the assistance of the VA’s National Precision Oncology Program and were able to secure financial and logistical support to perform germline molecular prostate panel testing at the Detroit VA. We were also able to identify a cancer genetic specialist at the Ann Arbor VA that would perform genetic counseling among this group of patients based on their test results. Our medical oncology providers identified Veterans meeting the criteria for testing. Education regarding germline testing, its benefits and implications were conducted with Veterans, and performed after obtaining their informed consent in collaboration with our pathology department. The specimen is then sent to a VA central laboratory for processing. Detroit VA providers are alerted by the local laboratory once results are available. Veterans are then referred to the genetic counseling specialist based on the results. Some of these counseling visits are done virtually for the Veteran’s convenience.

DATA ANALYSIS

A retrospective chart analysis was used to collect the data.

RESULTS

After the implementation of our initiative, 97 Veterans with high risk, very high risk or metastatic prostate cancer were educated on the benefits of germline genetic testing, 87 of whom agreed to be tested. As of 4/2/23, 48 tests have already been performed. Pathogenic variants were recorded on 2 Veterans so far. One was for BRCA2 and KDM6A, and the other was for ATM. Data collection and recording is on-going.

IMPLICATIONS

Improving accessibility and incorporating genetic testing and counseling in cancer care can improve their utilization.

PURPOSE

To improve germline genetic testing among Veterans with high risk, very high risk and metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND

During our Commission on Cancer survey in 2021, it was noted that the Detroit VA’s referrals for germline genetic testing and counseling were extremely low. In 2020, only 1 Veteran was referred for prostate germline genetic testing and counseling and only 8 Veterans were referred in 2021. It was felt that the need to refer Veterans outside of the Detroit VA may have contributed to these low numbers. Our Cancer Committee chose prostate cancer as a disease to focus on. We chose a timeline of one year to implement our process.

METHODS

We made testing and counseling locally accessible to Veterans and encouraged medical oncology providers to make it part of the care of Veterans with high risk, very high risk and metastatic prostate cancer. We sought the assistance of the VA’s National Precision Oncology Program and were able to secure financial and logistical support to perform germline molecular prostate panel testing at the Detroit VA. We were also able to identify a cancer genetic specialist at the Ann Arbor VA that would perform genetic counseling among this group of patients based on their test results. Our medical oncology providers identified Veterans meeting the criteria for testing. Education regarding germline testing, its benefits and implications were conducted with Veterans, and performed after obtaining their informed consent in collaboration with our pathology department. The specimen is then sent to a VA central laboratory for processing. Detroit VA providers are alerted by the local laboratory once results are available. Veterans are then referred to the genetic counseling specialist based on the results. Some of these counseling visits are done virtually for the Veteran’s convenience.

DATA ANALYSIS

A retrospective chart analysis was used to collect the data.

RESULTS

After the implementation of our initiative, 97 Veterans with high risk, very high risk or metastatic prostate cancer were educated on the benefits of germline genetic testing, 87 of whom agreed to be tested. As of 4/2/23, 48 tests have already been performed. Pathogenic variants were recorded on 2 Veterans so far. One was for BRCA2 and KDM6A, and the other was for ATM. Data collection and recording is on-going.

IMPLICATIONS

Improving accessibility and incorporating genetic testing and counseling in cancer care can improve their utilization.

PURPOSE

To improve germline genetic testing among Veterans with high risk, very high risk and metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND

During our Commission on Cancer survey in 2021, it was noted that the Detroit VA’s referrals for germline genetic testing and counseling were extremely low. In 2020, only 1 Veteran was referred for prostate germline genetic testing and counseling and only 8 Veterans were referred in 2021. It was felt that the need to refer Veterans outside of the Detroit VA may have contributed to these low numbers. Our Cancer Committee chose prostate cancer as a disease to focus on. We chose a timeline of one year to implement our process.

METHODS

We made testing and counseling locally accessible to Veterans and encouraged medical oncology providers to make it part of the care of Veterans with high risk, very high risk and metastatic prostate cancer. We sought the assistance of the VA’s National Precision Oncology Program and were able to secure financial and logistical support to perform germline molecular prostate panel testing at the Detroit VA. We were also able to identify a cancer genetic specialist at the Ann Arbor VA that would perform genetic counseling among this group of patients based on their test results. Our medical oncology providers identified Veterans meeting the criteria for testing. Education regarding germline testing, its benefits and implications were conducted with Veterans, and performed after obtaining their informed consent in collaboration with our pathology department. The specimen is then sent to a VA central laboratory for processing. Detroit VA providers are alerted by the local laboratory once results are available. Veterans are then referred to the genetic counseling specialist based on the results. Some of these counseling visits are done virtually for the Veteran’s convenience.

DATA ANALYSIS

A retrospective chart analysis was used to collect the data.

RESULTS

After the implementation of our initiative, 97 Veterans with high risk, very high risk or metastatic prostate cancer were educated on the benefits of germline genetic testing, 87 of whom agreed to be tested. As of 4/2/23, 48 tests have already been performed. Pathogenic variants were recorded on 2 Veterans so far. One was for BRCA2 and KDM6A, and the other was for ATM. Data collection and recording is on-going.

IMPLICATIONS

Improving accessibility and incorporating genetic testing and counseling in cancer care can improve their utilization.

Lung cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer among US veterans and the leading cause of cancer death.¹ Clinical trials have shown that annual screening of high-risk persons with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce the risk of dying of lung cancer.² In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported that over a 3-year period, annual LDCT screening reduced the risk of dying of lung cancer by 20% compared with chest radiograph screening.³ Lung cancer screening (LCS), however, was associated with harms, including false-positive results, complications from invasive diagnostic procedures, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending annual screening of high-risk persons after publication of the NLST results.⁴ The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recommended implementing LCS in 2017.⁵ Guidelines, however, have consistently highlighted the complexity of the decision and the importance of engaging patients in thorough discussions about the potential benefits and harms of screening (shared decision making [SDM]). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued coverage determinations mandating that eligible patients undergo a counseling visit that uses a decision aid to support SDM for LCS and addresses tobacco use.^6,7 However, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face many challenges in delivering SDM, including a lack of awareness of clinical trial results and screening guidelines, competing clinical demands, being untrained in SDM, and not having educational resources.⁸ Patients in rural locations face travel burdens in attending counseling visits.⁹

We conducted a pilot study to address concerns with delivering SDM for LCS to veterans. We implemented a centralized screening model in which veterans were referred by clinicians to a trained decision coach who conducted telephone visits to discuss the initial LCS decision, addressed tobacco cessation, and placed LDCT orders. We evaluated the outcomes of this telemedicine visit by using decision quality metrics and tracking LCS uptake, referrals for tobacco cessation, and clinical outcomes. The University of Iowa Institutional Review Board considered this study to be a quality improvement project and waived informed consent and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) authorization requirements.

Implementation

We implemented the LCS program at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System (ICVAHCS), which has both resident and staff clinicians, and 2 community-based outpatient clinics (Coralville, Cedar Rapids) with staff clinicians. The pilot study, conducted from November 2020 through July 2022, was led by a multidisciplinary team that included a nurse, primary care physician, pulmonologist, and radiologist. The team conducted online presentations to educate PCPs about the epidemiology of lung cancer, results of screening trials, LCS guidelines, the rationale for a centralized model of SDM, and the ICVAHCS screening protocols.

Screening Referrals

When the study began in 2020, we used the 2015 USPSTF criteria for annual LCS: individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and current tobacco user or who had quit within 15 years.⁴ We lowered the starting age to 50 years and the pack-year requirement to 20 after the USPSTF issued updated guidelines in 2021.¹⁰ Clinicians were notified about potentially eligible patients through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Personal Record System (CPRS) reminders or by the nurse program coordinator (NPC) who reviewed health records of patients with upcoming appointments. If the clinician determined that screening was appropriate, they ordered an LCS consult. The NPC called the veteran to confirm eligibility, mailed a decision aid, and scheduled a telephone visit to conduct SDM. We used the VA decision aid developed for the LCS demonstration project conducted at 8 academic VA medical centers between 2013 and 2017.¹¹

Shared Decision-Making Telephone Visit

The NPC adapted a telephone script developed for a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas–funded project conducted by 2 coauthors (RJV and LML).¹² The NPC asked about receipt/review of the decision aid, described the screening process, and addressed benefits and potential harms of screening. The NPC also offered smoking cessation interventions for veterans who were currently smoking, including referrals to the VA patient aligned care team clinical pharmacist for management of tobacco cessation or to the national VA Quit Line. The encounter ended by assessing the veteran’s understanding of screening issues and eliciting the veteran’s preferences for LDCT and willingness to adhere with the LCS program.

LDCT Imaging

The NPC placed LDCT orders for veterans interested in screening and alerted the referring clinician to sign the order. Veterans who agreed to be screened were placed in an LCS dashboard developed by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 23 LCS program that was used as a patient management tool. The dashboard allowed the NPC to track patients, ensuring that veterans were being scheduled for and completing initial and follow-up testing. Radiologists used the Lung-RADS (Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System) to categorize LDCT results (1, normal; 2, benign nodule; 3, probably benign nodule; 4, suspicious nodule).¹³ Veterans with Lung-RADS 1 or 2 results were scheduled for an annual LDCT (if they remained eligible). Veterans with Lung-RADS 3 results were scheduled for a 6-month follow-up CT. The screening program sent electronic consults to pulmonary for veterans with Lung-RADS 4 to determine whether they should undergo additional imaging or be evaluated in the pulmonary clinic.

Evaluating Shared Decision Making

We audio taped and transcribed randomly selected SDM encounters to assess fidelity with the 2016 CMS required discussion elements for counseling about lung cancer, including the benefit of reducing lung cancer mortality; the potential for harms from false alarms, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure; the need for annual screening; the importance of smoking cessation; and the possibility of undergoing follow-up testing and diagnostic procedures. An investigator coded the transcripts to assess for the presence of each required element and scored the encounter from 0 to 7.

We also surveyed veterans completing SDM, using a convenience sampling strategy to evaluate knowledge, the quality of the SDM process, and decisional conflict. Initially, we sent mailed surveys to subjects to be completed 1 week after the SDM visit. To increase the response rate, we subsequently called patients to complete the surveys by telephone 1 week after the SDM visit.

We used the validated LCS-12 knowledge measure to assess awareness of lung cancer risks, screening eligibility, and the benefits and harms of screening.¹⁴ We evaluated the quality of the SDM visit by using the 3-item CollaboRATE scale (Table 1).¹⁵

Clinical Outcomes

We used the screening dashboard and CPRS to track clinical outcomes, including screening uptake, referrals for tobacco cessation, appropriate (screening or diagnostic) follow-up testing, and cancer diagnoses. We used descriptive statistics to characterize demographic data and survey responses.

Initial Findings

We conducted 105 SDM telephone visits from November 2020 through July 2022 (Table 2).

We surveyed 47 of the veterans completing SDM visits (45%) and received 37 completed surveys (79%). All respondents were male, mean age 61.9 years, 89% White, 38% married/partnered, 70% rural, 65% currently smoking, with a mean 44.8 pack-years smoking history. On average, veterans answered 6.3 (53%) of knowledge questions correctly (Table 3).

Implementing SDM

The NPC’s field notes indicated that many veterans did not perceive any need to discuss the screening decision and believed that their PCP had referred them just for screening. However, they reported having cursory discussions with their PCP, being told that only their history of heavy tobacco use meant they should be screened. For veterans who had not read the decision aid, the NPC attempted to summarize benefits and harms. However, the discussions were often inadequate because the veterans were not interested in receiving information, particularly numerical data, or indicated that they had limited time for the call.

Seventy-two (69%) of the veterans who met with the NPC were currently smoking. Tobacco cessation counseling was offered to 66; 29 were referred to the VA Quit Line, 10 were referred to the tobacco cessation pharmacist, and the NPC contacted the PCPs for 9 patients who wanted prescriptions for nicotine replacement therapy.

After the SDM visit, 91 veterans (87%) agreed to screening. By the end of the study period, 73 veterans (80%) completed testing. Most veterans had Lung-RADS 1 or 2 results, 11 (1%) had a Lung-RADS 3, and 7 (10%) had a Lung-RADS 4. All 9 veterans with Lung-RADS 3 results and at least 6 months of follow-up underwent repeat imaging within 4 to 13 months (median, 7). All veterans with a Lung-RADS 4 result were referred to pulmonary. One patient was diagnosed with an early-stage non–small cell lung cancer.

We identified several problems with LDCT coding. Radiologists did not consistently use Lung-RADS when interpreting screening LDCTs; some used the Fleischner lung nodule criteria.¹⁸ We also found discordant readings for abnormal LDCTs, where the assigned Lung-RADS score was not consistent with the nodule description in the radiology report.

Discussion

Efforts to implement LCS with a telemedicine SDM intervention were mixed. An NPC-led SDM phone call was successfully incorporated into the clinical workflow. Most veterans identified as being eligible for screening participated in the counseling visit and underwent screening. However, they were often reluctant to engage in SDM, feeling that their clinician had already recommended screening and that there was no need for further discussion. Unfortunately, many veterans had not received or reviewed the decision aid and were not interested in receiving information about benefits and harms. Because we relied on telephone calls, we could not share visual information in real time.

Overall, the surveys indicated that most veterans were very satisfied with the quality of the discussion and reported feeling no decisional conflict. However, based on the NPC’s field notes and audio recordings, we believe that the responses may have reflected earlier discussions with the PCP that reportedly emphasized only the veteran’s eligibility for screening. The fidelity assessments indicated that the NPC consistently addressed the harms and benefits of screening.

Nonetheless, the performance on knowledge measures was uneven. Veterans were generally aware of harms, including false alarms, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. They did not, however, appreciate when screening should stop. They also underestimated the risks of developing lung cancer and the portion of that risk attributable to tobacco use, and overestimated the benefits of screening. These results suggest that the veterans, at least those who completed the surveys, may not be making well-informed decisions.

Our findings echo those of other VA investigators in finding knowledge deficits among screened veterans, including being unaware that LDCT was for LCS, believing that screening could prevent cancer, receiving little information about screening harms, and feeling that negative tests meant they were among the “lucky ones” who would avoid harm from continued smoking.^19,20

The VA is currently implementing centralized screening models with the Lung Precision Oncology Program and the VA partnership to increase access to lung screening (VA-PALS).⁵ The centralized model, which readily supports the tracking, monitoring, and reporting needs of a screening program, also has advantages in delivering SDM because counselors have been trained in SDM, are more familiar with LCS evidence and processes, can better incorporate decision tools, and do not face the same time constraints as clinicians.²¹ However, studies have shown that most patients have already decided to be screened when they show up for the SDM visit.²² In contrast, about one-third of patients in primary care settings who receive decision support chose not to be screened.^23,24 We found that 13% of our patients decided against screening after a telephone discussion, suggesting that a virtually conducted SDM visit can meaningfully support decision making. Telemedicine also may reduce health inequities in centralized models arising from patients having limited access to screening centers.

Our results suggest that PCPs referring patients to a centralized program, even for virtual visits, should frame the decision to initiate LCS as SDM, where an informed patient is being supported in making a decision consistent with their values and preferences. Furthermore, engaging patients in SDM should not be construed as endorsing screening. When centralized support is less available, individual clinics may need to provide SDM, perhaps using a nonclinician decision coach if clinicians lack the time to lead the discussions. Decision coaches have been effectively used to increase patients’ knowledge about the benefits and harms of screening.¹² Regardless of the program model, PCPs will also be responsible for determining whether patients are healthy enough to undergo invasive diagnostic testing and treatment and ensuring that tobacco use is addressed.

SDM delivered in any setting will be enhanced by ensuring that patients are provided with decision aids before a counseling visit. This will help them better understand the benefits and harms of screening and the need to elicit values. The discussion can then focus on areas of concern or questions raised by reviewing the decision aid. The clinician and patient could also use a decision aid during either a face-to-face or video clinical encounter to facilitate SDM. A Cochrane review has shown that using decision aids for people facing screening decisions increases knowledge, reduces decisional conflict, and effectively elicits values and preferences.²⁵ Providing high-quality decision support is a patient-centered approach that respects a patient’s autonomy and may promote health equity and improve adherence.

We recognized the importance of having a multidisciplinary team, involving primary care, radiology, pulmonary, and nursing, with a shared understanding of the screening processes. These are essential features for a high-quality screening program where eligible veterans are readily identified and receive prompt and appropriate follow-up. Radiologists need to use Lung-RADS categories consistently and appropriately when reading LDCTs. This may require ongoing educational efforts, particularly given the new CMS guidelines accepting nonsubspecialist chest readers.⁷ Additionally, fellows and board-eligible residents may interpret images in academic settings and at VA facilities. The program needs to work closely with the pulmonary service to ensure that Lung-RADS 4 patients are promptly assessed. Radiologists and pulmonologists should calibrate the application of Lung-RADS categories to pulmonary nodules through jointly participating in meetings to review selected cases.

Challenges and Limitations

We faced some notable implementation challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic was extremely disruptive to LCS as it was to all health care. In addition, screening workflow processes were hampered by a lack of clinical reminders, which ideally would trigger for clinicians based on the tobacco history. The absence of this reminder meant that numerous patients were found to be ineligible for screening. We have a long-standing lung nodule clinic, and clinicians were confused about whether to order a surveillance imaging for an incidental nodule or a screening LDCT.

The radiology service was able to update order sets in CPRS to help guide clinicians in distinguishing indications and prerequisites for enrolling in LCS. This helped reduce the number of inappropriate orders and crossover orders between the VISN nodule tracking program and the LCS program.

Our results were preliminary and based on a small sample. We did not survey all veterans who underwent SDM, though the response rate was 79% and patient characteristics were similar to the larger cohort. Our results were potentially subject to selection bias, which could inflate the positive responses about decision quality and decisional conflict. However, the knowledge deficits are likely to be valid and suggest a need to better inform eligible veterans about the benefits and harms of screening. We did not have sufficient follow-up time to determine whether veterans were adherent to annual screenings. We showed that almost all those with abnormal imaging results completed diagnostic evaluations and/or were evaluated by pulmonary. As the program matures, we will be able to track outcomes related to cancer diagnoses and treatment.

Conclusions

A centralized LCS program was able to deliver SDM and enroll veterans in a screening program. While veterans were confident in their decision to screen and felt that they participated in decision making, knowledge testing indicated important deficits. Furthermore, we observed that many veterans did not meaningfully engage in SDM. Clinicians will need to frame the decision as patient centered at the time of referral, highlight the role of the NPC and importance of SDM, and be able to provide adequate decision support. The SDM visits can be enhanced by ensuring that veterans are able to review decision aids. Telemedicine is an acceptable and effective approach for supporting screening discussions, particularly for rural veterans.²⁶

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following individuals for their contributions to the study: John Paul Hornbeck, program support specialist; Kelly Miell, PhD; Bradley Mecham, PhD; Christopher C. Richards, MA; Bailey Noble, NP; Rebecca Barnhart, program analyst.

Lung cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer among US veterans and the leading cause of cancer death.¹ Clinical trials have shown that annual screening of high-risk persons with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce the risk of dying of lung cancer.² In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported that over a 3-year period, annual LDCT screening reduced the risk of dying of lung cancer by 20% compared with chest radiograph screening.³ Lung cancer screening (LCS), however, was associated with harms, including false-positive results, complications from invasive diagnostic procedures, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending annual screening of high-risk persons after publication of the NLST results.⁴ The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recommended implementing LCS in 2017.⁵ Guidelines, however, have consistently highlighted the complexity of the decision and the importance of engaging patients in thorough discussions about the potential benefits and harms of screening (shared decision making [SDM]). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued coverage determinations mandating that eligible patients undergo a counseling visit that uses a decision aid to support SDM for LCS and addresses tobacco use.^6,7 However, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face many challenges in delivering SDM, including a lack of awareness of clinical trial results and screening guidelines, competing clinical demands, being untrained in SDM, and not having educational resources.⁸ Patients in rural locations face travel burdens in attending counseling visits.⁹

We conducted a pilot study to address concerns with delivering SDM for LCS to veterans. We implemented a centralized screening model in which veterans were referred by clinicians to a trained decision coach who conducted telephone visits to discuss the initial LCS decision, addressed tobacco cessation, and placed LDCT orders. We evaluated the outcomes of this telemedicine visit by using decision quality metrics and tracking LCS uptake, referrals for tobacco cessation, and clinical outcomes. The University of Iowa Institutional Review Board considered this study to be a quality improvement project and waived informed consent and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) authorization requirements.

Implementation

We implemented the LCS program at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System (ICVAHCS), which has both resident and staff clinicians, and 2 community-based outpatient clinics (Coralville, Cedar Rapids) with staff clinicians. The pilot study, conducted from November 2020 through July 2022, was led by a multidisciplinary team that included a nurse, primary care physician, pulmonologist, and radiologist. The team conducted online presentations to educate PCPs about the epidemiology of lung cancer, results of screening trials, LCS guidelines, the rationale for a centralized model of SDM, and the ICVAHCS screening protocols.

Screening Referrals

When the study began in 2020, we used the 2015 USPSTF criteria for annual LCS: individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and current tobacco user or who had quit within 15 years.⁴ We lowered the starting age to 50 years and the pack-year requirement to 20 after the USPSTF issued updated guidelines in 2021.¹⁰ Clinicians were notified about potentially eligible patients through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Personal Record System (CPRS) reminders or by the nurse program coordinator (NPC) who reviewed health records of patients with upcoming appointments. If the clinician determined that screening was appropriate, they ordered an LCS consult. The NPC called the veteran to confirm eligibility, mailed a decision aid, and scheduled a telephone visit to conduct SDM. We used the VA decision aid developed for the LCS demonstration project conducted at 8 academic VA medical centers between 2013 and 2017.¹¹

Shared Decision-Making Telephone Visit

The NPC adapted a telephone script developed for a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas–funded project conducted by 2 coauthors (RJV and LML).¹² The NPC asked about receipt/review of the decision aid, described the screening process, and addressed benefits and potential harms of screening. The NPC also offered smoking cessation interventions for veterans who were currently smoking, including referrals to the VA patient aligned care team clinical pharmacist for management of tobacco cessation or to the national VA Quit Line. The encounter ended by assessing the veteran’s understanding of screening issues and eliciting the veteran’s preferences for LDCT and willingness to adhere with the LCS program.

LDCT Imaging

The NPC placed LDCT orders for veterans interested in screening and alerted the referring clinician to sign the order. Veterans who agreed to be screened were placed in an LCS dashboard developed by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 23 LCS program that was used as a patient management tool. The dashboard allowed the NPC to track patients, ensuring that veterans were being scheduled for and completing initial and follow-up testing. Radiologists used the Lung-RADS (Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System) to categorize LDCT results (1, normal; 2, benign nodule; 3, probably benign nodule; 4, suspicious nodule).¹³ Veterans with Lung-RADS 1 or 2 results were scheduled for an annual LDCT (if they remained eligible). Veterans with Lung-RADS 3 results were scheduled for a 6-month follow-up CT. The screening program sent electronic consults to pulmonary for veterans with Lung-RADS 4 to determine whether they should undergo additional imaging or be evaluated in the pulmonary clinic.

Evaluating Shared Decision Making

We audio taped and transcribed randomly selected SDM encounters to assess fidelity with the 2016 CMS required discussion elements for counseling about lung cancer, including the benefit of reducing lung cancer mortality; the potential for harms from false alarms, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure; the need for annual screening; the importance of smoking cessation; and the possibility of undergoing follow-up testing and diagnostic procedures. An investigator coded the transcripts to assess for the presence of each required element and scored the encounter from 0 to 7.

We also surveyed veterans completing SDM, using a convenience sampling strategy to evaluate knowledge, the quality of the SDM process, and decisional conflict. Initially, we sent mailed surveys to subjects to be completed 1 week after the SDM visit. To increase the response rate, we subsequently called patients to complete the surveys by telephone 1 week after the SDM visit.

We used the validated LCS-12 knowledge measure to assess awareness of lung cancer risks, screening eligibility, and the benefits and harms of screening.¹⁴ We evaluated the quality of the SDM visit by using the 3-item CollaboRATE scale (Table 1).¹⁵

Clinical Outcomes

We used the screening dashboard and CPRS to track clinical outcomes, including screening uptake, referrals for tobacco cessation, appropriate (screening or diagnostic) follow-up testing, and cancer diagnoses. We used descriptive statistics to characterize demographic data and survey responses.

Initial Findings

We conducted 105 SDM telephone visits from November 2020 through July 2022 (Table 2).

We surveyed 47 of the veterans completing SDM visits (45%) and received 37 completed surveys (79%). All respondents were male, mean age 61.9 years, 89% White, 38% married/partnered, 70% rural, 65% currently smoking, with a mean 44.8 pack-years smoking history. On average, veterans answered 6.3 (53%) of knowledge questions correctly (Table 3).

Implementing SDM

The NPC’s field notes indicated that many veterans did not perceive any need to discuss the screening decision and believed that their PCP had referred them just for screening. However, they reported having cursory discussions with their PCP, being told that only their history of heavy tobacco use meant they should be screened. For veterans who had not read the decision aid, the NPC attempted to summarize benefits and harms. However, the discussions were often inadequate because the veterans were not interested in receiving information, particularly numerical data, or indicated that they had limited time for the call.

Seventy-two (69%) of the veterans who met with the NPC were currently smoking. Tobacco cessation counseling was offered to 66; 29 were referred to the VA Quit Line, 10 were referred to the tobacco cessation pharmacist, and the NPC contacted the PCPs for 9 patients who wanted prescriptions for nicotine replacement therapy.

After the SDM visit, 91 veterans (87%) agreed to screening. By the end of the study period, 73 veterans (80%) completed testing. Most veterans had Lung-RADS 1 or 2 results, 11 (1%) had a Lung-RADS 3, and 7 (10%) had a Lung-RADS 4. All 9 veterans with Lung-RADS 3 results and at least 6 months of follow-up underwent repeat imaging within 4 to 13 months (median, 7). All veterans with a Lung-RADS 4 result were referred to pulmonary. One patient was diagnosed with an early-stage non–small cell lung cancer.

We identified several problems with LDCT coding. Radiologists did not consistently use Lung-RADS when interpreting screening LDCTs; some used the Fleischner lung nodule criteria.¹⁸ We also found discordant readings for abnormal LDCTs, where the assigned Lung-RADS score was not consistent with the nodule description in the radiology report.

Discussion

Efforts to implement LCS with a telemedicine SDM intervention were mixed. An NPC-led SDM phone call was successfully incorporated into the clinical workflow. Most veterans identified as being eligible for screening participated in the counseling visit and underwent screening. However, they were often reluctant to engage in SDM, feeling that their clinician had already recommended screening and that there was no need for further discussion. Unfortunately, many veterans had not received or reviewed the decision aid and were not interested in receiving information about benefits and harms. Because we relied on telephone calls, we could not share visual information in real time.

Overall, the surveys indicated that most veterans were very satisfied with the quality of the discussion and reported feeling no decisional conflict. However, based on the NPC’s field notes and audio recordings, we believe that the responses may have reflected earlier discussions with the PCP that reportedly emphasized only the veteran’s eligibility for screening. The fidelity assessments indicated that the NPC consistently addressed the harms and benefits of screening.

Nonetheless, the performance on knowledge measures was uneven. Veterans were generally aware of harms, including false alarms, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. They did not, however, appreciate when screening should stop. They also underestimated the risks of developing lung cancer and the portion of that risk attributable to tobacco use, and overestimated the benefits of screening. These results suggest that the veterans, at least those who completed the surveys, may not be making well-informed decisions.

Our findings echo those of other VA investigators in finding knowledge deficits among screened veterans, including being unaware that LDCT was for LCS, believing that screening could prevent cancer, receiving little information about screening harms, and feeling that negative tests meant they were among the “lucky ones” who would avoid harm from continued smoking.^19,20

The VA is currently implementing centralized screening models with the Lung Precision Oncology Program and the VA partnership to increase access to lung screening (VA-PALS).⁵ The centralized model, which readily supports the tracking, monitoring, and reporting needs of a screening program, also has advantages in delivering SDM because counselors have been trained in SDM, are more familiar with LCS evidence and processes, can better incorporate decision tools, and do not face the same time constraints as clinicians.²¹ However, studies have shown that most patients have already decided to be screened when they show up for the SDM visit.²² In contrast, about one-third of patients in primary care settings who receive decision support chose not to be screened.^23,24 We found that 13% of our patients decided against screening after a telephone discussion, suggesting that a virtually conducted SDM visit can meaningfully support decision making. Telemedicine also may reduce health inequities in centralized models arising from patients having limited access to screening centers.

Our results suggest that PCPs referring patients to a centralized program, even for virtual visits, should frame the decision to initiate LCS as SDM, where an informed patient is being supported in making a decision consistent with their values and preferences. Furthermore, engaging patients in SDM should not be construed as endorsing screening. When centralized support is less available, individual clinics may need to provide SDM, perhaps using a nonclinician decision coach if clinicians lack the time to lead the discussions. Decision coaches have been effectively used to increase patients’ knowledge about the benefits and harms of screening.¹² Regardless of the program model, PCPs will also be responsible for determining whether patients are healthy enough to undergo invasive diagnostic testing and treatment and ensuring that tobacco use is addressed.

SDM delivered in any setting will be enhanced by ensuring that patients are provided with decision aids before a counseling visit. This will help them better understand the benefits and harms of screening and the need to elicit values. The discussion can then focus on areas of concern or questions raised by reviewing the decision aid. The clinician and patient could also use a decision aid during either a face-to-face or video clinical encounter to facilitate SDM. A Cochrane review has shown that using decision aids for people facing screening decisions increases knowledge, reduces decisional conflict, and effectively elicits values and preferences.²⁵ Providing high-quality decision support is a patient-centered approach that respects a patient’s autonomy and may promote health equity and improve adherence.

We recognized the importance of having a multidisciplinary team, involving primary care, radiology, pulmonary, and nursing, with a shared understanding of the screening processes. These are essential features for a high-quality screening program where eligible veterans are readily identified and receive prompt and appropriate follow-up. Radiologists need to use Lung-RADS categories consistently and appropriately when reading LDCTs. This may require ongoing educational efforts, particularly given the new CMS guidelines accepting nonsubspecialist chest readers.⁷ Additionally, fellows and board-eligible residents may interpret images in academic settings and at VA facilities. The program needs to work closely with the pulmonary service to ensure that Lung-RADS 4 patients are promptly assessed. Radiologists and pulmonologists should calibrate the application of Lung-RADS categories to pulmonary nodules through jointly participating in meetings to review selected cases.

Challenges and Limitations

We faced some notable implementation challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic was extremely disruptive to LCS as it was to all health care. In addition, screening workflow processes were hampered by a lack of clinical reminders, which ideally would trigger for clinicians based on the tobacco history. The absence of this reminder meant that numerous patients were found to be ineligible for screening. We have a long-standing lung nodule clinic, and clinicians were confused about whether to order a surveillance imaging for an incidental nodule or a screening LDCT.

The radiology service was able to update order sets in CPRS to help guide clinicians in distinguishing indications and prerequisites for enrolling in LCS. This helped reduce the number of inappropriate orders and crossover orders between the VISN nodule tracking program and the LCS program.

Our results were preliminary and based on a small sample. We did not survey all veterans who underwent SDM, though the response rate was 79% and patient characteristics were similar to the larger cohort. Our results were potentially subject to selection bias, which could inflate the positive responses about decision quality and decisional conflict. However, the knowledge deficits are likely to be valid and suggest a need to better inform eligible veterans about the benefits and harms of screening. We did not have sufficient follow-up time to determine whether veterans were adherent to annual screenings. We showed that almost all those with abnormal imaging results completed diagnostic evaluations and/or were evaluated by pulmonary. As the program matures, we will be able to track outcomes related to cancer diagnoses and treatment.

Conclusions

A centralized LCS program was able to deliver SDM and enroll veterans in a screening program. While veterans were confident in their decision to screen and felt that they participated in decision making, knowledge testing indicated important deficits. Furthermore, we observed that many veterans did not meaningfully engage in SDM. Clinicians will need to frame the decision as patient centered at the time of referral, highlight the role of the NPC and importance of SDM, and be able to provide adequate decision support. The SDM visits can be enhanced by ensuring that veterans are able to review decision aids. Telemedicine is an acceptable and effective approach for supporting screening discussions, particularly for rural veterans.²⁶

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following individuals for their contributions to the study: John Paul Hornbeck, program support specialist; Kelly Miell, PhD; Bradley Mecham, PhD; Christopher C. Richards, MA; Bailey Noble, NP; Rebecca Barnhart, program analyst.

Lung cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer among US veterans and the leading cause of cancer death.¹ Clinical trials have shown that annual screening of high-risk persons with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce the risk of dying of lung cancer.² In 2011, the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) reported that over a 3-year period, annual LDCT screening reduced the risk of dying of lung cancer by 20% compared with chest radiograph screening.³ Lung cancer screening (LCS), however, was associated with harms, including false-positive results, complications from invasive diagnostic procedures, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending annual screening of high-risk persons after publication of the NLST results.⁴ The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recommended implementing LCS in 2017.⁵ Guidelines, however, have consistently highlighted the complexity of the decision and the importance of engaging patients in thorough discussions about the potential benefits and harms of screening (shared decision making [SDM]). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued coverage determinations mandating that eligible patients undergo a counseling visit that uses a decision aid to support SDM for LCS and addresses tobacco use.^6,7 However, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face many challenges in delivering SDM, including a lack of awareness of clinical trial results and screening guidelines, competing clinical demands, being untrained in SDM, and not having educational resources.⁸ Patients in rural locations face travel burdens in attending counseling visits.⁹

We conducted a pilot study to address concerns with delivering SDM for LCS to veterans. We implemented a centralized screening model in which veterans were referred by clinicians to a trained decision coach who conducted telephone visits to discuss the initial LCS decision, addressed tobacco cessation, and placed LDCT orders. We evaluated the outcomes of this telemedicine visit by using decision quality metrics and tracking LCS uptake, referrals for tobacco cessation, and clinical outcomes. The University of Iowa Institutional Review Board considered this study to be a quality improvement project and waived informed consent and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) authorization requirements.

Implementation

We implemented the LCS program at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System (ICVAHCS), which has both resident and staff clinicians, and 2 community-based outpatient clinics (Coralville, Cedar Rapids) with staff clinicians. The pilot study, conducted from November 2020 through July 2022, was led by a multidisciplinary team that included a nurse, primary care physician, pulmonologist, and radiologist. The team conducted online presentations to educate PCPs about the epidemiology of lung cancer, results of screening trials, LCS guidelines, the rationale for a centralized model of SDM, and the ICVAHCS screening protocols.

Screening Referrals

When the study began in 2020, we used the 2015 USPSTF criteria for annual LCS: individuals aged 55 to 80 years with a 30 pack-year smoking history and current tobacco user or who had quit within 15 years.⁴ We lowered the starting age to 50 years and the pack-year requirement to 20 after the USPSTF issued updated guidelines in 2021.¹⁰ Clinicians were notified about potentially eligible patients through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Personal Record System (CPRS) reminders or by the nurse program coordinator (NPC) who reviewed health records of patients with upcoming appointments. If the clinician determined that screening was appropriate, they ordered an LCS consult. The NPC called the veteran to confirm eligibility, mailed a decision aid, and scheduled a telephone visit to conduct SDM. We used the VA decision aid developed for the LCS demonstration project conducted at 8 academic VA medical centers between 2013 and 2017.¹¹

Shared Decision-Making Telephone Visit

The NPC adapted a telephone script developed for a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas–funded project conducted by 2 coauthors (RJV and LML).¹² The NPC asked about receipt/review of the decision aid, described the screening process, and addressed benefits and potential harms of screening. The NPC also offered smoking cessation interventions for veterans who were currently smoking, including referrals to the VA patient aligned care team clinical pharmacist for management of tobacco cessation or to the national VA Quit Line. The encounter ended by assessing the veteran’s understanding of screening issues and eliciting the veteran’s preferences for LDCT and willingness to adhere with the LCS program.

LDCT Imaging

The NPC placed LDCT orders for veterans interested in screening and alerted the referring clinician to sign the order. Veterans who agreed to be screened were placed in an LCS dashboard developed by the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) 23 LCS program that was used as a patient management tool. The dashboard allowed the NPC to track patients, ensuring that veterans were being scheduled for and completing initial and follow-up testing. Radiologists used the Lung-RADS (Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System) to categorize LDCT results (1, normal; 2, benign nodule; 3, probably benign nodule; 4, suspicious nodule).¹³ Veterans with Lung-RADS 1 or 2 results were scheduled for an annual LDCT (if they remained eligible). Veterans with Lung-RADS 3 results were scheduled for a 6-month follow-up CT. The screening program sent electronic consults to pulmonary for veterans with Lung-RADS 4 to determine whether they should undergo additional imaging or be evaluated in the pulmonary clinic.

Evaluating Shared Decision Making

We audio taped and transcribed randomly selected SDM encounters to assess fidelity with the 2016 CMS required discussion elements for counseling about lung cancer, including the benefit of reducing lung cancer mortality; the potential for harms from false alarms, incidental findings, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure; the need for annual screening; the importance of smoking cessation; and the possibility of undergoing follow-up testing and diagnostic procedures. An investigator coded the transcripts to assess for the presence of each required element and scored the encounter from 0 to 7.

We also surveyed veterans completing SDM, using a convenience sampling strategy to evaluate knowledge, the quality of the SDM process, and decisional conflict. Initially, we sent mailed surveys to subjects to be completed 1 week after the SDM visit. To increase the response rate, we subsequently called patients to complete the surveys by telephone 1 week after the SDM visit.

We used the validated LCS-12 knowledge measure to assess awareness of lung cancer risks, screening eligibility, and the benefits and harms of screening.¹⁴ We evaluated the quality of the SDM visit by using the 3-item CollaboRATE scale (Table 1).¹⁵

Clinical Outcomes

We used the screening dashboard and CPRS to track clinical outcomes, including screening uptake, referrals for tobacco cessation, appropriate (screening or diagnostic) follow-up testing, and cancer diagnoses. We used descriptive statistics to characterize demographic data and survey responses.

Initial Findings

We conducted 105 SDM telephone visits from November 2020 through July 2022 (Table 2).

We surveyed 47 of the veterans completing SDM visits (45%) and received 37 completed surveys (79%). All respondents were male, mean age 61.9 years, 89% White, 38% married/partnered, 70% rural, 65% currently smoking, with a mean 44.8 pack-years smoking history. On average, veterans answered 6.3 (53%) of knowledge questions correctly (Table 3).

Implementing SDM

The NPC’s field notes indicated that many veterans did not perceive any need to discuss the screening decision and believed that their PCP had referred them just for screening. However, they reported having cursory discussions with their PCP, being told that only their history of heavy tobacco use meant they should be screened. For veterans who had not read the decision aid, the NPC attempted to summarize benefits and harms. However, the discussions were often inadequate because the veterans were not interested in receiving information, particularly numerical data, or indicated that they had limited time for the call.

Seventy-two (69%) of the veterans who met with the NPC were currently smoking. Tobacco cessation counseling was offered to 66; 29 were referred to the VA Quit Line, 10 were referred to the tobacco cessation pharmacist, and the NPC contacted the PCPs for 9 patients who wanted prescriptions for nicotine replacement therapy.

After the SDM visit, 91 veterans (87%) agreed to screening. By the end of the study period, 73 veterans (80%) completed testing. Most veterans had Lung-RADS 1 or 2 results, 11 (1%) had a Lung-RADS 3, and 7 (10%) had a Lung-RADS 4. All 9 veterans with Lung-RADS 3 results and at least 6 months of follow-up underwent repeat imaging within 4 to 13 months (median, 7). All veterans with a Lung-RADS 4 result were referred to pulmonary. One patient was diagnosed with an early-stage non–small cell lung cancer.

We identified several problems with LDCT coding. Radiologists did not consistently use Lung-RADS when interpreting screening LDCTs; some used the Fleischner lung nodule criteria.¹⁸ We also found discordant readings for abnormal LDCTs, where the assigned Lung-RADS score was not consistent with the nodule description in the radiology report.

Discussion

Efforts to implement LCS with a telemedicine SDM intervention were mixed. An NPC-led SDM phone call was successfully incorporated into the clinical workflow. Most veterans identified as being eligible for screening participated in the counseling visit and underwent screening. However, they were often reluctant to engage in SDM, feeling that their clinician had already recommended screening and that there was no need for further discussion. Unfortunately, many veterans had not received or reviewed the decision aid and were not interested in receiving information about benefits and harms. Because we relied on telephone calls, we could not share visual information in real time.

Overall, the surveys indicated that most veterans were very satisfied with the quality of the discussion and reported feeling no decisional conflict. However, based on the NPC’s field notes and audio recordings, we believe that the responses may have reflected earlier discussions with the PCP that reportedly emphasized only the veteran’s eligibility for screening. The fidelity assessments indicated that the NPC consistently addressed the harms and benefits of screening.

Nonetheless, the performance on knowledge measures was uneven. Veterans were generally aware of harms, including false alarms, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. They did not, however, appreciate when screening should stop. They also underestimated the risks of developing lung cancer and the portion of that risk attributable to tobacco use, and overestimated the benefits of screening. These results suggest that the veterans, at least those who completed the surveys, may not be making well-informed decisions.

Our findings echo those of other VA investigators in finding knowledge deficits among screened veterans, including being unaware that LDCT was for LCS, believing that screening could prevent cancer, receiving little information about screening harms, and feeling that negative tests meant they were among the “lucky ones” who would avoid harm from continued smoking.^19,20

The VA is currently implementing centralized screening models with the Lung Precision Oncology Program and the VA partnership to increase access to lung screening (VA-PALS).⁵ The centralized model, which readily supports the tracking, monitoring, and reporting needs of a screening program, also has advantages in delivering SDM because counselors have been trained in SDM, are more familiar with LCS evidence and processes, can better incorporate decision tools, and do not face the same time constraints as clinicians.²¹ However, studies have shown that most patients have already decided to be screened when they show up for the SDM visit.²² In contrast, about one-third of patients in primary care settings who receive decision support chose not to be screened.^23,24 We found that 13% of our patients decided against screening after a telephone discussion, suggesting that a virtually conducted SDM visit can meaningfully support decision making. Telemedicine also may reduce health inequities in centralized models arising from patients having limited access to screening centers.

Our results suggest that PCPs referring patients to a centralized program, even for virtual visits, should frame the decision to initiate LCS as SDM, where an informed patient is being supported in making a decision consistent with their values and preferences. Furthermore, engaging patients in SDM should not be construed as endorsing screening. When centralized support is less available, individual clinics may need to provide SDM, perhaps using a nonclinician decision coach if clinicians lack the time to lead the discussions. Decision coaches have been effectively used to increase patients’ knowledge about the benefits and harms of screening.¹² Regardless of the program model, PCPs will also be responsible for determining whether patients are healthy enough to undergo invasive diagnostic testing and treatment and ensuring that tobacco use is addressed.

SDM delivered in any setting will be enhanced by ensuring that patients are provided with decision aids before a counseling visit. This will help them better understand the benefits and harms of screening and the need to elicit values. The discussion can then focus on areas of concern or questions raised by reviewing the decision aid. The clinician and patient could also use a decision aid during either a face-to-face or video clinical encounter to facilitate SDM. A Cochrane review has shown that using decision aids for people facing screening decisions increases knowledge, reduces decisional conflict, and effectively elicits values and preferences.²⁵ Providing high-quality decision support is a patient-centered approach that respects a patient’s autonomy and may promote health equity and improve adherence.

We recognized the importance of having a multidisciplinary team, involving primary care, radiology, pulmonary, and nursing, with a shared understanding of the screening processes. These are essential features for a high-quality screening program where eligible veterans are readily identified and receive prompt and appropriate follow-up. Radiologists need to use Lung-RADS categories consistently and appropriately when reading LDCTs. This may require ongoing educational efforts, particularly given the new CMS guidelines accepting nonsubspecialist chest readers.⁷ Additionally, fellows and board-eligible residents may interpret images in academic settings and at VA facilities. The program needs to work closely with the pulmonary service to ensure that Lung-RADS 4 patients are promptly assessed. Radiologists and pulmonologists should calibrate the application of Lung-RADS categories to pulmonary nodules through jointly participating in meetings to review selected cases.

Challenges and Limitations

We faced some notable implementation challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic was extremely disruptive to LCS as it was to all health care. In addition, screening workflow processes were hampered by a lack of clinical reminders, which ideally would trigger for clinicians based on the tobacco history. The absence of this reminder meant that numerous patients were found to be ineligible for screening. We have a long-standing lung nodule clinic, and clinicians were confused about whether to order a surveillance imaging for an incidental nodule or a screening LDCT.

The radiology service was able to update order sets in CPRS to help guide clinicians in distinguishing indications and prerequisites for enrolling in LCS. This helped reduce the number of inappropriate orders and crossover orders between the VISN nodule tracking program and the LCS program.

Our results were preliminary and based on a small sample. We did not survey all veterans who underwent SDM, though the response rate was 79% and patient characteristics were similar to the larger cohort. Our results were potentially subject to selection bias, which could inflate the positive responses about decision quality and decisional conflict. However, the knowledge deficits are likely to be valid and suggest a need to better inform eligible veterans about the benefits and harms of screening. We did not have sufficient follow-up time to determine whether veterans were adherent to annual screenings. We showed that almost all those with abnormal imaging results completed diagnostic evaluations and/or were evaluated by pulmonary. As the program matures, we will be able to track outcomes related to cancer diagnoses and treatment.

Conclusions

A centralized LCS program was able to deliver SDM and enroll veterans in a screening program. While veterans were confident in their decision to screen and felt that they participated in decision making, knowledge testing indicated important deficits. Furthermore, we observed that many veterans did not meaningfully engage in SDM. Clinicians will need to frame the decision as patient centered at the time of referral, highlight the role of the NPC and importance of SDM, and be able to provide adequate decision support. The SDM visits can be enhanced by ensuring that veterans are able to review decision aids. Telemedicine is an acceptable and effective approach for supporting screening discussions, particularly for rural veterans.²⁶

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following individuals for their contributions to the study: John Paul Hornbeck, program support specialist; Kelly Miell, PhD; Bradley Mecham, PhD; Christopher C. Richards, MA; Bailey Noble, NP; Rebecca Barnhart, program analyst.

Health care systems need practical, scalable methods to reach patients and connect them to available, evidence-based resources. Ideally, these systems need to be resource nonintensive to deploy, maintain, and use. They should also be low cost, have a relative advantage to the organization, be sensitive to patient needs, use available resources, and have rigorous evidence regarding their effect on patient-centered outcomes.^1,2 Phone service is one way to reach people that remains viable. More than 97% of Americans own a cellphone of some kind, and 40% still have a landline.^3,4 One intervention that has been increasingly used in routine care settings is an interactive voice response (IVR) system that uses phones for connecting to patients.

IVR systems are a type of telehealth that provides information or adjunct health services through use of a telecommunication platform and information technologies.⁵ These systems are automated telephone systems that use prerecorded or text-to-speech–generated messages that allow respondents to provide and access information without a live agent.⁶ Text messaging (SMS) is another modality that can be used to asynchronously engage with participants. IVR systems have been used successfully for many health conditions and services, such as improving veterans’ adherence to continuous positive airway pressure, colorectal cancer screening, and cognitive behavioral therapy.^7-10 By building on existing technology and infrastructure, IVR systems can be a cost-effective option for health care system services.

A 2016 Cochrane review of IVR systems for smoking cessation identified 7 studies.¹¹ Although none used opt-out mechanisms (where individuals are automatically enrolled in programs until they decide not to participate) to engage people without an expressed motivation to quit, these interventions seemed safe and were promisingly effective. Among patients enrolled in primary care, a trial of an IVR system led to a higher quit rate: 18% vs 8%.¹²

In one study, patients in the emergency department, particularly older ones, preferred phone-based interventions over SMS.¹³ IVR-based proactive tobacco cessation systems are cost-effective and have been successfully used in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^14,15 IVR systems using opt-out approaches are being studied, though their effectiveness in this setting has not been proven. The pros and cons of different interventions need to be explored since there is likely a tradeoff between feasibility and effectiveness. For example, intensive smoking cessation interventions are more effective but often require more resources to implement and sustain.¹⁶ Basing interventions that are not resource intensive within a reputable organizational system may amplify the effectiveness.¹⁷

This endeavor to establish an IVR system was initiated as part of our research study, a randomized trial of the Teachable Moment to Opt-Out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT) intervention at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon. We measured the reach and effectiveness of a novel, proactive, resource nonintensive, and pragmatic intervention to engage veterans with a recently diagnosed lung nodule who smoke cigarettes.¹⁸ Our research team extracted the contact information for patients currently smoking and found to a have a pulmonary nodule from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.¹⁹ We then manually uploaded those data to an IVR website where the system contacted patients to connect them to smoking cessation resources on an opt-out basis. In the research study, we measured the acceptability and effectiveness of the TeaM OUT intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods.

We developed and implemented an IVR system for use at 4 facilities: VA Portland Health Care System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center (Charleston, NC), and the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Setting up any type of wide-scale technology within the VA can be challenging. Due to our experience in developing and implementing the IVR system in the VA, we share what we have learned about the process of finding, contracting, developing, and implementing an IVR system. We share our experiences with developing and implementing this system to provide guidance for those who may want to establish an IVR system (or similar technologies) within the VA.

Lessons Learned

During our development and implementation process, we learned several lessons about setting up an IVR system in the VA. It is important to note that VA facilities may have differing processes, and policies frequently change; thus coordination with departments (eg, contracting, finance, Office of Information and Technology [OIT], etc) to verify the following strategies is essential (Figure).

Vendor Selection

Check with the local OIT and contracting offices to see if the facility has previously used any vendors for these services and for advice on selection. We compiled a list of questions that may be helpful based on our discussions with 4 vendors, prior to selection of a vendor already VA-approved (Appendix). There are also questions to think about in parallel with choosing a vendor. Contact your OIT, contracting, and privacy (if necessary) offices before choosing a vendor.

Online Security

After selecting a vendor, if you want an online portal to view, upload, or downloaddata, then you will need to initiate the single sign-on internal (SSOI) process (www.data.va.gov/dataset/Single-Sign-On-Internal-SSOi-/cber-kxf9). Other benefits of a website are to identify call patterns (eg, no one picks up after the 10th call) and track respondents’ selections. The SSOI process can take up to 1 year. Notably, the website login at minimum needs to be created by the IVR vendor to start the process. After the SSOI is approved you can add more to the website beyond just the login capability. Note that the script needs to be finalized prior to SSOI initiation. You will need to initiate with the SSOI team, then the vendor will need to complete the process.

Contracting

Concurrent with the above steps, contact the contracting office to get a sense of the paperwork and timeline. Make sure you are comfortable with the vendor’s responses to the questions in the Appendix, and view their written proposal or scope of work (SOW) to ensure they can do what the project protocol demands.

If the vendor has previously worked with the VA, contact your local contract office (usually part of the Finance Office) for updated forms. We needed the 6500.6 Checklist, Document Checklist for Service Requests, Single Source Justification, Research & Development Order (if research-related), and Vendor File Request forms. The vendor can help complete these forms. Review the proposal/SOW and budget first, knowing that budgets have a wide range and depend on the length and complexity of the script, number of calls, number of respondents, etc. For example, our quote was $110,000 over 4 years, including development, training, hosting on a secure server, and maintenance. Our IVR system will call about 5000 patients across 4 sites. Each patient will receive up to 15 calls over 2 weeks if they do not answer. We created 2 IVR lines (1 inbound and 1 outbound). Next, contact the lead of the local OIT and contracting departments by email to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity via approved methods. Finally, contact the privacy officer and information security officer. Discuss where software would be installed, whether cloud storage would be used, and what information can be shared/stored. Remember that the rules may differ for research vs nonresearch projects. Also, determine whether a data-use agreement between the VA and the vendor is needed and how the institutional review board (if research) gets integrated.

If using an outside vendor who has never worked with the VA, submit form 6550.6. Note that contracting requires several months. First, contact OIT and contracting departments. Again, you will need to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity. Next, complete the Project Special Forces Software and Privacy Threshold Analysis process to purchase the system. Set up a meeting with OIT to determine other forms and next steps. Business need/case use form and data security categorization may be needed. If the software needs to be installed on a VA computer, you will need to submit a Technical Reference Model request if it does not have an entry.

Vendors can answer technical questions from the contracting office, especially about the SOW, but the VA team needs to write the contract and manage all documentation and communication. You will also need sole source documentation (receive from contracting office) with justification for why you want to use a specific vendor. If you do not have that justification, in cooperation with the contracts office, you must solicit bids from other companies. Importantly, understand the staff support needed for contracting and build into your timeline and budget. Not surprisingly, we found that in-person or phone meetings were invaluable compared with email correspondence. Meet with all parties involved early and often. Once the contract is clear, this begins the build process where the vendor can program and record the script. This process usually takes 1 to 2 months.

Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support

The new Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative is an excellent place to start with any VA IVR-related questions. PETALS is used for research.²⁰ We hoped to use this system for our study, but its implementation was delayed until 2022. The PETALS system is designed for VA investigators who conduct research studies and need a secure platform that is compliant with VA policies for deploying SMS and IVR systems for research.²⁰ At this time, PETALS is for use only with veterans, so if research will occur outside the VA, you must use an outside vendor. Users who want to set up a new IVR system can ask their local contracting office whether any contracts have already been established for IVR development and support.

From our perspective as researchers who are not telehealth savvy, we encountered several delays from failing to ask the appropriate questions or inability to navigate complicated systems. For instance, there were several tasks that needed to be completed and were not included in the original timeline developed by the vendor and researcher. Therefore, it is important to have clear communication on both sides about who is doing what, when, and how. We tried to detail these unexpected steps to help researchers, administrators, or other VA employees in the future.

Conclusions

IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions in a health care setting that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Our experience developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging and was a huge learning curve for our research team. We hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to everyone involved in this project and who answered questions about the process, especially Nicolle Marinec, MPH; Toan Tran, and Molly Delorit, BA. This study and Christopher Slatore, MD, are supported by an award from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (HSR&D IIR 19-425). It was also supported by resources from the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (VAPORHCS).

Health care systems need practical, scalable methods to reach patients and connect them to available, evidence-based resources. Ideally, these systems need to be resource nonintensive to deploy, maintain, and use. They should also be low cost, have a relative advantage to the organization, be sensitive to patient needs, use available resources, and have rigorous evidence regarding their effect on patient-centered outcomes.^1,2 Phone service is one way to reach people that remains viable. More than 97% of Americans own a cellphone of some kind, and 40% still have a landline.^3,4 One intervention that has been increasingly used in routine care settings is an interactive voice response (IVR) system that uses phones for connecting to patients.

IVR systems are a type of telehealth that provides information or adjunct health services through use of a telecommunication platform and information technologies.⁵ These systems are automated telephone systems that use prerecorded or text-to-speech–generated messages that allow respondents to provide and access information without a live agent.⁶ Text messaging (SMS) is another modality that can be used to asynchronously engage with participants. IVR systems have been used successfully for many health conditions and services, such as improving veterans’ adherence to continuous positive airway pressure, colorectal cancer screening, and cognitive behavioral therapy.^7-10 By building on existing technology and infrastructure, IVR systems can be a cost-effective option for health care system services.

A 2016 Cochrane review of IVR systems for smoking cessation identified 7 studies.¹¹ Although none used opt-out mechanisms (where individuals are automatically enrolled in programs until they decide not to participate) to engage people without an expressed motivation to quit, these interventions seemed safe and were promisingly effective. Among patients enrolled in primary care, a trial of an IVR system led to a higher quit rate: 18% vs 8%.¹²

In one study, patients in the emergency department, particularly older ones, preferred phone-based interventions over SMS.¹³ IVR-based proactive tobacco cessation systems are cost-effective and have been successfully used in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^14,15 IVR systems using opt-out approaches are being studied, though their effectiveness in this setting has not been proven. The pros and cons of different interventions need to be explored since there is likely a tradeoff between feasibility and effectiveness. For example, intensive smoking cessation interventions are more effective but often require more resources to implement and sustain.¹⁶ Basing interventions that are not resource intensive within a reputable organizational system may amplify the effectiveness.¹⁷

This endeavor to establish an IVR system was initiated as part of our research study, a randomized trial of the Teachable Moment to Opt-Out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT) intervention at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon. We measured the reach and effectiveness of a novel, proactive, resource nonintensive, and pragmatic intervention to engage veterans with a recently diagnosed lung nodule who smoke cigarettes.¹⁸ Our research team extracted the contact information for patients currently smoking and found to a have a pulmonary nodule from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.¹⁹ We then manually uploaded those data to an IVR website where the system contacted patients to connect them to smoking cessation resources on an opt-out basis. In the research study, we measured the acceptability and effectiveness of the TeaM OUT intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods.

We developed and implemented an IVR system for use at 4 facilities: VA Portland Health Care System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center (Charleston, NC), and the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Setting up any type of wide-scale technology within the VA can be challenging. Due to our experience in developing and implementing the IVR system in the VA, we share what we have learned about the process of finding, contracting, developing, and implementing an IVR system. We share our experiences with developing and implementing this system to provide guidance for those who may want to establish an IVR system (or similar technologies) within the VA.

Lessons Learned

During our development and implementation process, we learned several lessons about setting up an IVR system in the VA. It is important to note that VA facilities may have differing processes, and policies frequently change; thus coordination with departments (eg, contracting, finance, Office of Information and Technology [OIT], etc) to verify the following strategies is essential (Figure).

Vendor Selection

Check with the local OIT and contracting offices to see if the facility has previously used any vendors for these services and for advice on selection. We compiled a list of questions that may be helpful based on our discussions with 4 vendors, prior to selection of a vendor already VA-approved (Appendix). There are also questions to think about in parallel with choosing a vendor. Contact your OIT, contracting, and privacy (if necessary) offices before choosing a vendor.

Online Security

After selecting a vendor, if you want an online portal to view, upload, or downloaddata, then you will need to initiate the single sign-on internal (SSOI) process (www.data.va.gov/dataset/Single-Sign-On-Internal-SSOi-/cber-kxf9). Other benefits of a website are to identify call patterns (eg, no one picks up after the 10th call) and track respondents’ selections. The SSOI process can take up to 1 year. Notably, the website login at minimum needs to be created by the IVR vendor to start the process. After the SSOI is approved you can add more to the website beyond just the login capability. Note that the script needs to be finalized prior to SSOI initiation. You will need to initiate with the SSOI team, then the vendor will need to complete the process.

Contracting

Concurrent with the above steps, contact the contracting office to get a sense of the paperwork and timeline. Make sure you are comfortable with the vendor’s responses to the questions in the Appendix, and view their written proposal or scope of work (SOW) to ensure they can do what the project protocol demands.

If the vendor has previously worked with the VA, contact your local contract office (usually part of the Finance Office) for updated forms. We needed the 6500.6 Checklist, Document Checklist for Service Requests, Single Source Justification, Research & Development Order (if research-related), and Vendor File Request forms. The vendor can help complete these forms. Review the proposal/SOW and budget first, knowing that budgets have a wide range and depend on the length and complexity of the script, number of calls, number of respondents, etc. For example, our quote was $110,000 over 4 years, including development, training, hosting on a secure server, and maintenance. Our IVR system will call about 5000 patients across 4 sites. Each patient will receive up to 15 calls over 2 weeks if they do not answer. We created 2 IVR lines (1 inbound and 1 outbound). Next, contact the lead of the local OIT and contracting departments by email to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity via approved methods. Finally, contact the privacy officer and information security officer. Discuss where software would be installed, whether cloud storage would be used, and what information can be shared/stored. Remember that the rules may differ for research vs nonresearch projects. Also, determine whether a data-use agreement between the VA and the vendor is needed and how the institutional review board (if research) gets integrated.

If using an outside vendor who has never worked with the VA, submit form 6550.6. Note that contracting requires several months. First, contact OIT and contracting departments. Again, you will need to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity. Next, complete the Project Special Forces Software and Privacy Threshold Analysis process to purchase the system. Set up a meeting with OIT to determine other forms and next steps. Business need/case use form and data security categorization may be needed. If the software needs to be installed on a VA computer, you will need to submit a Technical Reference Model request if it does not have an entry.

Vendors can answer technical questions from the contracting office, especially about the SOW, but the VA team needs to write the contract and manage all documentation and communication. You will also need sole source documentation (receive from contracting office) with justification for why you want to use a specific vendor. If you do not have that justification, in cooperation with the contracts office, you must solicit bids from other companies. Importantly, understand the staff support needed for contracting and build into your timeline and budget. Not surprisingly, we found that in-person or phone meetings were invaluable compared with email correspondence. Meet with all parties involved early and often. Once the contract is clear, this begins the build process where the vendor can program and record the script. This process usually takes 1 to 2 months.

Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support

The new Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative is an excellent place to start with any VA IVR-related questions. PETALS is used for research.²⁰ We hoped to use this system for our study, but its implementation was delayed until 2022. The PETALS system is designed for VA investigators who conduct research studies and need a secure platform that is compliant with VA policies for deploying SMS and IVR systems for research.²⁰ At this time, PETALS is for use only with veterans, so if research will occur outside the VA, you must use an outside vendor. Users who want to set up a new IVR system can ask their local contracting office whether any contracts have already been established for IVR development and support.

From our perspective as researchers who are not telehealth savvy, we encountered several delays from failing to ask the appropriate questions or inability to navigate complicated systems. For instance, there were several tasks that needed to be completed and were not included in the original timeline developed by the vendor and researcher. Therefore, it is important to have clear communication on both sides about who is doing what, when, and how. We tried to detail these unexpected steps to help researchers, administrators, or other VA employees in the future.

Conclusions

IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions in a health care setting that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Our experience developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging and was a huge learning curve for our research team. We hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to everyone involved in this project and who answered questions about the process, especially Nicolle Marinec, MPH; Toan Tran, and Molly Delorit, BA. This study and Christopher Slatore, MD, are supported by an award from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (HSR&D IIR 19-425). It was also supported by resources from the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (VAPORHCS).

Health care systems need practical, scalable methods to reach patients and connect them to available, evidence-based resources. Ideally, these systems need to be resource nonintensive to deploy, maintain, and use. They should also be low cost, have a relative advantage to the organization, be sensitive to patient needs, use available resources, and have rigorous evidence regarding their effect on patient-centered outcomes.^1,2 Phone service is one way to reach people that remains viable. More than 97% of Americans own a cellphone of some kind, and 40% still have a landline.^3,4 One intervention that has been increasingly used in routine care settings is an interactive voice response (IVR) system that uses phones for connecting to patients.

IVR systems are a type of telehealth that provides information or adjunct health services through use of a telecommunication platform and information technologies.⁵ These systems are automated telephone systems that use prerecorded or text-to-speech–generated messages that allow respondents to provide and access information without a live agent.⁶ Text messaging (SMS) is another modality that can be used to asynchronously engage with participants. IVR systems have been used successfully for many health conditions and services, such as improving veterans’ adherence to continuous positive airway pressure, colorectal cancer screening, and cognitive behavioral therapy.^7-10 By building on existing technology and infrastructure, IVR systems can be a cost-effective option for health care system services.

A 2016 Cochrane review of IVR systems for smoking cessation identified 7 studies.¹¹ Although none used opt-out mechanisms (where individuals are automatically enrolled in programs until they decide not to participate) to engage people without an expressed motivation to quit, these interventions seemed safe and were promisingly effective. Among patients enrolled in primary care, a trial of an IVR system led to a higher quit rate: 18% vs 8%.¹²

In one study, patients in the emergency department, particularly older ones, preferred phone-based interventions over SMS.¹³ IVR-based proactive tobacco cessation systems are cost-effective and have been successfully used in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^14,15 IVR systems using opt-out approaches are being studied, though their effectiveness in this setting has not been proven. The pros and cons of different interventions need to be explored since there is likely a tradeoff between feasibility and effectiveness. For example, intensive smoking cessation interventions are more effective but often require more resources to implement and sustain.¹⁶ Basing interventions that are not resource intensive within a reputable organizational system may amplify the effectiveness.¹⁷

This endeavor to establish an IVR system was initiated as part of our research study, a randomized trial of the Teachable Moment to Opt-Out of Tobacco (TeaM OUT) intervention at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon. We measured the reach and effectiveness of a novel, proactive, resource nonintensive, and pragmatic intervention to engage veterans with a recently diagnosed lung nodule who smoke cigarettes.¹⁸ Our research team extracted the contact information for patients currently smoking and found to a have a pulmonary nodule from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse.¹⁹ We then manually uploaded those data to an IVR website where the system contacted patients to connect them to smoking cessation resources on an opt-out basis. In the research study, we measured the acceptability and effectiveness of the TeaM OUT intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods.

We developed and implemented an IVR system for use at 4 facilities: VA Portland Health Care System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center (Charleston, NC), and the Baltimore VA Medical Center. Setting up any type of wide-scale technology within the VA can be challenging. Due to our experience in developing and implementing the IVR system in the VA, we share what we have learned about the process of finding, contracting, developing, and implementing an IVR system. We share our experiences with developing and implementing this system to provide guidance for those who may want to establish an IVR system (or similar technologies) within the VA.

Lessons Learned

During our development and implementation process, we learned several lessons about setting up an IVR system in the VA. It is important to note that VA facilities may have differing processes, and policies frequently change; thus coordination with departments (eg, contracting, finance, Office of Information and Technology [OIT], etc) to verify the following strategies is essential (Figure).

Vendor Selection

Check with the local OIT and contracting offices to see if the facility has previously used any vendors for these services and for advice on selection. We compiled a list of questions that may be helpful based on our discussions with 4 vendors, prior to selection of a vendor already VA-approved (Appendix). There are also questions to think about in parallel with choosing a vendor. Contact your OIT, contracting, and privacy (if necessary) offices before choosing a vendor.

Online Security

After selecting a vendor, if you want an online portal to view, upload, or downloaddata, then you will need to initiate the single sign-on internal (SSOI) process (www.data.va.gov/dataset/Single-Sign-On-Internal-SSOi-/cber-kxf9). Other benefits of a website are to identify call patterns (eg, no one picks up after the 10th call) and track respondents’ selections. The SSOI process can take up to 1 year. Notably, the website login at minimum needs to be created by the IVR vendor to start the process. After the SSOI is approved you can add more to the website beyond just the login capability. Note that the script needs to be finalized prior to SSOI initiation. You will need to initiate with the SSOI team, then the vendor will need to complete the process.

Contracting

Concurrent with the above steps, contact the contracting office to get a sense of the paperwork and timeline. Make sure you are comfortable with the vendor’s responses to the questions in the Appendix, and view their written proposal or scope of work (SOW) to ensure they can do what the project protocol demands.

If the vendor has previously worked with the VA, contact your local contract office (usually part of the Finance Office) for updated forms. We needed the 6500.6 Checklist, Document Checklist for Service Requests, Single Source Justification, Research & Development Order (if research-related), and Vendor File Request forms. The vendor can help complete these forms. Review the proposal/SOW and budget first, knowing that budgets have a wide range and depend on the length and complexity of the script, number of calls, number of respondents, etc. For example, our quote was $110,000 over 4 years, including development, training, hosting on a secure server, and maintenance. Our IVR system will call about 5000 patients across 4 sites. Each patient will receive up to 15 calls over 2 weeks if they do not answer. We created 2 IVR lines (1 inbound and 1 outbound). Next, contact the lead of the local OIT and contracting departments by email to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity via approved methods. Finally, contact the privacy officer and information security officer. Discuss where software would be installed, whether cloud storage would be used, and what information can be shared/stored. Remember that the rules may differ for research vs nonresearch projects. Also, determine whether a data-use agreement between the VA and the vendor is needed and how the institutional review board (if research) gets integrated.

If using an outside vendor who has never worked with the VA, submit form 6550.6. Note that contracting requires several months. First, contact OIT and contracting departments. Again, you will need to justify sharing veteran information with a contracted entity. Next, complete the Project Special Forces Software and Privacy Threshold Analysis process to purchase the system. Set up a meeting with OIT to determine other forms and next steps. Business need/case use form and data security categorization may be needed. If the software needs to be installed on a VA computer, you will need to submit a Technical Reference Model request if it does not have an entry.

Vendors can answer technical questions from the contracting office, especially about the SOW, but the VA team needs to write the contract and manage all documentation and communication. You will also need sole source documentation (receive from contracting office) with justification for why you want to use a specific vendor. If you do not have that justification, in cooperation with the contracts office, you must solicit bids from other companies. Importantly, understand the staff support needed for contracting and build into your timeline and budget. Not surprisingly, we found that in-person or phone meetings were invaluable compared with email correspondence. Meet with all parties involved early and often. Once the contract is clear, this begins the build process where the vendor can program and record the script. This process usually takes 1 to 2 months.

Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support

The new Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative is an excellent place to start with any VA IVR-related questions. PETALS is used for research.²⁰ We hoped to use this system for our study, but its implementation was delayed until 2022. The PETALS system is designed for VA investigators who conduct research studies and need a secure platform that is compliant with VA policies for deploying SMS and IVR systems for research.²⁰ At this time, PETALS is for use only with veterans, so if research will occur outside the VA, you must use an outside vendor. Users who want to set up a new IVR system can ask their local contracting office whether any contracts have already been established for IVR development and support.

From our perspective as researchers who are not telehealth savvy, we encountered several delays from failing to ask the appropriate questions or inability to navigate complicated systems. For instance, there were several tasks that needed to be completed and were not included in the original timeline developed by the vendor and researcher. Therefore, it is important to have clear communication on both sides about who is doing what, when, and how. We tried to detail these unexpected steps to help researchers, administrators, or other VA employees in the future.

Conclusions

IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions in a health care setting that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Our experience developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging and was a huge learning curve for our research team. We hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to everyone involved in this project and who answered questions about the process, especially Nicolle Marinec, MPH; Toan Tran, and Molly Delorit, BA. This study and Christopher Slatore, MD, are supported by an award from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (HSR&D IIR 19-425). It was also supported by resources from the Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon (VAPORHCS).

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient encounters with the health care system plummeted.^1-3 The perceived increased risk of contracting COVID-19 while obtaining care was thought to be a contributing factor. In outpatient settings, one study noted a 63% decrease in visits to otolaryngology visits in Massachusetts, and another noted a 33% decrease in dental office visits at the onset of the pandemic in 2020 compared with the same time frame in 2019.^2,4 Along with mask mandates and stay-at-home orders, various institutions sought to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through different protocols, including the use of social distancing, limitation of visitors, and telehealth. Despite some of these measures, nosocomial infections were not uncommon. For example, one hospital in the United Kingdom reported that 15% of COVID-19 inpatient cases in a 6-week period in 2020 were probably or definitely hospital acquired. These patients had a 36% case fatality rate.⁵

Unlike outpatient treatment centers, however, the emergency department (ED) is mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to provide a medical screening examination and to stabilize emergency medical conditions to all patients presenting to the ED. Thus, high numbers of undifferentiated and symptomatic patients are forced to congregate in EDs, increasing the risk of transmission of COVID-19. This perception of increased risk led to a 42% decrease in ED visits during March and April 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Correspondingly, there was a 20% decrease in code stroke activations at a hospital in Canada and a 38% decrease in ST-elevation myocardial infarction activations across 9 United States hospital systems.^6,7

Limited studies have been conducted to date to determine whether contracting COVID-19 while in the ED is a risk. One retrospective case-control study evaluating 39 EDs in the US showed that ED colocation with known patients with COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁵ However, this study also recognized that infection control strategies widely varied by location and date.

In this study, we report the incidence of COVID-19 infections within 21 days after the initial visit for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection to the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) ED and compared it with that of COVID-19 infections for tests performed within the VAGLAHS.

Program Description

As a quality improvement measure, the VAGLAHS ED instituted multiple protocols to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Social distancing was instituted in the waiting room to prevent the close congregation of patients, regardless of the reason for visit. A COVID-19 testing tent was located outdoors that was adjacent to the ED and staffed by a dedicated licensed independent practitioner and nurses during business hours. During COVID-19 infection surges, hours were extended to include evenings and weekends to decrease ED exposure of stable but symptomatic patients seeking testing. If patients were felt to require more care, they were referred to the ED.

Patients with specific symptoms noted during triage, such as those associated with COVID-19 diagnosis, respiratory infections, fever, and/or myalgias, were isolated in their own patient room. Electronic tablets were used for persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 to communicate with family and/or medical staff who did not need to enter the patient’s room. Two-hour disinfection protocols were instituted for high-risk patients who were moved during the course of their treatment (ie, transfer to another bed for admission or discharge). All staff was specifically trained in personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, and 2-physician airway teams were implemented to ensure proper PPE use and safe COVID-19 intubations.

COVID-19 Infections

Electronic health records of patients who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not related to COVID-19 were reviewed from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, to determine whether these patients had an increased incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infection within 21 days of the index ED visit. Patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms, such as cough, fever, chills, sore throat, changes to taste or smell, or a confirmed COVID-19 infection on the initial visit were excluded. Patients were considered to have had an ED-acquired COVID-19 infection if they had a positive test within 21 days of visiting the ED for a symptom not related to COVID-19. We report the overall average positivity rate by month of COVID-19 infections 21 days post-ED visit for visits for symptoms not related to COVID-19. 

A total of 8708 patients who came to the ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection and had a COVID-19 test within 21 days of the ED visit met the inclusion criteria. The overall average positivity rate at the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection was 1.1% from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. The positivity rate by month ranged from 0% to 6.7% for this period (Figure).

Discussion 

Implementing COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED helped minimize exposure and subsequent infection of COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection. Contextualizing this with the overall average monthly positivity rate of veterans in the VAGLAHS catchment area (10.9%) or Los Angeles County (7.9%) between June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 within 21 days (1.1%), suggesting that the extensive measures taken at the VAGLAHS ED were effective.⁸

Many health care systems in the US and abroad have experimented with different transmission mitigation strategies in the ED. These tactics have included careful resource allocation when PPE shortages occur, incorporation of airway teams with appropriate safety measures to reduce nosocomial spread to health care workers, and use of a cohorting plan to separate persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 from other patients.^9-15 Additionally, forward screening areas were incorporated similar to the COVID-19 tent that was instituted at the VAGLAHS ED to manage patients who were referred to the ED for COVID-19 testing during the beginning of the pandemic, which prevented symptomatic patients from congregating with asymptomatic patients.^14,15

Encouragingly, some of these studies reported no cases of nosocomial transmission in the ED.^11,13 In a separate study, 14 clusters of COVID-19 cases were identified at one VA health care system in which nosocomial transmission was suspected, including one in the ED.¹⁶ Using contact tracing, no patients and 9 employees were found to have contracted COVID-19 in that cluster. Overall, among all clusters examined within the health care system, either by contact tracing or by whole-genome sequencing, the authors found that transmission from health care personnel to patients was rare. Despite different methodologies, we also similarly found that ED patients in our VA facility were unlikely to become infected with COVID-19.

While the low incidence of positive COVID-19 tests cannot be attributed to any one method, our data provide a working blueprint for enhanced ED precautions in future surges of COVID-19 or other airborne diseases, including that of future pandemics.

Limitations

Notably, although the VA is the largest health care system in the US, a considerable number of veterans may present to non-VA EDs to seek care, and thus their data are not included here; these veterans may live farther from a VA facility or experience higher barriers to care than veterans who exclusively or almost exclusively seek care within the VA. As a result, we are unable to account for COVID-19 tests completed outside the VA. Moreover, the wild type SARS-CoV-2 virus was dominant during the time frame chosen for this assessment, and data may not be generalizable to other variants (eg, omicron) that are known to be more highly transmissible.¹⁷ Lastly, although our observation was performed at a single VA ED and may not apply to other facilities, especially in light of different mitigation strategies, our findings still provide support for approaches to minimizing patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 in ED settings.

Conclusions

Implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED may have minimized exposure to COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 and did not put one at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Taken together, our data suggest that patients should not avoid seeking emergency care out of fear of contracting COVID-19 if EDs have adequately instituted mitigation techniques.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient encounters with the health care system plummeted.^1-3 The perceived increased risk of contracting COVID-19 while obtaining care was thought to be a contributing factor. In outpatient settings, one study noted a 63% decrease in visits to otolaryngology visits in Massachusetts, and another noted a 33% decrease in dental office visits at the onset of the pandemic in 2020 compared with the same time frame in 2019.^2,4 Along with mask mandates and stay-at-home orders, various institutions sought to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through different protocols, including the use of social distancing, limitation of visitors, and telehealth. Despite some of these measures, nosocomial infections were not uncommon. For example, one hospital in the United Kingdom reported that 15% of COVID-19 inpatient cases in a 6-week period in 2020 were probably or definitely hospital acquired. These patients had a 36% case fatality rate.⁵

Unlike outpatient treatment centers, however, the emergency department (ED) is mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to provide a medical screening examination and to stabilize emergency medical conditions to all patients presenting to the ED. Thus, high numbers of undifferentiated and symptomatic patients are forced to congregate in EDs, increasing the risk of transmission of COVID-19. This perception of increased risk led to a 42% decrease in ED visits during March and April 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Correspondingly, there was a 20% decrease in code stroke activations at a hospital in Canada and a 38% decrease in ST-elevation myocardial infarction activations across 9 United States hospital systems.^6,7

Limited studies have been conducted to date to determine whether contracting COVID-19 while in the ED is a risk. One retrospective case-control study evaluating 39 EDs in the US showed that ED colocation with known patients with COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁵ However, this study also recognized that infection control strategies widely varied by location and date.

In this study, we report the incidence of COVID-19 infections within 21 days after the initial visit for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection to the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) ED and compared it with that of COVID-19 infections for tests performed within the VAGLAHS.

Program Description

As a quality improvement measure, the VAGLAHS ED instituted multiple protocols to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Social distancing was instituted in the waiting room to prevent the close congregation of patients, regardless of the reason for visit. A COVID-19 testing tent was located outdoors that was adjacent to the ED and staffed by a dedicated licensed independent practitioner and nurses during business hours. During COVID-19 infection surges, hours were extended to include evenings and weekends to decrease ED exposure of stable but symptomatic patients seeking testing. If patients were felt to require more care, they were referred to the ED.

Patients with specific symptoms noted during triage, such as those associated with COVID-19 diagnosis, respiratory infections, fever, and/or myalgias, were isolated in their own patient room. Electronic tablets were used for persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 to communicate with family and/or medical staff who did not need to enter the patient’s room. Two-hour disinfection protocols were instituted for high-risk patients who were moved during the course of their treatment (ie, transfer to another bed for admission or discharge). All staff was specifically trained in personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, and 2-physician airway teams were implemented to ensure proper PPE use and safe COVID-19 intubations.

COVID-19 Infections

Electronic health records of patients who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not related to COVID-19 were reviewed from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, to determine whether these patients had an increased incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infection within 21 days of the index ED visit. Patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms, such as cough, fever, chills, sore throat, changes to taste or smell, or a confirmed COVID-19 infection on the initial visit were excluded. Patients were considered to have had an ED-acquired COVID-19 infection if they had a positive test within 21 days of visiting the ED for a symptom not related to COVID-19. We report the overall average positivity rate by month of COVID-19 infections 21 days post-ED visit for visits for symptoms not related to COVID-19. 

A total of 8708 patients who came to the ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection and had a COVID-19 test within 21 days of the ED visit met the inclusion criteria. The overall average positivity rate at the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection was 1.1% from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. The positivity rate by month ranged from 0% to 6.7% for this period (Figure).

Discussion 

Implementing COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED helped minimize exposure and subsequent infection of COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection. Contextualizing this with the overall average monthly positivity rate of veterans in the VAGLAHS catchment area (10.9%) or Los Angeles County (7.9%) between June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 within 21 days (1.1%), suggesting that the extensive measures taken at the VAGLAHS ED were effective.⁸

Many health care systems in the US and abroad have experimented with different transmission mitigation strategies in the ED. These tactics have included careful resource allocation when PPE shortages occur, incorporation of airway teams with appropriate safety measures to reduce nosocomial spread to health care workers, and use of a cohorting plan to separate persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 from other patients.^9-15 Additionally, forward screening areas were incorporated similar to the COVID-19 tent that was instituted at the VAGLAHS ED to manage patients who were referred to the ED for COVID-19 testing during the beginning of the pandemic, which prevented symptomatic patients from congregating with asymptomatic patients.^14,15

Encouragingly, some of these studies reported no cases of nosocomial transmission in the ED.^11,13 In a separate study, 14 clusters of COVID-19 cases were identified at one VA health care system in which nosocomial transmission was suspected, including one in the ED.¹⁶ Using contact tracing, no patients and 9 employees were found to have contracted COVID-19 in that cluster. Overall, among all clusters examined within the health care system, either by contact tracing or by whole-genome sequencing, the authors found that transmission from health care personnel to patients was rare. Despite different methodologies, we also similarly found that ED patients in our VA facility were unlikely to become infected with COVID-19.

While the low incidence of positive COVID-19 tests cannot be attributed to any one method, our data provide a working blueprint for enhanced ED precautions in future surges of COVID-19 or other airborne diseases, including that of future pandemics.

Limitations

Notably, although the VA is the largest health care system in the US, a considerable number of veterans may present to non-VA EDs to seek care, and thus their data are not included here; these veterans may live farther from a VA facility or experience higher barriers to care than veterans who exclusively or almost exclusively seek care within the VA. As a result, we are unable to account for COVID-19 tests completed outside the VA. Moreover, the wild type SARS-CoV-2 virus was dominant during the time frame chosen for this assessment, and data may not be generalizable to other variants (eg, omicron) that are known to be more highly transmissible.¹⁷ Lastly, although our observation was performed at a single VA ED and may not apply to other facilities, especially in light of different mitigation strategies, our findings still provide support for approaches to minimizing patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 in ED settings.

Conclusions

Implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED may have minimized exposure to COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 and did not put one at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Taken together, our data suggest that patients should not avoid seeking emergency care out of fear of contracting COVID-19 if EDs have adequately instituted mitigation techniques.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient encounters with the health care system plummeted.^1-3 The perceived increased risk of contracting COVID-19 while obtaining care was thought to be a contributing factor. In outpatient settings, one study noted a 63% decrease in visits to otolaryngology visits in Massachusetts, and another noted a 33% decrease in dental office visits at the onset of the pandemic in 2020 compared with the same time frame in 2019.^2,4 Along with mask mandates and stay-at-home orders, various institutions sought to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through different protocols, including the use of social distancing, limitation of visitors, and telehealth. Despite some of these measures, nosocomial infections were not uncommon. For example, one hospital in the United Kingdom reported that 15% of COVID-19 inpatient cases in a 6-week period in 2020 were probably or definitely hospital acquired. These patients had a 36% case fatality rate.⁵

Unlike outpatient treatment centers, however, the emergency department (ED) is mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to provide a medical screening examination and to stabilize emergency medical conditions to all patients presenting to the ED. Thus, high numbers of undifferentiated and symptomatic patients are forced to congregate in EDs, increasing the risk of transmission of COVID-19. This perception of increased risk led to a 42% decrease in ED visits during March and April 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Correspondingly, there was a 20% decrease in code stroke activations at a hospital in Canada and a 38% decrease in ST-elevation myocardial infarction activations across 9 United States hospital systems.^6,7

Limited studies have been conducted to date to determine whether contracting COVID-19 while in the ED is a risk. One retrospective case-control study evaluating 39 EDs in the US showed that ED colocation with known patients with COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁵ However, this study also recognized that infection control strategies widely varied by location and date.

In this study, we report the incidence of COVID-19 infections within 21 days after the initial visit for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection to the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) ED and compared it with that of COVID-19 infections for tests performed within the VAGLAHS.

Program Description

As a quality improvement measure, the VAGLAHS ED instituted multiple protocols to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Social distancing was instituted in the waiting room to prevent the close congregation of patients, regardless of the reason for visit. A COVID-19 testing tent was located outdoors that was adjacent to the ED and staffed by a dedicated licensed independent practitioner and nurses during business hours. During COVID-19 infection surges, hours were extended to include evenings and weekends to decrease ED exposure of stable but symptomatic patients seeking testing. If patients were felt to require more care, they were referred to the ED.

Patients with specific symptoms noted during triage, such as those associated with COVID-19 diagnosis, respiratory infections, fever, and/or myalgias, were isolated in their own patient room. Electronic tablets were used for persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 to communicate with family and/or medical staff who did not need to enter the patient’s room. Two-hour disinfection protocols were instituted for high-risk patients who were moved during the course of their treatment (ie, transfer to another bed for admission or discharge). All staff was specifically trained in personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, and 2-physician airway teams were implemented to ensure proper PPE use and safe COVID-19 intubations.

COVID-19 Infections

Electronic health records of patients who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not related to COVID-19 were reviewed from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, to determine whether these patients had an increased incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infection within 21 days of the index ED visit. Patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms, such as cough, fever, chills, sore throat, changes to taste or smell, or a confirmed COVID-19 infection on the initial visit were excluded. Patients were considered to have had an ED-acquired COVID-19 infection if they had a positive test within 21 days of visiting the ED for a symptom not related to COVID-19. We report the overall average positivity rate by month of COVID-19 infections 21 days post-ED visit for visits for symptoms not related to COVID-19. 

A total of 8708 patients who came to the ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection and had a COVID-19 test within 21 days of the ED visit met the inclusion criteria. The overall average positivity rate at the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection was 1.1% from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. The positivity rate by month ranged from 0% to 6.7% for this period (Figure).

Discussion 

Implementing COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED helped minimize exposure and subsequent infection of COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection. Contextualizing this with the overall average monthly positivity rate of veterans in the VAGLAHS catchment area (10.9%) or Los Angeles County (7.9%) between June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 within 21 days (1.1%), suggesting that the extensive measures taken at the VAGLAHS ED were effective.⁸

Many health care systems in the US and abroad have experimented with different transmission mitigation strategies in the ED. These tactics have included careful resource allocation when PPE shortages occur, incorporation of airway teams with appropriate safety measures to reduce nosocomial spread to health care workers, and use of a cohorting plan to separate persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 from other patients.^9-15 Additionally, forward screening areas were incorporated similar to the COVID-19 tent that was instituted at the VAGLAHS ED to manage patients who were referred to the ED for COVID-19 testing during the beginning of the pandemic, which prevented symptomatic patients from congregating with asymptomatic patients.^14,15

Encouragingly, some of these studies reported no cases of nosocomial transmission in the ED.^11,13 In a separate study, 14 clusters of COVID-19 cases were identified at one VA health care system in which nosocomial transmission was suspected, including one in the ED.¹⁶ Using contact tracing, no patients and 9 employees were found to have contracted COVID-19 in that cluster. Overall, among all clusters examined within the health care system, either by contact tracing or by whole-genome sequencing, the authors found that transmission from health care personnel to patients was rare. Despite different methodologies, we also similarly found that ED patients in our VA facility were unlikely to become infected with COVID-19.

While the low incidence of positive COVID-19 tests cannot be attributed to any one method, our data provide a working blueprint for enhanced ED precautions in future surges of COVID-19 or other airborne diseases, including that of future pandemics.

Limitations

Notably, although the VA is the largest health care system in the US, a considerable number of veterans may present to non-VA EDs to seek care, and thus their data are not included here; these veterans may live farther from a VA facility or experience higher barriers to care than veterans who exclusively or almost exclusively seek care within the VA. As a result, we are unable to account for COVID-19 tests completed outside the VA. Moreover, the wild type SARS-CoV-2 virus was dominant during the time frame chosen for this assessment, and data may not be generalizable to other variants (eg, omicron) that are known to be more highly transmissible.¹⁷ Lastly, although our observation was performed at a single VA ED and may not apply to other facilities, especially in light of different mitigation strategies, our findings still provide support for approaches to minimizing patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 in ED settings.

Conclusions

Implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED may have minimized exposure to COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 and did not put one at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Taken together, our data suggest that patients should not avoid seeking emergency care out of fear of contracting COVID-19 if EDs have adequately instituted mitigation techniques.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care professionals (HCPs), including emergency medicine physicians and hospitalists, have been continuously challenged to maintain an up-to-date clinical practice on COVID-19 therapeutics as new evidence emerged.^1,2 In the early part of the pandemic, these included not only appropriate and time-sensitive prescriptions of COVID-19 therapeutics, such as remdesivir and dexamethasone, but also judicious use of empiric antibiotics given the low prevalence for bacterial coinfection in early disease.^3-6 Alongside this, curbing the excessive laboratory testing of these patients during the pandemic was important not only to minimize costs but also to reduce potential iatrogenic harm and extended length of stay (LOS).⁷

At the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) Dallas VA Medical Center (DVAMC), we attempted to provide therapeutic guidance for physicians primarily through direct infectious disease (ID) consultation (in-person or electronic).⁸ This was secondarily supported by a pharmacist and ID physician–curated “living guidance” document on COVID-19 care accessible to all physicians through the DVAMC electronic health record (EHR) and intranet.

As the alpha variant (lineage B.1.1.7) of COVID-19 began spreading throughout North Texas in the winter of 2020, we implemented a targeted educational intervention toward the hospitalist group taking care of patients with COVID-19 with the primary goal of improving the accuracy of COVID-19 therapeutics while minimizing the consultative burden on ID clinical and pharmacy staff. This initiative consisted of (1) proactive guideline dissemination through email and text messages; (2) virtual didactics; and (3) physician reminders during the consultation process. Our ultimate aims were to improve hospitalist-led appropriate prescriptions of remdesivir and dexamethasone, reducing empiric antibiotic days of therapy in patients with COVID-19 at low risk of bacterial coinfection, and reducing laboratory orders that were not indicated for the management of these patients. Following this intervention and the resolution of the second wave, we retrospectively assessed the temporal trends of COVID-19 practices by hospitalists and associated patterns of ID consultation in the DVAMC from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

METHODS

The educational intervention was carried out at the DVAMC, a 1A high complex facility with more than 200 inpatient beds and part of the VANTHCS. During the study period, patients admitted with COVID-19 were located either on a closed floor (managed by the hospitalist team) or in a closed intensive care unit (ICU) (managed by the pulmonary/critical care team) contingent on the level of care or oxygen supplementation required. ID and other subspecialties provided consultation services as requested by hospitalists or ICU teams either electronically or in person. During the study period, 66 hospitalists were involved in the care of the patients: 59 (89.5%) permanent staff, 4 (6.0%) fee-basis physicians, and 3 (4.5%) moonlighting fellows.

Educational Initiative

We delivered educational sessions to the hospitalists, using collaboration software with video meeting capability every 1 to 2 months beginning in December 2020. An additional session focused on reducing empiric antibiotic prescriptions was also delivered to the emergency medicine department, based on feedback from the hospitalist group. The content for the educational sessions came from informal surveys of both ID trainees assigned to the consultation service and hospitalists, covering the following topics: understanding the stages of COVID-19 illness (virologic replication vs inflammatory) and rationales for therapy; assessing disease severity; indications and use of remdesivir; indications and use of dexamethasone; assessing for bacterial coinfections; when an ID consultation is required; management algorithm for COVID-19; and locating guidelines on the intranet. About 15 to 20 physicians participated in each session. In addition, slides of these didactics and updated institutional COVID-19 guidelines were disseminated to the hospitalist group via email and text messaging. We also linked the intranet institution guidelines in our communication, including a revised user-friendly flowchart (eAppendix).

Laboratory Stewardship Initiative

Laboratory stewardship initiatives were implemented by modifying suggested orders on the admission of patients with COVID-19 and directly educating hospitalist and emergency medicine physicians on evidence-based laboratory orders. At the beginning of the pandemic, a broad admission order set was established at DVAMC, based on the then limited knowledge of the course of infection with COVID-19. This order set allowed the admitting physicians to efficiently order laboratory tests for patients, especially during the demanding increase in patient volume experienced by DVAMC.

As new evidence emerged during the pandemic, many of the laboratory orders were reviewed for clinical utility during care for the patient with COVID-19 per the latest guidance. In December 2020, the admission orders for patients with COVID-19 were revised to reflect better laboratory stewardship to reduce cost and harm. The ID section revised the laboratory orders and disseminated the new order set to admitting physicians. Specifically, the admission order set removed the following laboratory tests available for selection: routine blood cultures, interleukin 6 (IL-6) level, and Legionella sputum culture. These laboratory orders were removed based on the lack of supporting evidence in persons admitted with COVID-19.⁹ In addition to modification of the admission order set, educational sessions were held with hospitalists to disseminate knowledge of the new changes and address any concerns.

Observations of Care

This study was approved by the VANTHCS Institutional Review Board (protocol code 20-047). Records were retrospectively reviewed for patients admitted to DVAMC for COVID-19 under hospitalist care (patients admitted directly to the ICU were excluded) from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities were collected from the EHR. In addition clinical measures such as maximum oxygen requirement during admission (none, nasal cannula of 2-4 L/min, high flow/bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP] or mechanical ventilation), proven presence of coinfection (defined as the isolation of a probable pathogen in pure culture and/or clinically determined by ID specialist evaluation), and the average LOS also were collected. For laboratory stewardship data, a retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the total number of blood cultures obtained within 24 hours of admission per month during the study period. Both IL-6 levels and Legionella sputum culture data were collected as the total number of laboratory orders per month, as it was assumed that most of these orders were obtained for patients admitted with COVID-19.

Individual patient-level data were extracted to calculate monthly percentages of ID consultations for COVID-19 by the hospitalist team, adherence to institutional guidelines for dexamethasone and remdesivir prescriptions, and empiric antibiotic prescriptions for patients with COVID-19, including use of a priori adjudication criteria to determine justified vs unjustified empiric use. These criteria included asymmetric chest X-ray infiltrates concerning for bacterial pneumonia; peripheral white blood cell count > 11 K/μL; critical respiratory failure in the emergency department (ED) and being transferred to the ICU; and ID consultation recommended. Because the total number of antibiotics was not being analyzed but rather just the use of antibiotics for the justified and unjustified groups, antibiotic days were reported as the length of therapy (LOT).¹⁰ A subset analysis was performed on antibiotic prescriptions by the hospitalist group focusing on those with mild-to-moderate oxygen requirements (no high flow, noninvasive or invasive ventilatory methods) and excluding infections with a proven microbiologic entity.

Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, were assessed using ANOVA, χ², and Kruskal-Wallis test. χ² was used to compare the difference in total laboratory orders for routine blood cultures, IL-6 levels, and Legionella sputum cultures between pre-intervention (October to December 2020) and postintervention (January to March 2021). These pre- and postintervention periods were determined based on the timing of revised admission orders in the EHR and initiation of focused educational sessions starting in late December 2020 and early January 2021. Linear regressions were used to examine the possible 6-month trend of the percentage of patients receiving ID consultation for appropriate dexamethasone prescriptions, appropriate remdesivir prescriptions, appropriate antibiotic coadministration, and mean number of antibiotic days per patient. Linear and logistic regression were also used to assess the trend in LOS over the 6 months while adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, sex, and coinfections. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

From October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, there were 565 admissions for COVID-19, which peaked in January 2021 with 163. Analysis of the patient characteristics showed no statistically significant difference for age, sex, oxygen requirements during admission, or proven presence of coinfection between the months of interest (Table 1).

The number of blood cultures obtained in the first 24 hours of admission significantly decreased from 58.1% of admissions in October 2020 to 34.8% of admissions in March 2021 (P < .01) (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

As the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, the ability to enact up-to-date guidance is crucial to streamlining patient care, improving time to COVID-19–specific therapies, and minimizing the burden on subspecialty consultation services. At DVAMC, we initiated a targeted and deliberate educational effort directed toward hospitalist and ED groups combined with a laboratory stewardship effort over 6 months to improve the implementation of COVID-19 therapeutics, reduce empiric antibiotic use without reliance on ID consultation services, and reduce the number of unnecessary laboratory orders for admitted patients with COVID-19. During this time, we observed modest but statistically significant improvements in the accuracy of dexamethasone and remdesivir prescribing. In addition, we observed statistically significant improvement in the average LOT per patient regarding antibiotic use and overall decreased LOS. These improvements were seen in parallel with decreasing requests for ID consultation, suggesting that they were attributable in part to increasing self-confidence and efficacy in COVID-19 practices by the hospitalist group. Modification of the COVID-19 admission order set for our facility resulted in substantial decreases in orders for blood cultures, IL-6 levels, and sputum cultures for Legionella.

ID consultation, either in person or remotely, has been instrumental in assisting physicians in COVID-19 management and has been shown to reduce morbidity, mortality, and patient LOS in other infections.^11,12 However, in scenarios where ID consultation is not available or in limited supply, accessibility, familiarity, and confidence of primary practitioners to use therapeutic guidance material are integral. Frequent and accessible guidance for the management of COVID-19 has been provided by the National Institutes of Health and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.^13,14 Other mechanisms of assisting physicians in both test ordering and therapeutics include clinical decision support tools built into the EHR and the use of a smartphone digital application.¹⁵ Guidance needs to be adapted to the context of the facility, including available resources and specific restrictions and/or prohibitions on therapeutics (eg, mandatory ID consultation or approval). In our facility, while COVID-19 therapeutic living guidance documents were maintained and accessible through the intranet, proactive dissemination and redirection were important steps in enabling the use of these documents.

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations to this study. Most important, the correlations we observed do not represent causation. Our analysis was not designed to ascertain the direct impact of any single or combined educational and laboratory stewardship intervention from this study, and we acknowledge that the improvements in part could be related to increased experience and confidence with COVID-19 management that occurred over time independent of our programs. Furthermore, we acknowledge that several areas of COVID-19 management did not improve over time (such as overall empiric antibiotic use from the ED) or had very modest improvements (hospitalist-initiated remdesivir use). These results underscore the complex dynamics and contextual barriers to rapidly implementing guideline-based care at VANTHCS. Potential factors include insufficient reach to all physicians, variable learner motivation, and therapeutic momentum of antibiotic use carried forward from the ED.^16,17 These factors should be considered as grounds for further study. Another limitation was the inability to track viewership and engagement of our COVID-19 guidance document. Without the use metrics, it is difficult to know the individual impact of the document regarding the changing trends in COVID-19 management we observed during the study period.

Conclusions

We report improvements in COVID-19 therapeutic prescriptions and the use of antibiotics and laboratory testing over 6 months at the DVAMC. This was correlated with a deliberate COVID-19 educational initiative that included antibiotic and laboratory stewardship interventions with simultaneous decreased reliance on ID consultation. These efforts lend support to the proof of the principle of combined educational and laboratory stewardship interventions to improve the care of COVID-19 patients, especially where ID support may not be available or is accessed remotely.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care professionals (HCPs), including emergency medicine physicians and hospitalists, have been continuously challenged to maintain an up-to-date clinical practice on COVID-19 therapeutics as new evidence emerged.^1,2 In the early part of the pandemic, these included not only appropriate and time-sensitive prescriptions of COVID-19 therapeutics, such as remdesivir and dexamethasone, but also judicious use of empiric antibiotics given the low prevalence for bacterial coinfection in early disease.^3-6 Alongside this, curbing the excessive laboratory testing of these patients during the pandemic was important not only to minimize costs but also to reduce potential iatrogenic harm and extended length of stay (LOS).⁷

At the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) Dallas VA Medical Center (DVAMC), we attempted to provide therapeutic guidance for physicians primarily through direct infectious disease (ID) consultation (in-person or electronic).⁸ This was secondarily supported by a pharmacist and ID physician–curated “living guidance” document on COVID-19 care accessible to all physicians through the DVAMC electronic health record (EHR) and intranet.

As the alpha variant (lineage B.1.1.7) of COVID-19 began spreading throughout North Texas in the winter of 2020, we implemented a targeted educational intervention toward the hospitalist group taking care of patients with COVID-19 with the primary goal of improving the accuracy of COVID-19 therapeutics while minimizing the consultative burden on ID clinical and pharmacy staff. This initiative consisted of (1) proactive guideline dissemination through email and text messages; (2) virtual didactics; and (3) physician reminders during the consultation process. Our ultimate aims were to improve hospitalist-led appropriate prescriptions of remdesivir and dexamethasone, reducing empiric antibiotic days of therapy in patients with COVID-19 at low risk of bacterial coinfection, and reducing laboratory orders that were not indicated for the management of these patients. Following this intervention and the resolution of the second wave, we retrospectively assessed the temporal trends of COVID-19 practices by hospitalists and associated patterns of ID consultation in the DVAMC from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

METHODS

The educational intervention was carried out at the DVAMC, a 1A high complex facility with more than 200 inpatient beds and part of the VANTHCS. During the study period, patients admitted with COVID-19 were located either on a closed floor (managed by the hospitalist team) or in a closed intensive care unit (ICU) (managed by the pulmonary/critical care team) contingent on the level of care or oxygen supplementation required. ID and other subspecialties provided consultation services as requested by hospitalists or ICU teams either electronically or in person. During the study period, 66 hospitalists were involved in the care of the patients: 59 (89.5%) permanent staff, 4 (6.0%) fee-basis physicians, and 3 (4.5%) moonlighting fellows.

Educational Initiative

We delivered educational sessions to the hospitalists, using collaboration software with video meeting capability every 1 to 2 months beginning in December 2020. An additional session focused on reducing empiric antibiotic prescriptions was also delivered to the emergency medicine department, based on feedback from the hospitalist group. The content for the educational sessions came from informal surveys of both ID trainees assigned to the consultation service and hospitalists, covering the following topics: understanding the stages of COVID-19 illness (virologic replication vs inflammatory) and rationales for therapy; assessing disease severity; indications and use of remdesivir; indications and use of dexamethasone; assessing for bacterial coinfections; when an ID consultation is required; management algorithm for COVID-19; and locating guidelines on the intranet. About 15 to 20 physicians participated in each session. In addition, slides of these didactics and updated institutional COVID-19 guidelines were disseminated to the hospitalist group via email and text messaging. We also linked the intranet institution guidelines in our communication, including a revised user-friendly flowchart (eAppendix).

Laboratory Stewardship Initiative

Laboratory stewardship initiatives were implemented by modifying suggested orders on the admission of patients with COVID-19 and directly educating hospitalist and emergency medicine physicians on evidence-based laboratory orders. At the beginning of the pandemic, a broad admission order set was established at DVAMC, based on the then limited knowledge of the course of infection with COVID-19. This order set allowed the admitting physicians to efficiently order laboratory tests for patients, especially during the demanding increase in patient volume experienced by DVAMC.

As new evidence emerged during the pandemic, many of the laboratory orders were reviewed for clinical utility during care for the patient with COVID-19 per the latest guidance. In December 2020, the admission orders for patients with COVID-19 were revised to reflect better laboratory stewardship to reduce cost and harm. The ID section revised the laboratory orders and disseminated the new order set to admitting physicians. Specifically, the admission order set removed the following laboratory tests available for selection: routine blood cultures, interleukin 6 (IL-6) level, and Legionella sputum culture. These laboratory orders were removed based on the lack of supporting evidence in persons admitted with COVID-19.⁹ In addition to modification of the admission order set, educational sessions were held with hospitalists to disseminate knowledge of the new changes and address any concerns.

Observations of Care

This study was approved by the VANTHCS Institutional Review Board (protocol code 20-047). Records were retrospectively reviewed for patients admitted to DVAMC for COVID-19 under hospitalist care (patients admitted directly to the ICU were excluded) from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities were collected from the EHR. In addition clinical measures such as maximum oxygen requirement during admission (none, nasal cannula of 2-4 L/min, high flow/bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP] or mechanical ventilation), proven presence of coinfection (defined as the isolation of a probable pathogen in pure culture and/or clinically determined by ID specialist evaluation), and the average LOS also were collected. For laboratory stewardship data, a retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the total number of blood cultures obtained within 24 hours of admission per month during the study period. Both IL-6 levels and Legionella sputum culture data were collected as the total number of laboratory orders per month, as it was assumed that most of these orders were obtained for patients admitted with COVID-19.

Individual patient-level data were extracted to calculate monthly percentages of ID consultations for COVID-19 by the hospitalist team, adherence to institutional guidelines for dexamethasone and remdesivir prescriptions, and empiric antibiotic prescriptions for patients with COVID-19, including use of a priori adjudication criteria to determine justified vs unjustified empiric use. These criteria included asymmetric chest X-ray infiltrates concerning for bacterial pneumonia; peripheral white blood cell count > 11 K/μL; critical respiratory failure in the emergency department (ED) and being transferred to the ICU; and ID consultation recommended. Because the total number of antibiotics was not being analyzed but rather just the use of antibiotics for the justified and unjustified groups, antibiotic days were reported as the length of therapy (LOT).¹⁰ A subset analysis was performed on antibiotic prescriptions by the hospitalist group focusing on those with mild-to-moderate oxygen requirements (no high flow, noninvasive or invasive ventilatory methods) and excluding infections with a proven microbiologic entity.

Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, were assessed using ANOVA, χ², and Kruskal-Wallis test. χ² was used to compare the difference in total laboratory orders for routine blood cultures, IL-6 levels, and Legionella sputum cultures between pre-intervention (October to December 2020) and postintervention (January to March 2021). These pre- and postintervention periods were determined based on the timing of revised admission orders in the EHR and initiation of focused educational sessions starting in late December 2020 and early January 2021. Linear regressions were used to examine the possible 6-month trend of the percentage of patients receiving ID consultation for appropriate dexamethasone prescriptions, appropriate remdesivir prescriptions, appropriate antibiotic coadministration, and mean number of antibiotic days per patient. Linear and logistic regression were also used to assess the trend in LOS over the 6 months while adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, sex, and coinfections. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

From October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, there were 565 admissions for COVID-19, which peaked in January 2021 with 163. Analysis of the patient characteristics showed no statistically significant difference for age, sex, oxygen requirements during admission, or proven presence of coinfection between the months of interest (Table 1).

The number of blood cultures obtained in the first 24 hours of admission significantly decreased from 58.1% of admissions in October 2020 to 34.8% of admissions in March 2021 (P < .01) (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

As the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, the ability to enact up-to-date guidance is crucial to streamlining patient care, improving time to COVID-19–specific therapies, and minimizing the burden on subspecialty consultation services. At DVAMC, we initiated a targeted and deliberate educational effort directed toward hospitalist and ED groups combined with a laboratory stewardship effort over 6 months to improve the implementation of COVID-19 therapeutics, reduce empiric antibiotic use without reliance on ID consultation services, and reduce the number of unnecessary laboratory orders for admitted patients with COVID-19. During this time, we observed modest but statistically significant improvements in the accuracy of dexamethasone and remdesivir prescribing. In addition, we observed statistically significant improvement in the average LOT per patient regarding antibiotic use and overall decreased LOS. These improvements were seen in parallel with decreasing requests for ID consultation, suggesting that they were attributable in part to increasing self-confidence and efficacy in COVID-19 practices by the hospitalist group. Modification of the COVID-19 admission order set for our facility resulted in substantial decreases in orders for blood cultures, IL-6 levels, and sputum cultures for Legionella.

ID consultation, either in person or remotely, has been instrumental in assisting physicians in COVID-19 management and has been shown to reduce morbidity, mortality, and patient LOS in other infections.^11,12 However, in scenarios where ID consultation is not available or in limited supply, accessibility, familiarity, and confidence of primary practitioners to use therapeutic guidance material are integral. Frequent and accessible guidance for the management of COVID-19 has been provided by the National Institutes of Health and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.^13,14 Other mechanisms of assisting physicians in both test ordering and therapeutics include clinical decision support tools built into the EHR and the use of a smartphone digital application.¹⁵ Guidance needs to be adapted to the context of the facility, including available resources and specific restrictions and/or prohibitions on therapeutics (eg, mandatory ID consultation or approval). In our facility, while COVID-19 therapeutic living guidance documents were maintained and accessible through the intranet, proactive dissemination and redirection were important steps in enabling the use of these documents.

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations to this study. Most important, the correlations we observed do not represent causation. Our analysis was not designed to ascertain the direct impact of any single or combined educational and laboratory stewardship intervention from this study, and we acknowledge that the improvements in part could be related to increased experience and confidence with COVID-19 management that occurred over time independent of our programs. Furthermore, we acknowledge that several areas of COVID-19 management did not improve over time (such as overall empiric antibiotic use from the ED) or had very modest improvements (hospitalist-initiated remdesivir use). These results underscore the complex dynamics and contextual barriers to rapidly implementing guideline-based care at VANTHCS. Potential factors include insufficient reach to all physicians, variable learner motivation, and therapeutic momentum of antibiotic use carried forward from the ED.^16,17 These factors should be considered as grounds for further study. Another limitation was the inability to track viewership and engagement of our COVID-19 guidance document. Without the use metrics, it is difficult to know the individual impact of the document regarding the changing trends in COVID-19 management we observed during the study period.

Conclusions

We report improvements in COVID-19 therapeutic prescriptions and the use of antibiotics and laboratory testing over 6 months at the DVAMC. This was correlated with a deliberate COVID-19 educational initiative that included antibiotic and laboratory stewardship interventions with simultaneous decreased reliance on ID consultation. These efforts lend support to the proof of the principle of combined educational and laboratory stewardship interventions to improve the care of COVID-19 patients, especially where ID support may not be available or is accessed remotely.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care professionals (HCPs), including emergency medicine physicians and hospitalists, have been continuously challenged to maintain an up-to-date clinical practice on COVID-19 therapeutics as new evidence emerged.^1,2 In the early part of the pandemic, these included not only appropriate and time-sensitive prescriptions of COVID-19 therapeutics, such as remdesivir and dexamethasone, but also judicious use of empiric antibiotics given the low prevalence for bacterial coinfection in early disease.^3-6 Alongside this, curbing the excessive laboratory testing of these patients during the pandemic was important not only to minimize costs but also to reduce potential iatrogenic harm and extended length of stay (LOS).⁷

At the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) Dallas VA Medical Center (DVAMC), we attempted to provide therapeutic guidance for physicians primarily through direct infectious disease (ID) consultation (in-person or electronic).⁸ This was secondarily supported by a pharmacist and ID physician–curated “living guidance” document on COVID-19 care accessible to all physicians through the DVAMC electronic health record (EHR) and intranet.

As the alpha variant (lineage B.1.1.7) of COVID-19 began spreading throughout North Texas in the winter of 2020, we implemented a targeted educational intervention toward the hospitalist group taking care of patients with COVID-19 with the primary goal of improving the accuracy of COVID-19 therapeutics while minimizing the consultative burden on ID clinical and pharmacy staff. This initiative consisted of (1) proactive guideline dissemination through email and text messages; (2) virtual didactics; and (3) physician reminders during the consultation process. Our ultimate aims were to improve hospitalist-led appropriate prescriptions of remdesivir and dexamethasone, reducing empiric antibiotic days of therapy in patients with COVID-19 at low risk of bacterial coinfection, and reducing laboratory orders that were not indicated for the management of these patients. Following this intervention and the resolution of the second wave, we retrospectively assessed the temporal trends of COVID-19 practices by hospitalists and associated patterns of ID consultation in the DVAMC from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021.

METHODS

The educational intervention was carried out at the DVAMC, a 1A high complex facility with more than 200 inpatient beds and part of the VANTHCS. During the study period, patients admitted with COVID-19 were located either on a closed floor (managed by the hospitalist team) or in a closed intensive care unit (ICU) (managed by the pulmonary/critical care team) contingent on the level of care or oxygen supplementation required. ID and other subspecialties provided consultation services as requested by hospitalists or ICU teams either electronically or in person. During the study period, 66 hospitalists were involved in the care of the patients: 59 (89.5%) permanent staff, 4 (6.0%) fee-basis physicians, and 3 (4.5%) moonlighting fellows.

Educational Initiative

We delivered educational sessions to the hospitalists, using collaboration software with video meeting capability every 1 to 2 months beginning in December 2020. An additional session focused on reducing empiric antibiotic prescriptions was also delivered to the emergency medicine department, based on feedback from the hospitalist group. The content for the educational sessions came from informal surveys of both ID trainees assigned to the consultation service and hospitalists, covering the following topics: understanding the stages of COVID-19 illness (virologic replication vs inflammatory) and rationales for therapy; assessing disease severity; indications and use of remdesivir; indications and use of dexamethasone; assessing for bacterial coinfections; when an ID consultation is required; management algorithm for COVID-19; and locating guidelines on the intranet. About 15 to 20 physicians participated in each session. In addition, slides of these didactics and updated institutional COVID-19 guidelines were disseminated to the hospitalist group via email and text messaging. We also linked the intranet institution guidelines in our communication, including a revised user-friendly flowchart (eAppendix).

Laboratory Stewardship Initiative

Laboratory stewardship initiatives were implemented by modifying suggested orders on the admission of patients with COVID-19 and directly educating hospitalist and emergency medicine physicians on evidence-based laboratory orders. At the beginning of the pandemic, a broad admission order set was established at DVAMC, based on the then limited knowledge of the course of infection with COVID-19. This order set allowed the admitting physicians to efficiently order laboratory tests for patients, especially during the demanding increase in patient volume experienced by DVAMC.

As new evidence emerged during the pandemic, many of the laboratory orders were reviewed for clinical utility during care for the patient with COVID-19 per the latest guidance. In December 2020, the admission orders for patients with COVID-19 were revised to reflect better laboratory stewardship to reduce cost and harm. The ID section revised the laboratory orders and disseminated the new order set to admitting physicians. Specifically, the admission order set removed the following laboratory tests available for selection: routine blood cultures, interleukin 6 (IL-6) level, and Legionella sputum culture. These laboratory orders were removed based on the lack of supporting evidence in persons admitted with COVID-19.⁹ In addition to modification of the admission order set, educational sessions were held with hospitalists to disseminate knowledge of the new changes and address any concerns.

Observations of Care

This study was approved by the VANTHCS Institutional Review Board (protocol code 20-047). Records were retrospectively reviewed for patients admitted to DVAMC for COVID-19 under hospitalist care (patients admitted directly to the ICU were excluded) from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. Age, sex, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities were collected from the EHR. In addition clinical measures such as maximum oxygen requirement during admission (none, nasal cannula of 2-4 L/min, high flow/bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP] or mechanical ventilation), proven presence of coinfection (defined as the isolation of a probable pathogen in pure culture and/or clinically determined by ID specialist evaluation), and the average LOS also were collected. For laboratory stewardship data, a retrospective chart review was conducted to determine the total number of blood cultures obtained within 24 hours of admission per month during the study period. Both IL-6 levels and Legionella sputum culture data were collected as the total number of laboratory orders per month, as it was assumed that most of these orders were obtained for patients admitted with COVID-19.

Individual patient-level data were extracted to calculate monthly percentages of ID consultations for COVID-19 by the hospitalist team, adherence to institutional guidelines for dexamethasone and remdesivir prescriptions, and empiric antibiotic prescriptions for patients with COVID-19, including use of a priori adjudication criteria to determine justified vs unjustified empiric use. These criteria included asymmetric chest X-ray infiltrates concerning for bacterial pneumonia; peripheral white blood cell count > 11 K/μL; critical respiratory failure in the emergency department (ED) and being transferred to the ICU; and ID consultation recommended. Because the total number of antibiotics was not being analyzed but rather just the use of antibiotics for the justified and unjustified groups, antibiotic days were reported as the length of therapy (LOT).¹⁰ A subset analysis was performed on antibiotic prescriptions by the hospitalist group focusing on those with mild-to-moderate oxygen requirements (no high flow, noninvasive or invasive ventilatory methods) and excluding infections with a proven microbiologic entity.

Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 admitted from October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, were assessed using ANOVA, χ², and Kruskal-Wallis test. χ² was used to compare the difference in total laboratory orders for routine blood cultures, IL-6 levels, and Legionella sputum cultures between pre-intervention (October to December 2020) and postintervention (January to March 2021). These pre- and postintervention periods were determined based on the timing of revised admission orders in the EHR and initiation of focused educational sessions starting in late December 2020 and early January 2021. Linear regressions were used to examine the possible 6-month trend of the percentage of patients receiving ID consultation for appropriate dexamethasone prescriptions, appropriate remdesivir prescriptions, appropriate antibiotic coadministration, and mean number of antibiotic days per patient. Linear and logistic regression were also used to assess the trend in LOS over the 6 months while adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, sex, and coinfections. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

From October 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, there were 565 admissions for COVID-19, which peaked in January 2021 with 163. Analysis of the patient characteristics showed no statistically significant difference for age, sex, oxygen requirements during admission, or proven presence of coinfection between the months of interest (Table 1).

The number of blood cultures obtained in the first 24 hours of admission significantly decreased from 58.1% of admissions in October 2020 to 34.8% of admissions in March 2021 (P < .01) (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

As the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, the ability to enact up-to-date guidance is crucial to streamlining patient care, improving time to COVID-19–specific therapies, and minimizing the burden on subspecialty consultation services. At DVAMC, we initiated a targeted and deliberate educational effort directed toward hospitalist and ED groups combined with a laboratory stewardship effort over 6 months to improve the implementation of COVID-19 therapeutics, reduce empiric antibiotic use without reliance on ID consultation services, and reduce the number of unnecessary laboratory orders for admitted patients with COVID-19. During this time, we observed modest but statistically significant improvements in the accuracy of dexamethasone and remdesivir prescribing. In addition, we observed statistically significant improvement in the average LOT per patient regarding antibiotic use and overall decreased LOS. These improvements were seen in parallel with decreasing requests for ID consultation, suggesting that they were attributable in part to increasing self-confidence and efficacy in COVID-19 practices by the hospitalist group. Modification of the COVID-19 admission order set for our facility resulted in substantial decreases in orders for blood cultures, IL-6 levels, and sputum cultures for Legionella.

ID consultation, either in person or remotely, has been instrumental in assisting physicians in COVID-19 management and has been shown to reduce morbidity, mortality, and patient LOS in other infections.^11,12 However, in scenarios where ID consultation is not available or in limited supply, accessibility, familiarity, and confidence of primary practitioners to use therapeutic guidance material are integral. Frequent and accessible guidance for the management of COVID-19 has been provided by the National Institutes of Health and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.^13,14 Other mechanisms of assisting physicians in both test ordering and therapeutics include clinical decision support tools built into the EHR and the use of a smartphone digital application.¹⁵ Guidance needs to be adapted to the context of the facility, including available resources and specific restrictions and/or prohibitions on therapeutics (eg, mandatory ID consultation or approval). In our facility, while COVID-19 therapeutic living guidance documents were maintained and accessible through the intranet, proactive dissemination and redirection were important steps in enabling the use of these documents.

Limitations

We acknowledge several limitations to this study. Most important, the correlations we observed do not represent causation. Our analysis was not designed to ascertain the direct impact of any single or combined educational and laboratory stewardship intervention from this study, and we acknowledge that the improvements in part could be related to increased experience and confidence with COVID-19 management that occurred over time independent of our programs. Furthermore, we acknowledge that several areas of COVID-19 management did not improve over time (such as overall empiric antibiotic use from the ED) or had very modest improvements (hospitalist-initiated remdesivir use). These results underscore the complex dynamics and contextual barriers to rapidly implementing guideline-based care at VANTHCS. Potential factors include insufficient reach to all physicians, variable learner motivation, and therapeutic momentum of antibiotic use carried forward from the ED.^16,17 These factors should be considered as grounds for further study. Another limitation was the inability to track viewership and engagement of our COVID-19 guidance document. Without the use metrics, it is difficult to know the individual impact of the document regarding the changing trends in COVID-19 management we observed during the study period.

Conclusions

We report improvements in COVID-19 therapeutic prescriptions and the use of antibiotics and laboratory testing over 6 months at the DVAMC. This was correlated with a deliberate COVID-19 educational initiative that included antibiotic and laboratory stewardship interventions with simultaneous decreased reliance on ID consultation. These efforts lend support to the proof of the principle of combined educational and laboratory stewardship interventions to improve the care of COVID-19 patients, especially where ID support may not be available or is accessed remotely.

Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.^1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.^3,4

Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.^5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).

Step 1: Prerequisites

A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.

Goal Alignment

Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.

Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.⁹ Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.¹⁰ Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.

Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.

Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.^11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.^15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.

Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.^18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.²¹ The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.

Step 2: Feasibility

A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).

Clinical Considerations

Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.

Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.

Infrastructure

Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.²² The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.

Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.²³ Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.²⁴ Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.

Clinicians

Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.²⁵ Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.²³ Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.

Financial Considerations

The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.

Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.

Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.

Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.

Step 3: proposal

There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.²⁵ Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.

Approval Process

Postapproval Process

Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.

Conclusions

Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.

Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.^1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.^3,4

Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.^5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).

Step 1: Prerequisites

A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.

Goal Alignment

Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.

Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.⁹ Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.¹⁰ Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.

Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.

Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.^11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.^15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.

Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.^18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.²¹ The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.

Step 2: Feasibility

A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).

Clinical Considerations

Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.

Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.

Infrastructure

Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.²² The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.

Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.²³ Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.²⁴ Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.

Clinicians

Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.²⁵ Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.²³ Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.

Financial Considerations

The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.

Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.

Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.

Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.

Step 3: proposal

There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.²⁵ Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.

Approval Process

Postapproval Process

Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.

Conclusions

Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.

Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.^1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.^3,4

Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.^5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).

Step 1: Prerequisites

A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.

Goal Alignment

Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.

Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.⁹ Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.¹⁰ Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.

Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.

Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.^11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.^15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.

Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.^18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.²¹ The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.

Step 2: Feasibility

A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).

Clinical Considerations

Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.

Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.

Infrastructure

Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.²² The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.

Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.²³ Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.²⁴ Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.

Clinicians

Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.²⁵ Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.²³ Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.

Financial Considerations

The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.

Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.

Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.

Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.

Step 3: proposal

There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.²⁵ Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.

Approval Process

Postapproval Process

Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.

Conclusions

Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.

Educating the next generation of health professionals is 1 of 4 congressionally mandated statutory missions of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹ Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of veterans accessing VA health care was increasing, and those veterans are older and more medically complex than those who seek care outside the VA.² Almost half of medical residents reported a decline in the quality of their clinical education since the institution of the 2011 duty hours regulations, and in the past decade, more attention has been paid to the need for structured faculty development programs that focus on clinicians’ roles as medical educators.^3-6 Hospitalists in particular shoulder a large portion of inpatient medicine education.⁷ As a result, hospitalists have adapted known frameworks for medical education to their unique clinical setting and developed novel frameworks to meet the needs of their learners.^8,9

Access to technology and social media have shaped the educational experience of young learners who are accustomed to quick answers and the rapidity of change.¹⁰ The clinical teaching landscape changed again with COVID-19, requiring at least temporary abandonment of traditional in-person teaching methods, which upended well-established educational norms.^11,12 In this evolving field, even seasoned preceptors may feel ill-equipped to manage the nuances of modern clinical education and may struggle to recognize which teaching skills are most critical.^13,14 Baseline core teaching competencies for medical educators have been previously described and are separate from clinical competencies; however, to our knowledge, no needs assessment has previously been performed specifically for VA hospitalist clinician educators.¹⁵

Between May and June of 2020, we distributed an online needs assessment to academic VA hospitalists to identify perceived barriers to effective clinical education and preferred strategies to overcome them. We received 71 responses from 140 hospitalists (50% response rate) on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) academic hospitalist listserv. Of respondents, 59 (83%) reported teaching health professions trainees every year. VA hospitalists reported educating a diverse group of interprofessional learners, including medical residents and students, physician assistant students, nursing students, pharmacy residents and students, and podiatry students.

Only 14 respondents (20%) were aware of faculty development training available to them through their VA facility, while 53 (75%) were aware of similar resources through academic affiliates or other outside sources. More than 95% of respondents (n = 68) reported interest in receiving VA-specific faculty development to improve skills as clinician educators. The most preferred forms of delivery were in-person or virtual real-time workshops. VA hospitalists reported the least confidence in their ability to support struggling learners, balance supervision and autonomy, and develop individualized learning plans (Table 1).

Teaching the Teacher

Teaching the Teacher began at a single VA institution as a series of in-person, discussion-based faculty development workshops. The series met a local need for collaborative professional development in clinical education for hospitalists and specialists who round with health professions learners on the inpatient wards. Both novice and experienced clinicians participated in the series with positive feedback. Based on the results of the national needs assessment, the program has since expanded to other sites with support from the VHA Hospital Medicine Program Office. The project’s overarching goal was to facilitate sharing of best practices across VA sites and create a network of local and national VA educators that participants could continue to access even after course completion.

Teaching the Teacher is structured into 5 facilitated hour-long sessions that can be completed either daily for 1 week or weekly for 1 month at the discretion of each institution. Each session is dedicated to a subject identified on the needs assessment as being highest yield. The hospitalist needs assessment also identified the preference for targeted faculty development that is relevant specifically to VA clinicians. To meet this need, Teaching the Teacher delivers its content through the unique lens of VA medicine. The educational mission of the VA is threaded throughout all presentations, and tips to maximize teaching in the VA’s unique clinical environments are embedded into each hour. Examples include discussions on how to incorporate veteran patients into bedside teaching, handling challenging patient-practitioner interactions as they pertain to patients, and the use of VA resources to find and teach evidence-based medicine.Each session includes a set of learning objectives; within that framework, facilitators allow participants to guide the nuances of content based on their individual and institutional priorities. The pandemic continues to shape much of the course content, as both hospitalists and their trainees grapple with mental health challenges, decreased bedside teaching, and wide variations in baseline trainee competence due to different institutional responses to teaching during a pandemic.^12,16 Content is regularly updated to incorporate new literature and feedback from participants and prioritize active participation. Continuing medical education/continuing educational units credit is available through the VA for course completion.

In the first session on modern learners, participants discuss the current generation of health professions trainees, including how personality characteristics and COVID-19 have impacted their learning experiences, and strategies to improve our ability to teach them successfully (Table 2).

Program Impact

Ten academically affiliated VA hospital medicine sections across 6 states have participated in Teaching the Teacher and several more are scheduled at other sites. Of the 10, 5 completed the course in collaboration with another VA site. Ninety-seven clinicians completed < 1 session synchronously but given the asynchronous option, this number likely underestimates the total audience. Participants included physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Surveys were conducted before and after the program, with 58 participants completing the presurvey, 32 the postsurvey, and 27 completing both. Of the 32 postsurvey respondents, 31 (97%) would recommend the seminar to colleagues. The live, discussion-based format was the most valued aspect of the course structure, with engaging facilitators and course content also ranking highly. Just over half (n = 17) indicated specific behavioral changes they plan to enact after completing the series, such as connecting with and better understanding learners, prioritizing high-quality feedback more deliberately, and bringing medicine to the bedside. The most common critiques of the course were requests for more time for feedback skills.

Discussion

Teaching the Teacher is a VA-specific faculty development seminar for hospitalists. Participants who responded to a survey reported that it met their needs as VA clinician educators. This is the first published needs assessment of academic VA hospitalists in their roles as clinician educators and the first faculty development initiative to address those specific needs using a collaborative, multisite approach. Although this program is a pilot, the positive response it has received has set a precedent for increased development and growth.

Teaching the Teacher presents a novel approach with a condensed curriculum that is more convenient and accessible to VA clinicians than previous programs with similar goals. Hospitalists have busy and variable work schedules, and it can be difficult to find time to participate in a traditional faculty development program. While these programs are becoming more commonplace, they are often longitudinal and require a significant time and/or financial commitment from participants.¹⁸ In contrast, Teaching the Teacher is only 5 hours long, can be viewed either synchronously or asynchronously, and is no cost to participants. In the future, other specialties may similarly value an efficient faculty development curriculum, and participation from clinicians outside of hospital medicine could augment the richness of content.

Teaching the Teacher’s curriculum is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to spark conversation among colleagues. According to survey respondents, the most lauded aspect of this program was the facilitated, discussion-based structure, wherein participants are presented with common challenges and encouraged to share their experiences and solutions with colleagues. Of particular interest to the program’s mission of greater community building are the VA facilities that chose to complete the seminar with another hospitalist section from a different institution. Within this structure lies an opportunity for seasoned educators to informally mentor junior colleagues both within and across institutions, and foster connections among educators that continue beyond the completion of the series. We envision this program growing into an enduring professional development course that begins at onboarding and is revisited at regular intervals thereafter.

Another compelling aspect of this project is the interprofessional design, bringing physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants together. Health education, like clinical care, is shifting to a team approach.¹⁹ The curriculum addresses topics previously described as high priority for interprofessional faculty development, such as fostering healthy team leadership, motivating learners, and appraising evidence and online resources.²⁰ A pilot project in VA primary care facilities found that deliberate interprofessional education improved collaboration among health care professionals.²¹ Prior to Teaching the Teacher, no similar faculty development program provided interprofessional learning and collaboration for VA hospitalists.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to this preliminary study. Participation at each site was voluntary and did not always reach the full potential audience of hospitalist clinician educators. As one participant stated, future directions include doing “more to involve teachers who need to learn [these skills]. The ones who attended [from our institution] were already the best teachers.” In addition, despite the asynchronous option, lack of protected time for faculty development may be a limiting factor in participation. Support from institutional and national leadership would likely improve participation.

Measured endpoints to date consist primarily of participant satisfaction and do not yet capture objective changes in teaching. Data collection is ongoing to assess immediate and longitudinal changes in confidence and behaviors of attendees and how this might affect their health professions learners.

Last, our initial needs assessment only targeted academic hospitalists, and the needs of VA hospitalists in rural areas or at facilities without academic affiliation may be different. More research is needed to understand the diverse faculty that comprises both urban and rural VA sites, what their professional development needs are, and how those needs can be met.

Conclusions

Teaching the Teacher is a faculty development pilot, tailored to meet the needs of VA hospitalist clinician educators, that has been voluntarily adopted at multiple VA sites. The facilitated discussion format allows participants to guide the conversation and personalize content, thereby promoting a culture of discussing challenges and best practices among colleagues that we hope endures beyond the bounds of the curriculum. The program focuses on elevating the specific teaching mission of the VA and could be incorporated into onboarding and regular VA-sponsored faculty development updates. While Teaching the Teacher was originally developed for VA hospitalists, most of the content is applicable to clinicians outside hospital medicine. This project serves as a model for training clinical educators and has opportunities to expand across VA as a customizable didactic platform.

Acknowledgments

We thank Brian Schneider, MD, for his tireless support of this program, as well as all the VA clinicians who have shared their time, talents, and wisdom with us since this program’s inception.

Educating the next generation of health professionals is 1 of 4 congressionally mandated statutory missions of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹ Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of veterans accessing VA health care was increasing, and those veterans are older and more medically complex than those who seek care outside the VA.² Almost half of medical residents reported a decline in the quality of their clinical education since the institution of the 2011 duty hours regulations, and in the past decade, more attention has been paid to the need for structured faculty development programs that focus on clinicians’ roles as medical educators.^3-6 Hospitalists in particular shoulder a large portion of inpatient medicine education.⁷ As a result, hospitalists have adapted known frameworks for medical education to their unique clinical setting and developed novel frameworks to meet the needs of their learners.^8,9

Access to technology and social media have shaped the educational experience of young learners who are accustomed to quick answers and the rapidity of change.¹⁰ The clinical teaching landscape changed again with COVID-19, requiring at least temporary abandonment of traditional in-person teaching methods, which upended well-established educational norms.^11,12 In this evolving field, even seasoned preceptors may feel ill-equipped to manage the nuances of modern clinical education and may struggle to recognize which teaching skills are most critical.^13,14 Baseline core teaching competencies for medical educators have been previously described and are separate from clinical competencies; however, to our knowledge, no needs assessment has previously been performed specifically for VA hospitalist clinician educators.¹⁵

Between May and June of 2020, we distributed an online needs assessment to academic VA hospitalists to identify perceived barriers to effective clinical education and preferred strategies to overcome them. We received 71 responses from 140 hospitalists (50% response rate) on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) academic hospitalist listserv. Of respondents, 59 (83%) reported teaching health professions trainees every year. VA hospitalists reported educating a diverse group of interprofessional learners, including medical residents and students, physician assistant students, nursing students, pharmacy residents and students, and podiatry students.

Only 14 respondents (20%) were aware of faculty development training available to them through their VA facility, while 53 (75%) were aware of similar resources through academic affiliates or other outside sources. More than 95% of respondents (n = 68) reported interest in receiving VA-specific faculty development to improve skills as clinician educators. The most preferred forms of delivery were in-person or virtual real-time workshops. VA hospitalists reported the least confidence in their ability to support struggling learners, balance supervision and autonomy, and develop individualized learning plans (Table 1).

Teaching the Teacher

Teaching the Teacher began at a single VA institution as a series of in-person, discussion-based faculty development workshops. The series met a local need for collaborative professional development in clinical education for hospitalists and specialists who round with health professions learners on the inpatient wards. Both novice and experienced clinicians participated in the series with positive feedback. Based on the results of the national needs assessment, the program has since expanded to other sites with support from the VHA Hospital Medicine Program Office. The project’s overarching goal was to facilitate sharing of best practices across VA sites and create a network of local and national VA educators that participants could continue to access even after course completion.

Teaching the Teacher is structured into 5 facilitated hour-long sessions that can be completed either daily for 1 week or weekly for 1 month at the discretion of each institution. Each session is dedicated to a subject identified on the needs assessment as being highest yield. The hospitalist needs assessment also identified the preference for targeted faculty development that is relevant specifically to VA clinicians. To meet this need, Teaching the Teacher delivers its content through the unique lens of VA medicine. The educational mission of the VA is threaded throughout all presentations, and tips to maximize teaching in the VA’s unique clinical environments are embedded into each hour. Examples include discussions on how to incorporate veteran patients into bedside teaching, handling challenging patient-practitioner interactions as they pertain to patients, and the use of VA resources to find and teach evidence-based medicine.Each session includes a set of learning objectives; within that framework, facilitators allow participants to guide the nuances of content based on their individual and institutional priorities. The pandemic continues to shape much of the course content, as both hospitalists and their trainees grapple with mental health challenges, decreased bedside teaching, and wide variations in baseline trainee competence due to different institutional responses to teaching during a pandemic.^12,16 Content is regularly updated to incorporate new literature and feedback from participants and prioritize active participation. Continuing medical education/continuing educational units credit is available through the VA for course completion.

In the first session on modern learners, participants discuss the current generation of health professions trainees, including how personality characteristics and COVID-19 have impacted their learning experiences, and strategies to improve our ability to teach them successfully (Table 2).

Program Impact

Ten academically affiliated VA hospital medicine sections across 6 states have participated in Teaching the Teacher and several more are scheduled at other sites. Of the 10, 5 completed the course in collaboration with another VA site. Ninety-seven clinicians completed < 1 session synchronously but given the asynchronous option, this number likely underestimates the total audience. Participants included physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Surveys were conducted before and after the program, with 58 participants completing the presurvey, 32 the postsurvey, and 27 completing both. Of the 32 postsurvey respondents, 31 (97%) would recommend the seminar to colleagues. The live, discussion-based format was the most valued aspect of the course structure, with engaging facilitators and course content also ranking highly. Just over half (n = 17) indicated specific behavioral changes they plan to enact after completing the series, such as connecting with and better understanding learners, prioritizing high-quality feedback more deliberately, and bringing medicine to the bedside. The most common critiques of the course were requests for more time for feedback skills.

Discussion

Teaching the Teacher is a VA-specific faculty development seminar for hospitalists. Participants who responded to a survey reported that it met their needs as VA clinician educators. This is the first published needs assessment of academic VA hospitalists in their roles as clinician educators and the first faculty development initiative to address those specific needs using a collaborative, multisite approach. Although this program is a pilot, the positive response it has received has set a precedent for increased development and growth.

Teaching the Teacher presents a novel approach with a condensed curriculum that is more convenient and accessible to VA clinicians than previous programs with similar goals. Hospitalists have busy and variable work schedules, and it can be difficult to find time to participate in a traditional faculty development program. While these programs are becoming more commonplace, they are often longitudinal and require a significant time and/or financial commitment from participants.¹⁸ In contrast, Teaching the Teacher is only 5 hours long, can be viewed either synchronously or asynchronously, and is no cost to participants. In the future, other specialties may similarly value an efficient faculty development curriculum, and participation from clinicians outside of hospital medicine could augment the richness of content.

Teaching the Teacher’s curriculum is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to spark conversation among colleagues. According to survey respondents, the most lauded aspect of this program was the facilitated, discussion-based structure, wherein participants are presented with common challenges and encouraged to share their experiences and solutions with colleagues. Of particular interest to the program’s mission of greater community building are the VA facilities that chose to complete the seminar with another hospitalist section from a different institution. Within this structure lies an opportunity for seasoned educators to informally mentor junior colleagues both within and across institutions, and foster connections among educators that continue beyond the completion of the series. We envision this program growing into an enduring professional development course that begins at onboarding and is revisited at regular intervals thereafter.

Another compelling aspect of this project is the interprofessional design, bringing physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants together. Health education, like clinical care, is shifting to a team approach.¹⁹ The curriculum addresses topics previously described as high priority for interprofessional faculty development, such as fostering healthy team leadership, motivating learners, and appraising evidence and online resources.²⁰ A pilot project in VA primary care facilities found that deliberate interprofessional education improved collaboration among health care professionals.²¹ Prior to Teaching the Teacher, no similar faculty development program provided interprofessional learning and collaboration for VA hospitalists.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to this preliminary study. Participation at each site was voluntary and did not always reach the full potential audience of hospitalist clinician educators. As one participant stated, future directions include doing “more to involve teachers who need to learn [these skills]. The ones who attended [from our institution] were already the best teachers.” In addition, despite the asynchronous option, lack of protected time for faculty development may be a limiting factor in participation. Support from institutional and national leadership would likely improve participation.

Measured endpoints to date consist primarily of participant satisfaction and do not yet capture objective changes in teaching. Data collection is ongoing to assess immediate and longitudinal changes in confidence and behaviors of attendees and how this might affect their health professions learners.

Last, our initial needs assessment only targeted academic hospitalists, and the needs of VA hospitalists in rural areas or at facilities without academic affiliation may be different. More research is needed to understand the diverse faculty that comprises both urban and rural VA sites, what their professional development needs are, and how those needs can be met.

Conclusions

Teaching the Teacher is a faculty development pilot, tailored to meet the needs of VA hospitalist clinician educators, that has been voluntarily adopted at multiple VA sites. The facilitated discussion format allows participants to guide the conversation and personalize content, thereby promoting a culture of discussing challenges and best practices among colleagues that we hope endures beyond the bounds of the curriculum. The program focuses on elevating the specific teaching mission of the VA and could be incorporated into onboarding and regular VA-sponsored faculty development updates. While Teaching the Teacher was originally developed for VA hospitalists, most of the content is applicable to clinicians outside hospital medicine. This project serves as a model for training clinical educators and has opportunities to expand across VA as a customizable didactic platform.

Acknowledgments

We thank Brian Schneider, MD, for his tireless support of this program, as well as all the VA clinicians who have shared their time, talents, and wisdom with us since this program’s inception.

Educating the next generation of health professionals is 1 of 4 congressionally mandated statutory missions of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).¹ Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of veterans accessing VA health care was increasing, and those veterans are older and more medically complex than those who seek care outside the VA.² Almost half of medical residents reported a decline in the quality of their clinical education since the institution of the 2011 duty hours regulations, and in the past decade, more attention has been paid to the need for structured faculty development programs that focus on clinicians’ roles as medical educators.^3-6 Hospitalists in particular shoulder a large portion of inpatient medicine education.⁷ As a result, hospitalists have adapted known frameworks for medical education to their unique clinical setting and developed novel frameworks to meet the needs of their learners.^8,9

Access to technology and social media have shaped the educational experience of young learners who are accustomed to quick answers and the rapidity of change.¹⁰ The clinical teaching landscape changed again with COVID-19, requiring at least temporary abandonment of traditional in-person teaching methods, which upended well-established educational norms.^11,12 In this evolving field, even seasoned preceptors may feel ill-equipped to manage the nuances of modern clinical education and may struggle to recognize which teaching skills are most critical.^13,14 Baseline core teaching competencies for medical educators have been previously described and are separate from clinical competencies; however, to our knowledge, no needs assessment has previously been performed specifically for VA hospitalist clinician educators.¹⁵

Between May and June of 2020, we distributed an online needs assessment to academic VA hospitalists to identify perceived barriers to effective clinical education and preferred strategies to overcome them. We received 71 responses from 140 hospitalists (50% response rate) on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) academic hospitalist listserv. Of respondents, 59 (83%) reported teaching health professions trainees every year. VA hospitalists reported educating a diverse group of interprofessional learners, including medical residents and students, physician assistant students, nursing students, pharmacy residents and students, and podiatry students.

Only 14 respondents (20%) were aware of faculty development training available to them through their VA facility, while 53 (75%) were aware of similar resources through academic affiliates or other outside sources. More than 95% of respondents (n = 68) reported interest in receiving VA-specific faculty development to improve skills as clinician educators. The most preferred forms of delivery were in-person or virtual real-time workshops. VA hospitalists reported the least confidence in their ability to support struggling learners, balance supervision and autonomy, and develop individualized learning plans (Table 1).

Teaching the Teacher

Teaching the Teacher began at a single VA institution as a series of in-person, discussion-based faculty development workshops. The series met a local need for collaborative professional development in clinical education for hospitalists and specialists who round with health professions learners on the inpatient wards. Both novice and experienced clinicians participated in the series with positive feedback. Based on the results of the national needs assessment, the program has since expanded to other sites with support from the VHA Hospital Medicine Program Office. The project’s overarching goal was to facilitate sharing of best practices across VA sites and create a network of local and national VA educators that participants could continue to access even after course completion.

Teaching the Teacher is structured into 5 facilitated hour-long sessions that can be completed either daily for 1 week or weekly for 1 month at the discretion of each institution. Each session is dedicated to a subject identified on the needs assessment as being highest yield. The hospitalist needs assessment also identified the preference for targeted faculty development that is relevant specifically to VA clinicians. To meet this need, Teaching the Teacher delivers its content through the unique lens of VA medicine. The educational mission of the VA is threaded throughout all presentations, and tips to maximize teaching in the VA’s unique clinical environments are embedded into each hour. Examples include discussions on how to incorporate veteran patients into bedside teaching, handling challenging patient-practitioner interactions as they pertain to patients, and the use of VA resources to find and teach evidence-based medicine.Each session includes a set of learning objectives; within that framework, facilitators allow participants to guide the nuances of content based on their individual and institutional priorities. The pandemic continues to shape much of the course content, as both hospitalists and their trainees grapple with mental health challenges, decreased bedside teaching, and wide variations in baseline trainee competence due to different institutional responses to teaching during a pandemic.^12,16 Content is regularly updated to incorporate new literature and feedback from participants and prioritize active participation. Continuing medical education/continuing educational units credit is available through the VA for course completion.

In the first session on modern learners, participants discuss the current generation of health professions trainees, including how personality characteristics and COVID-19 have impacted their learning experiences, and strategies to improve our ability to teach them successfully (Table 2).

Program Impact

Ten academically affiliated VA hospital medicine sections across 6 states have participated in Teaching the Teacher and several more are scheduled at other sites. Of the 10, 5 completed the course in collaboration with another VA site. Ninety-seven clinicians completed < 1 session synchronously but given the asynchronous option, this number likely underestimates the total audience. Participants included physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Surveys were conducted before and after the program, with 58 participants completing the presurvey, 32 the postsurvey, and 27 completing both. Of the 32 postsurvey respondents, 31 (97%) would recommend the seminar to colleagues. The live, discussion-based format was the most valued aspect of the course structure, with engaging facilitators and course content also ranking highly. Just over half (n = 17) indicated specific behavioral changes they plan to enact after completing the series, such as connecting with and better understanding learners, prioritizing high-quality feedback more deliberately, and bringing medicine to the bedside. The most common critiques of the course were requests for more time for feedback skills.

Discussion

Teaching the Teacher is a VA-specific faculty development seminar for hospitalists. Participants who responded to a survey reported that it met their needs as VA clinician educators. This is the first published needs assessment of academic VA hospitalists in their roles as clinician educators and the first faculty development initiative to address those specific needs using a collaborative, multisite approach. Although this program is a pilot, the positive response it has received has set a precedent for increased development and growth.

Teaching the Teacher presents a novel approach with a condensed curriculum that is more convenient and accessible to VA clinicians than previous programs with similar goals. Hospitalists have busy and variable work schedules, and it can be difficult to find time to participate in a traditional faculty development program. While these programs are becoming more commonplace, they are often longitudinal and require a significant time and/or financial commitment from participants.¹⁸ In contrast, Teaching the Teacher is only 5 hours long, can be viewed either synchronously or asynchronously, and is no cost to participants. In the future, other specialties may similarly value an efficient faculty development curriculum, and participation from clinicians outside of hospital medicine could augment the richness of content.

Teaching the Teacher’s curriculum is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to spark conversation among colleagues. According to survey respondents, the most lauded aspect of this program was the facilitated, discussion-based structure, wherein participants are presented with common challenges and encouraged to share their experiences and solutions with colleagues. Of particular interest to the program’s mission of greater community building are the VA facilities that chose to complete the seminar with another hospitalist section from a different institution. Within this structure lies an opportunity for seasoned educators to informally mentor junior colleagues both within and across institutions, and foster connections among educators that continue beyond the completion of the series. We envision this program growing into an enduring professional development course that begins at onboarding and is revisited at regular intervals thereafter.

Another compelling aspect of this project is the interprofessional design, bringing physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants together. Health education, like clinical care, is shifting to a team approach.¹⁹ The curriculum addresses topics previously described as high priority for interprofessional faculty development, such as fostering healthy team leadership, motivating learners, and appraising evidence and online resources.²⁰ A pilot project in VA primary care facilities found that deliberate interprofessional education improved collaboration among health care professionals.²¹ Prior to Teaching the Teacher, no similar faculty development program provided interprofessional learning and collaboration for VA hospitalists.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to this preliminary study. Participation at each site was voluntary and did not always reach the full potential audience of hospitalist clinician educators. As one participant stated, future directions include doing “more to involve teachers who need to learn [these skills]. The ones who attended [from our institution] were already the best teachers.” In addition, despite the asynchronous option, lack of protected time for faculty development may be a limiting factor in participation. Support from institutional and national leadership would likely improve participation.

Measured endpoints to date consist primarily of participant satisfaction and do not yet capture objective changes in teaching. Data collection is ongoing to assess immediate and longitudinal changes in confidence and behaviors of attendees and how this might affect their health professions learners.

Last, our initial needs assessment only targeted academic hospitalists, and the needs of VA hospitalists in rural areas or at facilities without academic affiliation may be different. More research is needed to understand the diverse faculty that comprises both urban and rural VA sites, what their professional development needs are, and how those needs can be met.

Conclusions

Teaching the Teacher is a faculty development pilot, tailored to meet the needs of VA hospitalist clinician educators, that has been voluntarily adopted at multiple VA sites. The facilitated discussion format allows participants to guide the conversation and personalize content, thereby promoting a culture of discussing challenges and best practices among colleagues that we hope endures beyond the bounds of the curriculum. The program focuses on elevating the specific teaching mission of the VA and could be incorporated into onboarding and regular VA-sponsored faculty development updates. While Teaching the Teacher was originally developed for VA hospitalists, most of the content is applicable to clinicians outside hospital medicine. This project serves as a model for training clinical educators and has opportunities to expand across VA as a customizable didactic platform.

Acknowledgments

We thank Brian Schneider, MD, for his tireless support of this program, as well as all the VA clinicians who have shared their time, talents, and wisdom with us since this program’s inception.

Veterans who interact with the criminal justice system (ie, justice-involved veterans) have heightened rates of mental health and psychosocial needs, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorder, depression, suicidal ideation and attempt, and homelessness.^1,2 Alongside these criminogenic risk factors, recidivism is common among justice-involved veterans: About 70% of incarcerated veterans disclosed at least one prior incarceration.³

To address the complex interplay of psychosocial factors, mental health concerns, and justice involvement among veterans, veterans treatment courts (VTCs) emerged as an alternative to incarceration.⁴ VTC participation often consists of integrated treatment and rehabilitative services (eg, vocational training, health care), ongoing monitoring for substance use, graduated responses to address treatment adherence, and ongoing communication with the judge and legal counsel.⁴

A primary aim of these courts is to address psychosocial needs believed to underlie criminal behavior, thus reducing risk of recidivism and promoting successful recovery and community integration for eligible veterans. To do so, VTCs collaborate with community-based and/or US Department of Veterans Affairs services, such as the Veterans Justice Outreach program (VJO). VJO specialists identify and refer justice-involved veterans to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and community care and serve as a liaison between VTC staff and VHA health care professionals (HCPs).⁵

VTC outcome studies highlight the importance of not only diverting veterans to problem-solving courts, but also ensuring their optimal participation. Successful graduates of VTC programs demonstrate significant improvements in mental health symptoms, life satisfaction, and social support, as well as lower rates of law enforcement interactions.^6,7 However, less is known about supporting those veterans who have difficulty engaging in VTCs and either discontinue participation or require lengthier periods of participation to meet court graduation requirements.⁸ One possibility to improve engagement among these veterans is to enhance court practices to best meet their needs.

In addition to delivering treatment, VHA mental health professionals may serve a critical interdisciplinary role by lending expertise to support VTC practices. For example, equipping court professionals with clinical knowledge and skills related to motivation may strengthen the staff’s interactions with participants, enabling them to address barriers as they arise and to facilitate veterans’ treatment adherence. Additionally, responsiveness to the impact of trauma exposure, which is common among this population, may prove important as related symptoms can affect veterans’ engagement, receptivity, and behavior in court settings. Indeed, prior examinations of justice-involved veterans have found trauma exposure rates ranging from 60% to 90% and PTSD rates ranging from 27% to 40%.^1,2 Notably, involvement with the justice system (eg, incarceration) may itself further increase risk of trauma exposure (eg, experiencing a physical or sexual assault in prison) or exacerbate existing PTSD.⁹ Nonetheless, whereas many drug courts and domestic violence courts have been established, problem-solving courts with a specialized focus on trauma exposure remain rare, suggesting a potential gap in court training.

VHA HCPs have the potential to facilitate justice-involved veterans’ successful court and treatment participation by coordinating with VJO specialists to provide training and consultation to the courts. Supporting efforts to effectively and responsively address criminogenic risk (eg, mental health) in VTC settings may in turn reduce the likelihood of recidivism.¹⁰ Given the elevated rates of trauma exposure among justice-involved veterans and the relative lack of trauma-focused VTCs, we developed a trauma-informed training for VTC professionals that centered on related clinical presentations of justice-involved veterans and frequently occurring challenges in the context of court participation.

Program Development

This educational program aimed to (1) provide psychoeducation on trauma exposure, PTSD, and existing evidence-based treatments; (2) present clinical considerations for justice-involved veterans related to trauma exposure and/or PTSD; and (3) introduce skills to facilitate effective communication and trauma-informed care practices among professionals working with veterans in a treatment court.

Prior to piloting the program, we conducted a needs assessment with VTC professionals and identified relevant theoretical constructs and brief interventions for inclusion in the training. Additionally, given the dearth of prior research on mental health education for VTCs, the team consulted with the developers of PTSD 101, a VHA workshop for veterans’ families that promotes psychoeducation, support, and effective communication.¹¹ Doing so informed approaches to delivering education to nonclinical audiences that interact with veterans with histories of trauma exposure. As this was a program development project, it was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review.

Needs Assessment

In the initial stages of development, local VJO specialists identified regional VTCs and facilitated introductions to these courts. Two of the 3 Rocky Mountain region VTCs that were contacted expressed interest in receiving trauma-informed training. Based on preliminary interest, the facilitators conducted a needs assessment with VJO and VTC staff from these 2 courts to capture requests for specific content and past experiences with other mental health trainings.

Guided by the focus group model, the needs assessments took place during three 1-hour meetings with VJO specialists and a 1-hour meeting with VJO specialists, VTC professionals, and community-based clinical partners.¹² Additionally, attending a VTC graduation and court session allowed for observations of court practices and interactions with veterans. A total of 13 professionals (judges, court coordinators, case managers, peer mentors, VJO specialists, and clinicians who specialize in substance use disorder and intimate partner violence) participated in the needs assessments.

The most critical need identified by court professionals was a focus on how to apply knowledge about trauma and PTSD to interactions with justice-involved veterans. This was reportedly absent from prior training sessions the courts had received. Both Rocky Mountain region VTCs expressed a strong interest in and openness to adapting practices based on research and practice recommendations. Additional requests that emerged included a refresher on psychoeducation related to trauma and how to address the personal impact of working with this population (eg, compassion fatigue).

Training Components

Based on the needs identified by VTC professionals and informed by consultation with the developers of PTSD 101,

Fostering court familiarity with cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure may bolster veteran engagement in treatment through regular reinforcement of skills and concepts introduced in therapy. This may prove particularly salient given the limited engagement with mental health treatment and elevated dropout rates from PTSD treatment among the general veteran population.^15,16

Exercises and metaphors were used to illustrate concepts in multiple ways. For example, training attendees engaged in a “stop, drop, and roll” thought exercise in which they were asked to brainstorm behavioral reactions to catching on fire. This exercise illustrated the tendency for individuals to revert to common yet unhelpful attempts at problem solving (eg, running due to panic, which would exacerbate the fire), particularly in crisis and without prior education regarding adaptive ways to respond. Attendee-generated examples, such as running, were used to demonstrate the importance of practicing and reinforcing skill development prior to a crisis, to ensure proficiency and optimal response. Additionally, in prompting consideration of one’s response tendencies, this exercise may engender empathy and understanding for veterans.

Skills training. Efforts to promote veteran engagement in court, facilitate motivation and readiness for change, and address barriers that arise (eg, distress associated with court appearances) may support successful and timely graduation. As such, skills training constituted the largest component of the training and drew from observations of court practices and the VTCs’ identified challenges. Consistent with the project’s aims and reported needs of the court, skills that target common presentations following trauma exposure (eg, avoidance, hypervigilance) were prioritized for this pilot training. Strategies included brief interventions from dialectical behavior therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and motivational interviewing to strengthen the support provided by staff to veterans and address their needs (Table 2).

Training attendees also participated in exercises to reiterate skills. For example, attendees completed an ambivalence matrix using an audience-identified common behavior that is difficult to change (eg, heavy alcohol use as a coping mechanism for distress).

Attendees engaged in an exercise that involved identifying unhelpful thoughts and behaviors, targets for validation, and veteran strengths from a hypothetical case vignette. This vignette involved a VTC participant who initially engaged effectively but began to demonstrate difficulty appropriately engaging in court and mental health treatment as well as challenging interactions with VTC staff (eg, raised voice during court sessions, not respecting communication boundaries).

Pilot Test

Based on scheduling parameters communicated by court coordinators, the pilot training was designed as a presentation during times reserved for court staffing meetings. To accommodate court preferences due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one 90-minute training was conducted virtually in March 2022, and the other training was conducted in person in April 2022 for 2 hours. The trainings were facilitated by 2 VHA clinical psychologists and included the judge, court coordinator, VJO specialist, peer mentors, case managers, probation/parole officers, and community-based HCPs who partner with the court (eg, social workers, psychologists). About 12 to 15 professionals attended each training session.

Feedback

Feedback was solicited from attendees via an anonymous online survey. Seven participants completed the survey; the response rate of about 20% was consistent with those observed for other surveys of court professionals.²⁰ Many attendees also provided feedback directly to the facilitators. Feedback highlighted that the skills-based components not only were perceived as most helpful but also notably distinguished this training. “What set this training apart from other training events was the practical applications,” one attendee noted. “It was not just information or education, both instructors did an incredible job of explaining exactly how we could apply the knowledge they were sharing. They did this in such a way that it was easy to understand and apply.”

Specific skills were consistently identified as helpful, including managing intense emotions, addressing ambivalence, and approaching sanctions and rewards. Additionally, employing a less formal approach to the training, with relatable overviews of concepts and immediate responsiveness to requests for expansion on a topic, was perceived as a unique benefit: Another attendee appreciated that “It was beneficial to sit around a table with a less formal presentation and be able to ask questions.” This approach seemed particularly well suited for the program’s cross-disciplinary audience. Attendees reported that they valued the relatively limited focus on DSM-5 criteria. Attendees emphasized that education specific to veterans on evidence-based PTSD treatments, psychoeducation, and avoidance was very helpful. Respondents also recommended that the training be lengthened to a daylong workshop to accommodate greater opportunity to practice skills and consultation.

The consultation portion of the training provided insight into additional areas of importance to incorporate into future iterations. Identified needs included appropriate and realistic boundary setting (eg, addressing disruptions in the courtroom), suggestions for improving and expanding homework assigned by the court, and ways to address concerns about PTSD treatment shared by veterans in court (eg, attributing substance use relapses to the intensiveness of trauma-focused treatment vs lack of familiarity with alternate coping skills). Additionally, the VTC professionals’ desire to support mental health professionals’ work with veterans was clearly evident, highlighting the bidirectional value of interdisciplinary collaboration between VHA mental health professionals and VTC professionals.

Discussion

A trauma-informed training was developed and delivered to 2 VTCs in the Rocky Mountain region with the goal of providing relevant psychoeducation and introducing skills to bolster court practices that address veteran needs. Psychoeducational components of the training that were particularly well received and prompted significant participant engagement included discussions and examples of avoidance, levels of validation, language to facilitate motivation and address barriers, mechanisms underlying treatment, and potential functions underlying limited veteran treatment engagement. Distress tolerance, approaches to sanctions and rewards, and use of ambivalence matrices to guide motivation were identified as particularly helpful skills.

The pilot phase of this trauma-informed training provided valuable insights into developing mental health trainings for VTCs. Specifically, VTCs may benefit from the expertise of VHA HCPs and are particularly interested in learning brief skills to improve their practices. The usefulness of such trainings may be bolstered by efforts to form relationships with the court to identify their perceived needs and employing an iterative process that is responsive to feedback both during and after the training. Last, each stage of this project was strengthened by collaboration with VJO specialists, highlighting the importance of future collaboration between VJO and VHA mental health clinics to further support justice-involved veterans. For example, VJO specialists were instrumental in identifying training needs related to veterans’ clinical presentations in court, facilitating introductions to local VTCs, and helping to address barriers to piloting, like scheduling.

Modifications and Future Directions

The insights gained through the process of training design, delivery, and feedback inform future development of this training. Based on the feedback received, subsequent versions of the training may be expanded into a half- or full-day workshop to allow for adequate time for skills training and feedback, as well as consultation. Doing so will enable facilitators to further foster attendees’ familiarity with and confidence in their ability to use these skills. Furthermore, the consultation portion of this training revealed areas that may benefit from greater attention, including how to address challenging interactions in court (eg, addressing gender dynamics between court professionals and participants) and better support veterans who are having difficulty engaging in mental health treatment (eg, courts’ observation of high rates of dropout around the third or fourth session of evidence-based treatment for PTSD). Last, all attendees who responded to the survey expressed interest in a brief resource guide based on the training, emphasizing the need for ready access to key skills and concepts to support the use of strategies learned.

An additional future aim of this project is to conduct a more thorough evaluation of the needs and outcomes related to this trauma-informed training for VTC professionals. With the rapid growth of VTCs nationwide, relatively little examination of court processes and practices has occurred, and there is a lack of research on the development or effectiveness of mental health trainings provided to VTCs.²¹ Therefore, we intend to conduct larger scale qualitative interviews with court personnel and VJO specialists to obtain a clearer understanding of the needs related to skills-based training and gaps in psychoeducation. These comprehensive needs assessments may also capture common comorbidities that were not incorporated into the pilot training (eg, substance use disorders) but may be important training targets for court professionals. This information will be used to inform subsequent expansion and adaptation of the training into a longer workshop. Program evaluation will be conducted via survey-based feedback on perceived usefulness of the workshop and self-report of confidence in and use of strategies to improve court practices. Furthermore, efforts to obtain veteran outcome data, such as treatment engagement and successful participation in VTC, may be pursued.

Limitations

This training development and pilot project provided valuable foundational information regarding a largely unexamined component of treatment courts—the benefit of skills-based trainings to facilitate court practices related to justice-involved veterans. However, it is worth noting that survey responses were limited; thus, the feedback received may not reflect all attendees’ perceptions. Additionally, because both training sessions were conducted solely with 2 courts in the Rocky Mountain area, feedback may be limited to the needs of this geographic region.

Conclusions

A trauma-informed training was developed for VTCs to facilitate relevant understanding of justice-involved veterans’ needs and presentations in court, introduce skills to address challenges that arise (eg, motivation, emotional dysregulation), and provide interdisciplinary support to court professionals. This training was an important step toward fostering strong collaborations between VHA HCPs and community-based veterans courts, and feedback received during development and following implementation highlighted the perceived need for a skills-based approach to such trainings. Further program development and evaluation can strengthen this training and provide a foundation for dissemination to a broader scope of VTCs, with the goal of reducing recidivism risk among justice-involved veterans by promoting effective engagement in problem-solving court.

Veterans who interact with the criminal justice system (ie, justice-involved veterans) have heightened rates of mental health and psychosocial needs, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorder, depression, suicidal ideation and attempt, and homelessness.^1,2 Alongside these criminogenic risk factors, recidivism is common among justice-involved veterans: About 70% of incarcerated veterans disclosed at least one prior incarceration.³

To address the complex interplay of psychosocial factors, mental health concerns, and justice involvement among veterans, veterans treatment courts (VTCs) emerged as an alternative to incarceration.⁴ VTC participation often consists of integrated treatment and rehabilitative services (eg, vocational training, health care), ongoing monitoring for substance use, graduated responses to address treatment adherence, and ongoing communication with the judge and legal counsel.⁴

A primary aim of these courts is to address psychosocial needs believed to underlie criminal behavior, thus reducing risk of recidivism and promoting successful recovery and community integration for eligible veterans. To do so, VTCs collaborate with community-based and/or US Department of Veterans Affairs services, such as the Veterans Justice Outreach program (VJO). VJO specialists identify and refer justice-involved veterans to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and community care and serve as a liaison between VTC staff and VHA health care professionals (HCPs).⁵

VTC outcome studies highlight the importance of not only diverting veterans to problem-solving courts, but also ensuring their optimal participation. Successful graduates of VTC programs demonstrate significant improvements in mental health symptoms, life satisfaction, and social support, as well as lower rates of law enforcement interactions.^6,7 However, less is known about supporting those veterans who have difficulty engaging in VTCs and either discontinue participation or require lengthier periods of participation to meet court graduation requirements.⁸ One possibility to improve engagement among these veterans is to enhance court practices to best meet their needs.

In addition to delivering treatment, VHA mental health professionals may serve a critical interdisciplinary role by lending expertise to support VTC practices. For example, equipping court professionals with clinical knowledge and skills related to motivation may strengthen the staff’s interactions with participants, enabling them to address barriers as they arise and to facilitate veterans’ treatment adherence. Additionally, responsiveness to the impact of trauma exposure, which is common among this population, may prove important as related symptoms can affect veterans’ engagement, receptivity, and behavior in court settings. Indeed, prior examinations of justice-involved veterans have found trauma exposure rates ranging from 60% to 90% and PTSD rates ranging from 27% to 40%.^1,2 Notably, involvement with the justice system (eg, incarceration) may itself further increase risk of trauma exposure (eg, experiencing a physical or sexual assault in prison) or exacerbate existing PTSD.⁹ Nonetheless, whereas many drug courts and domestic violence courts have been established, problem-solving courts with a specialized focus on trauma exposure remain rare, suggesting a potential gap in court training.

VHA HCPs have the potential to facilitate justice-involved veterans’ successful court and treatment participation by coordinating with VJO specialists to provide training and consultation to the courts. Supporting efforts to effectively and responsively address criminogenic risk (eg, mental health) in VTC settings may in turn reduce the likelihood of recidivism.¹⁰ Given the elevated rates of trauma exposure among justice-involved veterans and the relative lack of trauma-focused VTCs, we developed a trauma-informed training for VTC professionals that centered on related clinical presentations of justice-involved veterans and frequently occurring challenges in the context of court participation.

Program Development

This educational program aimed to (1) provide psychoeducation on trauma exposure, PTSD, and existing evidence-based treatments; (2) present clinical considerations for justice-involved veterans related to trauma exposure and/or PTSD; and (3) introduce skills to facilitate effective communication and trauma-informed care practices among professionals working with veterans in a treatment court.

Prior to piloting the program, we conducted a needs assessment with VTC professionals and identified relevant theoretical constructs and brief interventions for inclusion in the training. Additionally, given the dearth of prior research on mental health education for VTCs, the team consulted with the developers of PTSD 101, a VHA workshop for veterans’ families that promotes psychoeducation, support, and effective communication.¹¹ Doing so informed approaches to delivering education to nonclinical audiences that interact with veterans with histories of trauma exposure. As this was a program development project, it was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review.

Needs Assessment

In the initial stages of development, local VJO specialists identified regional VTCs and facilitated introductions to these courts. Two of the 3 Rocky Mountain region VTCs that were contacted expressed interest in receiving trauma-informed training. Based on preliminary interest, the facilitators conducted a needs assessment with VJO and VTC staff from these 2 courts to capture requests for specific content and past experiences with other mental health trainings.

Guided by the focus group model, the needs assessments took place during three 1-hour meetings with VJO specialists and a 1-hour meeting with VJO specialists, VTC professionals, and community-based clinical partners.¹² Additionally, attending a VTC graduation and court session allowed for observations of court practices and interactions with veterans. A total of 13 professionals (judges, court coordinators, case managers, peer mentors, VJO specialists, and clinicians who specialize in substance use disorder and intimate partner violence) participated in the needs assessments.

The most critical need identified by court professionals was a focus on how to apply knowledge about trauma and PTSD to interactions with justice-involved veterans. This was reportedly absent from prior training sessions the courts had received. Both Rocky Mountain region VTCs expressed a strong interest in and openness to adapting practices based on research and practice recommendations. Additional requests that emerged included a refresher on psychoeducation related to trauma and how to address the personal impact of working with this population (eg, compassion fatigue).

Training Components

Based on the needs identified by VTC professionals and informed by consultation with the developers of PTSD 101,

Fostering court familiarity with cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure may bolster veteran engagement in treatment through regular reinforcement of skills and concepts introduced in therapy. This may prove particularly salient given the limited engagement with mental health treatment and elevated dropout rates from PTSD treatment among the general veteran population.^15,16

Exercises and metaphors were used to illustrate concepts in multiple ways. For example, training attendees engaged in a “stop, drop, and roll” thought exercise in which they were asked to brainstorm behavioral reactions to catching on fire. This exercise illustrated the tendency for individuals to revert to common yet unhelpful attempts at problem solving (eg, running due to panic, which would exacerbate the fire), particularly in crisis and without prior education regarding adaptive ways to respond. Attendee-generated examples, such as running, were used to demonstrate the importance of practicing and reinforcing skill development prior to a crisis, to ensure proficiency and optimal response. Additionally, in prompting consideration of one’s response tendencies, this exercise may engender empathy and understanding for veterans.

Skills training. Efforts to promote veteran engagement in court, facilitate motivation and readiness for change, and address barriers that arise (eg, distress associated with court appearances) may support successful and timely graduation. As such, skills training constituted the largest component of the training and drew from observations of court practices and the VTCs’ identified challenges. Consistent with the project’s aims and reported needs of the court, skills that target common presentations following trauma exposure (eg, avoidance, hypervigilance) were prioritized for this pilot training. Strategies included brief interventions from dialectical behavior therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and motivational interviewing to strengthen the support provided by staff to veterans and address their needs (Table 2).

Training attendees also participated in exercises to reiterate skills. For example, attendees completed an ambivalence matrix using an audience-identified common behavior that is difficult to change (eg, heavy alcohol use as a coping mechanism for distress).

Attendees engaged in an exercise that involved identifying unhelpful thoughts and behaviors, targets for validation, and veteran strengths from a hypothetical case vignette. This vignette involved a VTC participant who initially engaged effectively but began to demonstrate difficulty appropriately engaging in court and mental health treatment as well as challenging interactions with VTC staff (eg, raised voice during court sessions, not respecting communication boundaries).

Pilot Test

Based on scheduling parameters communicated by court coordinators, the pilot training was designed as a presentation during times reserved for court staffing meetings. To accommodate court preferences due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one 90-minute training was conducted virtually in March 2022, and the other training was conducted in person in April 2022 for 2 hours. The trainings were facilitated by 2 VHA clinical psychologists and included the judge, court coordinator, VJO specialist, peer mentors, case managers, probation/parole officers, and community-based HCPs who partner with the court (eg, social workers, psychologists). About 12 to 15 professionals attended each training session.

Feedback

Feedback was solicited from attendees via an anonymous online survey. Seven participants completed the survey; the response rate of about 20% was consistent with those observed for other surveys of court professionals.²⁰ Many attendees also provided feedback directly to the facilitators. Feedback highlighted that the skills-based components not only were perceived as most helpful but also notably distinguished this training. “What set this training apart from other training events was the practical applications,” one attendee noted. “It was not just information or education, both instructors did an incredible job of explaining exactly how we could apply the knowledge they were sharing. They did this in such a way that it was easy to understand and apply.”

Specific skills were consistently identified as helpful, including managing intense emotions, addressing ambivalence, and approaching sanctions and rewards. Additionally, employing a less formal approach to the training, with relatable overviews of concepts and immediate responsiveness to requests for expansion on a topic, was perceived as a unique benefit: Another attendee appreciated that “It was beneficial to sit around a table with a less formal presentation and be able to ask questions.” This approach seemed particularly well suited for the program’s cross-disciplinary audience. Attendees reported that they valued the relatively limited focus on DSM-5 criteria. Attendees emphasized that education specific to veterans on evidence-based PTSD treatments, psychoeducation, and avoidance was very helpful. Respondents also recommended that the training be lengthened to a daylong workshop to accommodate greater opportunity to practice skills and consultation.

The consultation portion of the training provided insight into additional areas of importance to incorporate into future iterations. Identified needs included appropriate and realistic boundary setting (eg, addressing disruptions in the courtroom), suggestions for improving and expanding homework assigned by the court, and ways to address concerns about PTSD treatment shared by veterans in court (eg, attributing substance use relapses to the intensiveness of trauma-focused treatment vs lack of familiarity with alternate coping skills). Additionally, the VTC professionals’ desire to support mental health professionals’ work with veterans was clearly evident, highlighting the bidirectional value of interdisciplinary collaboration between VHA mental health professionals and VTC professionals.

Discussion

A trauma-informed training was developed and delivered to 2 VTCs in the Rocky Mountain region with the goal of providing relevant psychoeducation and introducing skills to bolster court practices that address veteran needs. Psychoeducational components of the training that were particularly well received and prompted significant participant engagement included discussions and examples of avoidance, levels of validation, language to facilitate motivation and address barriers, mechanisms underlying treatment, and potential functions underlying limited veteran treatment engagement. Distress tolerance, approaches to sanctions and rewards, and use of ambivalence matrices to guide motivation were identified as particularly helpful skills.

The pilot phase of this trauma-informed training provided valuable insights into developing mental health trainings for VTCs. Specifically, VTCs may benefit from the expertise of VHA HCPs and are particularly interested in learning brief skills to improve their practices. The usefulness of such trainings may be bolstered by efforts to form relationships with the court to identify their perceived needs and employing an iterative process that is responsive to feedback both during and after the training. Last, each stage of this project was strengthened by collaboration with VJO specialists, highlighting the importance of future collaboration between VJO and VHA mental health clinics to further support justice-involved veterans. For example, VJO specialists were instrumental in identifying training needs related to veterans’ clinical presentations in court, facilitating introductions to local VTCs, and helping to address barriers to piloting, like scheduling.

Modifications and Future Directions

The insights gained through the process of training design, delivery, and feedback inform future development of this training. Based on the feedback received, subsequent versions of the training may be expanded into a half- or full-day workshop to allow for adequate time for skills training and feedback, as well as consultation. Doing so will enable facilitators to further foster attendees’ familiarity with and confidence in their ability to use these skills. Furthermore, the consultation portion of this training revealed areas that may benefit from greater attention, including how to address challenging interactions in court (eg, addressing gender dynamics between court professionals and participants) and better support veterans who are having difficulty engaging in mental health treatment (eg, courts’ observation of high rates of dropout around the third or fourth session of evidence-based treatment for PTSD). Last, all attendees who responded to the survey expressed interest in a brief resource guide based on the training, emphasizing the need for ready access to key skills and concepts to support the use of strategies learned.

An additional future aim of this project is to conduct a more thorough evaluation of the needs and outcomes related to this trauma-informed training for VTC professionals. With the rapid growth of VTCs nationwide, relatively little examination of court processes and practices has occurred, and there is a lack of research on the development or effectiveness of mental health trainings provided to VTCs.²¹ Therefore, we intend to conduct larger scale qualitative interviews with court personnel and VJO specialists to obtain a clearer understanding of the needs related to skills-based training and gaps in psychoeducation. These comprehensive needs assessments may also capture common comorbidities that were not incorporated into the pilot training (eg, substance use disorders) but may be important training targets for court professionals. This information will be used to inform subsequent expansion and adaptation of the training into a longer workshop. Program evaluation will be conducted via survey-based feedback on perceived usefulness of the workshop and self-report of confidence in and use of strategies to improve court practices. Furthermore, efforts to obtain veteran outcome data, such as treatment engagement and successful participation in VTC, may be pursued.

Limitations

This training development and pilot project provided valuable foundational information regarding a largely unexamined component of treatment courts—the benefit of skills-based trainings to facilitate court practices related to justice-involved veterans. However, it is worth noting that survey responses were limited; thus, the feedback received may not reflect all attendees’ perceptions. Additionally, because both training sessions were conducted solely with 2 courts in the Rocky Mountain area, feedback may be limited to the needs of this geographic region.

Conclusions

A trauma-informed training was developed for VTCs to facilitate relevant understanding of justice-involved veterans’ needs and presentations in court, introduce skills to address challenges that arise (eg, motivation, emotional dysregulation), and provide interdisciplinary support to court professionals. This training was an important step toward fostering strong collaborations between VHA HCPs and community-based veterans courts, and feedback received during development and following implementation highlighted the perceived need for a skills-based approach to such trainings. Further program development and evaluation can strengthen this training and provide a foundation for dissemination to a broader scope of VTCs, with the goal of reducing recidivism risk among justice-involved veterans by promoting effective engagement in problem-solving court.

Veterans who interact with the criminal justice system (ie, justice-involved veterans) have heightened rates of mental health and psychosocial needs, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use disorder, depression, suicidal ideation and attempt, and homelessness.^1,2 Alongside these criminogenic risk factors, recidivism is common among justice-involved veterans: About 70% of incarcerated veterans disclosed at least one prior incarceration.³

To address the complex interplay of psychosocial factors, mental health concerns, and justice involvement among veterans, veterans treatment courts (VTCs) emerged as an alternative to incarceration.⁴ VTC participation often consists of integrated treatment and rehabilitative services (eg, vocational training, health care), ongoing monitoring for substance use, graduated responses to address treatment adherence, and ongoing communication with the judge and legal counsel.⁴

A primary aim of these courts is to address psychosocial needs believed to underlie criminal behavior, thus reducing risk of recidivism and promoting successful recovery and community integration for eligible veterans. To do so, VTCs collaborate with community-based and/or US Department of Veterans Affairs services, such as the Veterans Justice Outreach program (VJO). VJO specialists identify and refer justice-involved veterans to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and community care and serve as a liaison between VTC staff and VHA health care professionals (HCPs).⁵

VTC outcome studies highlight the importance of not only diverting veterans to problem-solving courts, but also ensuring their optimal participation. Successful graduates of VTC programs demonstrate significant improvements in mental health symptoms, life satisfaction, and social support, as well as lower rates of law enforcement interactions.^6,7 However, less is known about supporting those veterans who have difficulty engaging in VTCs and either discontinue participation or require lengthier periods of participation to meet court graduation requirements.⁸ One possibility to improve engagement among these veterans is to enhance court practices to best meet their needs.

In addition to delivering treatment, VHA mental health professionals may serve a critical interdisciplinary role by lending expertise to support VTC practices. For example, equipping court professionals with clinical knowledge and skills related to motivation may strengthen the staff’s interactions with participants, enabling them to address barriers as they arise and to facilitate veterans’ treatment adherence. Additionally, responsiveness to the impact of trauma exposure, which is common among this population, may prove important as related symptoms can affect veterans’ engagement, receptivity, and behavior in court settings. Indeed, prior examinations of justice-involved veterans have found trauma exposure rates ranging from 60% to 90% and PTSD rates ranging from 27% to 40%.^1,2 Notably, involvement with the justice system (eg, incarceration) may itself further increase risk of trauma exposure (eg, experiencing a physical or sexual assault in prison) or exacerbate existing PTSD.⁹ Nonetheless, whereas many drug courts and domestic violence courts have been established, problem-solving courts with a specialized focus on trauma exposure remain rare, suggesting a potential gap in court training.

VHA HCPs have the potential to facilitate justice-involved veterans’ successful court and treatment participation by coordinating with VJO specialists to provide training and consultation to the courts. Supporting efforts to effectively and responsively address criminogenic risk (eg, mental health) in VTC settings may in turn reduce the likelihood of recidivism.¹⁰ Given the elevated rates of trauma exposure among justice-involved veterans and the relative lack of trauma-focused VTCs, we developed a trauma-informed training for VTC professionals that centered on related clinical presentations of justice-involved veterans and frequently occurring challenges in the context of court participation.

Program Development

This educational program aimed to (1) provide psychoeducation on trauma exposure, PTSD, and existing evidence-based treatments; (2) present clinical considerations for justice-involved veterans related to trauma exposure and/or PTSD; and (3) introduce skills to facilitate effective communication and trauma-informed care practices among professionals working with veterans in a treatment court.

Prior to piloting the program, we conducted a needs assessment with VTC professionals and identified relevant theoretical constructs and brief interventions for inclusion in the training. Additionally, given the dearth of prior research on mental health education for VTCs, the team consulted with the developers of PTSD 101, a VHA workshop for veterans’ families that promotes psychoeducation, support, and effective communication.¹¹ Doing so informed approaches to delivering education to nonclinical audiences that interact with veterans with histories of trauma exposure. As this was a program development project, it was determined to be exempt from institutional review board review.

Needs Assessment

In the initial stages of development, local VJO specialists identified regional VTCs and facilitated introductions to these courts. Two of the 3 Rocky Mountain region VTCs that were contacted expressed interest in receiving trauma-informed training. Based on preliminary interest, the facilitators conducted a needs assessment with VJO and VTC staff from these 2 courts to capture requests for specific content and past experiences with other mental health trainings.

Guided by the focus group model, the needs assessments took place during three 1-hour meetings with VJO specialists and a 1-hour meeting with VJO specialists, VTC professionals, and community-based clinical partners.¹² Additionally, attending a VTC graduation and court session allowed for observations of court practices and interactions with veterans. A total of 13 professionals (judges, court coordinators, case managers, peer mentors, VJO specialists, and clinicians who specialize in substance use disorder and intimate partner violence) participated in the needs assessments.

The most critical need identified by court professionals was a focus on how to apply knowledge about trauma and PTSD to interactions with justice-involved veterans. This was reportedly absent from prior training sessions the courts had received. Both Rocky Mountain region VTCs expressed a strong interest in and openness to adapting practices based on research and practice recommendations. Additional requests that emerged included a refresher on psychoeducation related to trauma and how to address the personal impact of working with this population (eg, compassion fatigue).

Training Components

Based on the needs identified by VTC professionals and informed by consultation with the developers of PTSD 101,

Fostering court familiarity with cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure may bolster veteran engagement in treatment through regular reinforcement of skills and concepts introduced in therapy. This may prove particularly salient given the limited engagement with mental health treatment and elevated dropout rates from PTSD treatment among the general veteran population.^15,16

Exercises and metaphors were used to illustrate concepts in multiple ways. For example, training attendees engaged in a “stop, drop, and roll” thought exercise in which they were asked to brainstorm behavioral reactions to catching on fire. This exercise illustrated the tendency for individuals to revert to common yet unhelpful attempts at problem solving (eg, running due to panic, which would exacerbate the fire), particularly in crisis and without prior education regarding adaptive ways to respond. Attendee-generated examples, such as running, were used to demonstrate the importance of practicing and reinforcing skill development prior to a crisis, to ensure proficiency and optimal response. Additionally, in prompting consideration of one’s response tendencies, this exercise may engender empathy and understanding for veterans.

Skills training. Efforts to promote veteran engagement in court, facilitate motivation and readiness for change, and address barriers that arise (eg, distress associated with court appearances) may support successful and timely graduation. As such, skills training constituted the largest component of the training and drew from observations of court practices and the VTCs’ identified challenges. Consistent with the project’s aims and reported needs of the court, skills that target common presentations following trauma exposure (eg, avoidance, hypervigilance) were prioritized for this pilot training. Strategies included brief interventions from dialectical behavior therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and motivational interviewing to strengthen the support provided by staff to veterans and address their needs (Table 2).

Training attendees also participated in exercises to reiterate skills. For example, attendees completed an ambivalence matrix using an audience-identified common behavior that is difficult to change (eg, heavy alcohol use as a coping mechanism for distress).

Attendees engaged in an exercise that involved identifying unhelpful thoughts and behaviors, targets for validation, and veteran strengths from a hypothetical case vignette. This vignette involved a VTC participant who initially engaged effectively but began to demonstrate difficulty appropriately engaging in court and mental health treatment as well as challenging interactions with VTC staff (eg, raised voice during court sessions, not respecting communication boundaries).

Pilot Test

Based on scheduling parameters communicated by court coordinators, the pilot training was designed as a presentation during times reserved for court staffing meetings. To accommodate court preferences due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one 90-minute training was conducted virtually in March 2022, and the other training was conducted in person in April 2022 for 2 hours. The trainings were facilitated by 2 VHA clinical psychologists and included the judge, court coordinator, VJO specialist, peer mentors, case managers, probation/parole officers, and community-based HCPs who partner with the court (eg, social workers, psychologists). About 12 to 15 professionals attended each training session.

Feedback

Feedback was solicited from attendees via an anonymous online survey. Seven participants completed the survey; the response rate of about 20% was consistent with those observed for other surveys of court professionals.²⁰ Many attendees also provided feedback directly to the facilitators. Feedback highlighted that the skills-based components not only were perceived as most helpful but also notably distinguished this training. “What set this training apart from other training events was the practical applications,” one attendee noted. “It was not just information or education, both instructors did an incredible job of explaining exactly how we could apply the knowledge they were sharing. They did this in such a way that it was easy to understand and apply.”

Specific skills were consistently identified as helpful, including managing intense emotions, addressing ambivalence, and approaching sanctions and rewards. Additionally, employing a less formal approach to the training, with relatable overviews of concepts and immediate responsiveness to requests for expansion on a topic, was perceived as a unique benefit: Another attendee appreciated that “It was beneficial to sit around a table with a less formal presentation and be able to ask questions.” This approach seemed particularly well suited for the program’s cross-disciplinary audience. Attendees reported that they valued the relatively limited focus on DSM-5 criteria. Attendees emphasized that education specific to veterans on evidence-based PTSD treatments, psychoeducation, and avoidance was very helpful. Respondents also recommended that the training be lengthened to a daylong workshop to accommodate greater opportunity to practice skills and consultation.

The consultation portion of the training provided insight into additional areas of importance to incorporate into future iterations. Identified needs included appropriate and realistic boundary setting (eg, addressing disruptions in the courtroom), suggestions for improving and expanding homework assigned by the court, and ways to address concerns about PTSD treatment shared by veterans in court (eg, attributing substance use relapses to the intensiveness of trauma-focused treatment vs lack of familiarity with alternate coping skills). Additionally, the VTC professionals’ desire to support mental health professionals’ work with veterans was clearly evident, highlighting the bidirectional value of interdisciplinary collaboration between VHA mental health professionals and VTC professionals.

Discussion

A trauma-informed training was developed and delivered to 2 VTCs in the Rocky Mountain region with the goal of providing relevant psychoeducation and introducing skills to bolster court practices that address veteran needs. Psychoeducational components of the training that were particularly well received and prompted significant participant engagement included discussions and examples of avoidance, levels of validation, language to facilitate motivation and address barriers, mechanisms underlying treatment, and potential functions underlying limited veteran treatment engagement. Distress tolerance, approaches to sanctions and rewards, and use of ambivalence matrices to guide motivation were identified as particularly helpful skills.

The pilot phase of this trauma-informed training provided valuable insights into developing mental health trainings for VTCs. Specifically, VTCs may benefit from the expertise of VHA HCPs and are particularly interested in learning brief skills to improve their practices. The usefulness of such trainings may be bolstered by efforts to form relationships with the court to identify their perceived needs and employing an iterative process that is responsive to feedback both during and after the training. Last, each stage of this project was strengthened by collaboration with VJO specialists, highlighting the importance of future collaboration between VJO and VHA mental health clinics to further support justice-involved veterans. For example, VJO specialists were instrumental in identifying training needs related to veterans’ clinical presentations in court, facilitating introductions to local VTCs, and helping to address barriers to piloting, like scheduling.

Modifications and Future Directions

The insights gained through the process of training design, delivery, and feedback inform future development of this training. Based on the feedback received, subsequent versions of the training may be expanded into a half- or full-day workshop to allow for adequate time for skills training and feedback, as well as consultation. Doing so will enable facilitators to further foster attendees’ familiarity with and confidence in their ability to use these skills. Furthermore, the consultation portion of this training revealed areas that may benefit from greater attention, including how to address challenging interactions in court (eg, addressing gender dynamics between court professionals and participants) and better support veterans who are having difficulty engaging in mental health treatment (eg, courts’ observation of high rates of dropout around the third or fourth session of evidence-based treatment for PTSD). Last, all attendees who responded to the survey expressed interest in a brief resource guide based on the training, emphasizing the need for ready access to key skills and concepts to support the use of strategies learned.

An additional future aim of this project is to conduct a more thorough evaluation of the needs and outcomes related to this trauma-informed training for VTC professionals. With the rapid growth of VTCs nationwide, relatively little examination of court processes and practices has occurred, and there is a lack of research on the development or effectiveness of mental health trainings provided to VTCs.²¹ Therefore, we intend to conduct larger scale qualitative interviews with court personnel and VJO specialists to obtain a clearer understanding of the needs related to skills-based training and gaps in psychoeducation. These comprehensive needs assessments may also capture common comorbidities that were not incorporated into the pilot training (eg, substance use disorders) but may be important training targets for court professionals. This information will be used to inform subsequent expansion and adaptation of the training into a longer workshop. Program evaluation will be conducted via survey-based feedback on perceived usefulness of the workshop and self-report of confidence in and use of strategies to improve court practices. Furthermore, efforts to obtain veteran outcome data, such as treatment engagement and successful participation in VTC, may be pursued.

Limitations

This training development and pilot project provided valuable foundational information regarding a largely unexamined component of treatment courts—the benefit of skills-based trainings to facilitate court practices related to justice-involved veterans. However, it is worth noting that survey responses were limited; thus, the feedback received may not reflect all attendees’ perceptions. Additionally, because both training sessions were conducted solely with 2 courts in the Rocky Mountain area, feedback may be limited to the needs of this geographic region.

Conclusions

A trauma-informed training was developed for VTCs to facilitate relevant understanding of justice-involved veterans’ needs and presentations in court, introduce skills to address challenges that arise (eg, motivation, emotional dysregulation), and provide interdisciplinary support to court professionals. This training was an important step toward fostering strong collaborations between VHA HCPs and community-based veterans courts, and feedback received during development and following implementation highlighted the perceived need for a skills-based approach to such trainings. Further program development and evaluation can strengthen this training and provide a foundation for dissemination to a broader scope of VTCs, with the goal of reducing recidivism risk among justice-involved veterans by promoting effective engagement in problem-solving court.

Asthma affects more than 300 million people worldwide.¹ While many of these cases can achieve control with standard therapy, 5% to 10% of these cases are classified as severe asthma, remaining poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β agonists (LABA).² These patients also account for the majority of morbidity and mortality associated with the disease, with increased hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, detrimental adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and lower quality of life.^3-6 Additionally, the financial repercussions of severe asthma are notable; in the United States, the estimated cost of asthma management is $82 billion annually, with $3 billion accounting for asthma-related work/school absences.⁷

In the past several years, the use of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE), anti-interleukin-4 (IL-4), and anti-IL-5 biologic agents for severe asthma has been shown to decrease asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid use, and decrease hospitalizations, especially for type 2 helper T cell (TH2-high) asthma.^8-10 However, clinicians have observed significant barriers to the implementation and widespread use of biologics, including insurance coverage, long wait times, follow-up, and limited access for lower income groups.^11,12

This article describes a unique model for a severe asthma clinic located at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WDCVAMC) that is dually staffed by an allergist and pulmonologist. This clinic uses biologic agents for patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, many of whom require repeated or prolonged steroid use, in addition to prolonged and recurrent hospitalizations for exacerbations. The objective of this clinic is to provide a standardized approach to the management of severe asthma with the perspective of both an allergist and pulmonologist, thereby reducing the need to schedule appointments with multiple specialties and reducing delays in initiating biologics. This article presents the preliminary findings of 30 months of severe asthma management with various biologic agents, examining the impact of these therapies on hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations, ICU stays, and OCS use. The findings of this study support the benefits of biologics and suggest that the use of these agents within a dually staffed clinic may be a particularly effective model through which to manage severe asthma.

Background

Asthma affects approximately 20 million adults in the United States.¹³ Veterans are a population particularly impacted by asthma. Between 2015 and 2018, 10.9% of all veterans reported being diagnosed with asthma and 5.1% stated that they currently have asthma, compared with 13.4% and 8.0% of nonveterans, respectively.¹⁴ Veterans are susceptible to many of the factors that can trigger exacerbations while engaging in military service, such as chemical and environmental exposures both abroad and domestically.^15,16 Additionally, medication adherence is often challenging among the veteran population, particularly with more involved therapy, such as inhaler use.¹⁷ Such factors contribute to asthma exacerbations, with 2.9% of veterans reporting at least 1 asthma exacerbation in the past 12 months.¹⁴

Over the past several years, the development and use of biologic agents have transformed the management of severe asthma.⁸ Before the development of biologic agents for severe asthma, treatment options for patients were limited. While OCS are frequently used for asthma exacerbations, they are associated with a multiplicity of undesirable adverse effects, including weight gain, mood lability, gastrointestinal upset, hyperglycemia, risk of bone fractures, and hypertension.^18-20 The regular use of OCS are particularly problematic among other medical comorbidities commonly affecting the veteran population, such as diabetes and hypertension.^21-22

The WDCVAMC severe allergy clinic used 3 biologic agents: omalizumab (anti-IgE), benralizumab (anti-IL-5), and agent dupilumab (anti-IL-4). These medications have shown significant improvements in quality of life, reduction in asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, and decreased use of OCS.^8,9 While research has firmly established the medical benefits of the use of biologic agents in severe asthma, several barriers exist in implementing widespread use.^11,12

In Gelhorn and colleagues’ study examining both physician and patient challenges in the use of biologics for severe asthma, scheduling, administrative time, and insurance costs were found to be major barriers to the use of these medications.¹² Patients expressed a preference for the administration of these medications in a specialist’s office but cited long wait times and scheduling difficulties as barriers. One of the most notable challenges from the physician perspective was the difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from insurance companies, requiring them to devote significant portions of time to prior authorizations and documentation.¹²

This article examines a dual specialty clinic that focuses on the treatment of severe asthma with biologic agents. This model is unique for several reasons. First, given the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care model, the health care practitioners (HCPs) in this clinic can avoid much of the administrative burden of obtaining reimbursement or working with insurance companies. Additionally, by dedicating specific days to the severe asthma clinic, patients do not experience long wait times to see both an allergist and pulmonologist. By seeing both clinicians, concurrent allergic and pulmonary issues can be addressed in the same visit, rather than delaying treatment by waiting on 2 specialist appointments.

Severe Asthma Clinic

The severe asthma clinic was started in September 2017 by a pulmonologist and an allergist at WDCVAMC. After experiencing substantial delays with the initiation of biologics for their patients and multiple referrals between their clinics, these physicians wanted to start a dually staffed asthma clinic to specifically focus on evaluating and treating severe asthma. A dedicated severe asthma clinic allowed the allergist and pulmonologist to streamline resources and collaborate to advocate for patients with the pharmacy section. Additionally, patients can benefit from the perspective of both specialists, as both the pulmonologist and allergist evaluate each patient and discuss the next steps of management.

This clinic is composed of 4 registered nurses, an allergist, and a pulmonologist. Clinic is held twice monthly through both telemedicine and in-office visits. The VA has strict guidelines for the use of certain biologics, including blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/µL, failure of traditional therapy, and frequent use of OCS. Additionally, to ensure these biologic agents are prescribed to patients that will benefit from them, the patients enrolled in this clinic are already on maximum therapy for their asthma, meaning all other therapeutic options (inhalers and oral medications) are being used. The clinic services all patients with severe asthma, not just patients who are on biologic therapy. Often, patients are referred to the severe allergy clinic late in their disease course given a lack of familiarity with biologic agents from prescribers and both institutional and insurance barriers.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) tests were recorded at each visit. Initially during the pandemic, the clinic transitioned to primarily telemedicine visits due to patients’ hesitance to seek in-person care. More recently, the clinic has transitioned back to primarily office visits; patients are seen in clinic on average every 3 months. At each visit, the patient is seen by both the pulmonologist and allergist. Additionally, the nursing staff reviews inhaler adherence with patients, spacer use, documents, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and schedules follow-up visits.

Every 4 to 8 weeks, patients receive biologics agent at the WDCVAMC infusion center depending on the agent. The infusion center also instructs patients how to handle self-administered medications, like benralizumab, if the patient expresses a preference for taking it at home. Omalizumab has a boxed warning for anaphylaxis, although the other biologics in this study have a low risk of anaphylaxis. All patients receiving omalizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were provided with epinephrine injection devices in case of an allergic reaction and were taught how to use them in the clinic.^23,24

If patients continued to experience asthma exacerbations after the initiation of a biologic, a change in agent was considered after 4 to 6 months. Additionally, a complete blood count, respiratory allergy panel, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were completed.

Clinic Patients

Preliminary data were obtained from a retrospective chart review of 15 patients enrolled in the severe asthma clinic over 30 months. The inclusion criteria for chart review consisted of patients aged > 18 years receiving a biologic agent for > 3 months for the treatment of severe asthma. The outcomes examined included steroid use, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, FEV₁, and ICU stays.

Seven patients used benralizumab, 6 used dupilumab, and 2 used omalizumab (Table).

There was a notable clinical improvement in these patients. Before starting a biologic agent, all the patients in this study were prescribed steroids at least once a year for an asthma exacerbation, with a mean of 4.2 steroid tapers per year.

Discussion

The 15 patients in this initial data were referred to the severe asthma clinic by pulmonology, ear, nose, and throat (ENT), primary care, and a hospitalist during an in-patient stay. As the enrollment in our clinic grows, an increasing number of patients are referred from the allergy clinic as well. Patients in the severe asthma clinic also are referred by regional centers as news of the clinic is spread by word of mouth to surrounding VA facilities. As our clinic gains the capacity to serve more patients, we hope to contact WDCVAMC primary care, pulmonology, allergy, and ENT departments to raise awareness of the clinic.

Benralizumab and dupilumab were the most used agents in this preliminary data. This finding was largely due to the ability of patients to self-administer benralizumab, which was particularly beneficial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of note, 5 patients in this study switched from another biologic agent to benralizumab due to the ability to self-administer. Three of 5 patients that required steroids after initiating benralizumab used fewer steroids than they had previously. This finding suggests benralizumab may be the preferred agent when travel time to health care is a challenge, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and transportation.

This preliminary data supports previous studies that have demonstrated that biologic agents improve clinical outcomes by reducing asthma exacerbations, OCS use, hospitalizations, and ICU stays for patients on all 4 biologic agents. In addition to improving patient health through avoiding complications of prolonged OCS use and hospital stays, the decrease in ED visits and hospitalizations provides a substantial cost reduction to the health care system.  

These findings highlight the strength of a unique model of a combined allergy/pulmonary clinic. Before this combined clinic model, both pulmonology and allergy clinics noted delays in the initiation of biologics for patients who were potential candidates. Impediments include referrals between each specialty for evaluation of concurrent pulmonary conditions or allergy testing, overlap in asthma management, and a delay in coordination with the pharmacy department to start biologic agents. A dedicated severe asthma clinic staffed by both an allergist and pulmonologist provides a convenient option for patients to be seen by both specialists, reducing the need for separate appointments with each specialty, transportation to those appointments, and clinical time. This is particularly beneficial in a clinic such as this model, as this clinic serves patients from 4 states and Washington, DC. An additional benefit of this model is trained staff who directly communicate with the pharmacy in the initiation of these agents, allocate time to educating patients in biologic use, and coordinate follow-up.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this report. First, the number of patients examined in this preliminary data set is small. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a limited ability to see patients in person, and patients were seen exclusively over telemedicine for several months. For this reason, collecting data such as patient surveys and laboratory work following the initiation of a biologic was a challenge. Additionally, during the height of COVID-19, WDCVAMC did not perform aerosolizing procedures, such as PFTs and FENOs; thus, peak flows were obtained instead. Examining metrics, such as FENOs and IgE levels, and expanding PFT data would provide additional insight into the impact of biologic agents on clinical outcomes. Patient survey data in the form of ACTs or satisfaction surveys would also yield important data examining the impact of this clinic design and biologic use on patient experience. As of December 2022, 114 patients are enrolled in the clinic. We are working to collect the above laboratory results and spirometry for these patients so that these results can be published with a more robust data set. Another limitation of the information presented is that it is a retrospective data analysis; the data collected was contingent upon documentation and the assumption that these patients were exclusively receiving care through the VA. For example, steroid use before and after initiation of biologic was taken from asthma clinic notes and the patient’s medication list. Therefore, there is a possibility that not all instances were accounted for if that patient sought care outside the VA or whether it was not documented in a follow-up note.

Conclusions

The model of a combined allergy/pulmonology clinic can be particularly efficacious in the treatment of severe asthma, as it reduces the need for multiple appointments with different specialties, reduces wait time before starting a biologic agent, and offers the perspective of 2 specialists. This kind of model could be an example to many clinics in the VA. With a rapid increase in telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple physicians consulting simultaneously is becoming a more feasible possibility across multiple specialties. As the use of biologics becomes more widespread, a combined clinic design is an efficient and promising method to improve severe asthma management.

This preliminary data continue to support previous research that shows biologic agents have led to better clinical outcomes through the reduction of asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, and improved PFTs. While this initial data set highlights the results for 15 patients, there are 86 patients currently enrolled in this clinic. We are collecting additional data to publish more comprehensive results.

Asthma affects more than 300 million people worldwide.¹ While many of these cases can achieve control with standard therapy, 5% to 10% of these cases are classified as severe asthma, remaining poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β agonists (LABA).² These patients also account for the majority of morbidity and mortality associated with the disease, with increased hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, detrimental adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and lower quality of life.^3-6 Additionally, the financial repercussions of severe asthma are notable; in the United States, the estimated cost of asthma management is $82 billion annually, with $3 billion accounting for asthma-related work/school absences.⁷

In the past several years, the use of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE), anti-interleukin-4 (IL-4), and anti-IL-5 biologic agents for severe asthma has been shown to decrease asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid use, and decrease hospitalizations, especially for type 2 helper T cell (TH2-high) asthma.^8-10 However, clinicians have observed significant barriers to the implementation and widespread use of biologics, including insurance coverage, long wait times, follow-up, and limited access for lower income groups.^11,12

This article describes a unique model for a severe asthma clinic located at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WDCVAMC) that is dually staffed by an allergist and pulmonologist. This clinic uses biologic agents for patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, many of whom require repeated or prolonged steroid use, in addition to prolonged and recurrent hospitalizations for exacerbations. The objective of this clinic is to provide a standardized approach to the management of severe asthma with the perspective of both an allergist and pulmonologist, thereby reducing the need to schedule appointments with multiple specialties and reducing delays in initiating biologics. This article presents the preliminary findings of 30 months of severe asthma management with various biologic agents, examining the impact of these therapies on hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations, ICU stays, and OCS use. The findings of this study support the benefits of biologics and suggest that the use of these agents within a dually staffed clinic may be a particularly effective model through which to manage severe asthma.

Background

Asthma affects approximately 20 million adults in the United States.¹³ Veterans are a population particularly impacted by asthma. Between 2015 and 2018, 10.9% of all veterans reported being diagnosed with asthma and 5.1% stated that they currently have asthma, compared with 13.4% and 8.0% of nonveterans, respectively.¹⁴ Veterans are susceptible to many of the factors that can trigger exacerbations while engaging in military service, such as chemical and environmental exposures both abroad and domestically.^15,16 Additionally, medication adherence is often challenging among the veteran population, particularly with more involved therapy, such as inhaler use.¹⁷ Such factors contribute to asthma exacerbations, with 2.9% of veterans reporting at least 1 asthma exacerbation in the past 12 months.¹⁴

Over the past several years, the development and use of biologic agents have transformed the management of severe asthma.⁸ Before the development of biologic agents for severe asthma, treatment options for patients were limited. While OCS are frequently used for asthma exacerbations, they are associated with a multiplicity of undesirable adverse effects, including weight gain, mood lability, gastrointestinal upset, hyperglycemia, risk of bone fractures, and hypertension.^18-20 The regular use of OCS are particularly problematic among other medical comorbidities commonly affecting the veteran population, such as diabetes and hypertension.^21-22

The WDCVAMC severe allergy clinic used 3 biologic agents: omalizumab (anti-IgE), benralizumab (anti-IL-5), and agent dupilumab (anti-IL-4). These medications have shown significant improvements in quality of life, reduction in asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, and decreased use of OCS.^8,9 While research has firmly established the medical benefits of the use of biologic agents in severe asthma, several barriers exist in implementing widespread use.^11,12

In Gelhorn and colleagues’ study examining both physician and patient challenges in the use of biologics for severe asthma, scheduling, administrative time, and insurance costs were found to be major barriers to the use of these medications.¹² Patients expressed a preference for the administration of these medications in a specialist’s office but cited long wait times and scheduling difficulties as barriers. One of the most notable challenges from the physician perspective was the difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from insurance companies, requiring them to devote significant portions of time to prior authorizations and documentation.¹²

This article examines a dual specialty clinic that focuses on the treatment of severe asthma with biologic agents. This model is unique for several reasons. First, given the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care model, the health care practitioners (HCPs) in this clinic can avoid much of the administrative burden of obtaining reimbursement or working with insurance companies. Additionally, by dedicating specific days to the severe asthma clinic, patients do not experience long wait times to see both an allergist and pulmonologist. By seeing both clinicians, concurrent allergic and pulmonary issues can be addressed in the same visit, rather than delaying treatment by waiting on 2 specialist appointments.

Severe Asthma Clinic

The severe asthma clinic was started in September 2017 by a pulmonologist and an allergist at WDCVAMC. After experiencing substantial delays with the initiation of biologics for their patients and multiple referrals between their clinics, these physicians wanted to start a dually staffed asthma clinic to specifically focus on evaluating and treating severe asthma. A dedicated severe asthma clinic allowed the allergist and pulmonologist to streamline resources and collaborate to advocate for patients with the pharmacy section. Additionally, patients can benefit from the perspective of both specialists, as both the pulmonologist and allergist evaluate each patient and discuss the next steps of management.

This clinic is composed of 4 registered nurses, an allergist, and a pulmonologist. Clinic is held twice monthly through both telemedicine and in-office visits. The VA has strict guidelines for the use of certain biologics, including blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/µL, failure of traditional therapy, and frequent use of OCS. Additionally, to ensure these biologic agents are prescribed to patients that will benefit from them, the patients enrolled in this clinic are already on maximum therapy for their asthma, meaning all other therapeutic options (inhalers and oral medications) are being used. The clinic services all patients with severe asthma, not just patients who are on biologic therapy. Often, patients are referred to the severe allergy clinic late in their disease course given a lack of familiarity with biologic agents from prescribers and both institutional and insurance barriers.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) tests were recorded at each visit. Initially during the pandemic, the clinic transitioned to primarily telemedicine visits due to patients’ hesitance to seek in-person care. More recently, the clinic has transitioned back to primarily office visits; patients are seen in clinic on average every 3 months. At each visit, the patient is seen by both the pulmonologist and allergist. Additionally, the nursing staff reviews inhaler adherence with patients, spacer use, documents, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and schedules follow-up visits.

Every 4 to 8 weeks, patients receive biologics agent at the WDCVAMC infusion center depending on the agent. The infusion center also instructs patients how to handle self-administered medications, like benralizumab, if the patient expresses a preference for taking it at home. Omalizumab has a boxed warning for anaphylaxis, although the other biologics in this study have a low risk of anaphylaxis. All patients receiving omalizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were provided with epinephrine injection devices in case of an allergic reaction and were taught how to use them in the clinic.^23,24

If patients continued to experience asthma exacerbations after the initiation of a biologic, a change in agent was considered after 4 to 6 months. Additionally, a complete blood count, respiratory allergy panel, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were completed.

Clinic Patients

Preliminary data were obtained from a retrospective chart review of 15 patients enrolled in the severe asthma clinic over 30 months. The inclusion criteria for chart review consisted of patients aged > 18 years receiving a biologic agent for > 3 months for the treatment of severe asthma. The outcomes examined included steroid use, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, FEV₁, and ICU stays.

Seven patients used benralizumab, 6 used dupilumab, and 2 used omalizumab (Table).

There was a notable clinical improvement in these patients. Before starting a biologic agent, all the patients in this study were prescribed steroids at least once a year for an asthma exacerbation, with a mean of 4.2 steroid tapers per year.

Discussion

The 15 patients in this initial data were referred to the severe asthma clinic by pulmonology, ear, nose, and throat (ENT), primary care, and a hospitalist during an in-patient stay. As the enrollment in our clinic grows, an increasing number of patients are referred from the allergy clinic as well. Patients in the severe asthma clinic also are referred by regional centers as news of the clinic is spread by word of mouth to surrounding VA facilities. As our clinic gains the capacity to serve more patients, we hope to contact WDCVAMC primary care, pulmonology, allergy, and ENT departments to raise awareness of the clinic.

Benralizumab and dupilumab were the most used agents in this preliminary data. This finding was largely due to the ability of patients to self-administer benralizumab, which was particularly beneficial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of note, 5 patients in this study switched from another biologic agent to benralizumab due to the ability to self-administer. Three of 5 patients that required steroids after initiating benralizumab used fewer steroids than they had previously. This finding suggests benralizumab may be the preferred agent when travel time to health care is a challenge, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and transportation.

This preliminary data supports previous studies that have demonstrated that biologic agents improve clinical outcomes by reducing asthma exacerbations, OCS use, hospitalizations, and ICU stays for patients on all 4 biologic agents. In addition to improving patient health through avoiding complications of prolonged OCS use and hospital stays, the decrease in ED visits and hospitalizations provides a substantial cost reduction to the health care system.  

These findings highlight the strength of a unique model of a combined allergy/pulmonary clinic. Before this combined clinic model, both pulmonology and allergy clinics noted delays in the initiation of biologics for patients who were potential candidates. Impediments include referrals between each specialty for evaluation of concurrent pulmonary conditions or allergy testing, overlap in asthma management, and a delay in coordination with the pharmacy department to start biologic agents. A dedicated severe asthma clinic staffed by both an allergist and pulmonologist provides a convenient option for patients to be seen by both specialists, reducing the need for separate appointments with each specialty, transportation to those appointments, and clinical time. This is particularly beneficial in a clinic such as this model, as this clinic serves patients from 4 states and Washington, DC. An additional benefit of this model is trained staff who directly communicate with the pharmacy in the initiation of these agents, allocate time to educating patients in biologic use, and coordinate follow-up.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this report. First, the number of patients examined in this preliminary data set is small. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a limited ability to see patients in person, and patients were seen exclusively over telemedicine for several months. For this reason, collecting data such as patient surveys and laboratory work following the initiation of a biologic was a challenge. Additionally, during the height of COVID-19, WDCVAMC did not perform aerosolizing procedures, such as PFTs and FENOs; thus, peak flows were obtained instead. Examining metrics, such as FENOs and IgE levels, and expanding PFT data would provide additional insight into the impact of biologic agents on clinical outcomes. Patient survey data in the form of ACTs or satisfaction surveys would also yield important data examining the impact of this clinic design and biologic use on patient experience. As of December 2022, 114 patients are enrolled in the clinic. We are working to collect the above laboratory results and spirometry for these patients so that these results can be published with a more robust data set. Another limitation of the information presented is that it is a retrospective data analysis; the data collected was contingent upon documentation and the assumption that these patients were exclusively receiving care through the VA. For example, steroid use before and after initiation of biologic was taken from asthma clinic notes and the patient’s medication list. Therefore, there is a possibility that not all instances were accounted for if that patient sought care outside the VA or whether it was not documented in a follow-up note.

Conclusions

The model of a combined allergy/pulmonology clinic can be particularly efficacious in the treatment of severe asthma, as it reduces the need for multiple appointments with different specialties, reduces wait time before starting a biologic agent, and offers the perspective of 2 specialists. This kind of model could be an example to many clinics in the VA. With a rapid increase in telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple physicians consulting simultaneously is becoming a more feasible possibility across multiple specialties. As the use of biologics becomes more widespread, a combined clinic design is an efficient and promising method to improve severe asthma management.

This preliminary data continue to support previous research that shows biologic agents have led to better clinical outcomes through the reduction of asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, and improved PFTs. While this initial data set highlights the results for 15 patients, there are 86 patients currently enrolled in this clinic. We are collecting additional data to publish more comprehensive results.

Asthma affects more than 300 million people worldwide.¹ While many of these cases can achieve control with standard therapy, 5% to 10% of these cases are classified as severe asthma, remaining poorly controlled despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β agonists (LABA).² These patients also account for the majority of morbidity and mortality associated with the disease, with increased hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, detrimental adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), and lower quality of life.^3-6 Additionally, the financial repercussions of severe asthma are notable; in the United States, the estimated cost of asthma management is $82 billion annually, with $3 billion accounting for asthma-related work/school absences.⁷

In the past several years, the use of anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE), anti-interleukin-4 (IL-4), and anti-IL-5 biologic agents for severe asthma has been shown to decrease asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid use, and decrease hospitalizations, especially for type 2 helper T cell (TH2-high) asthma.^8-10 However, clinicians have observed significant barriers to the implementation and widespread use of biologics, including insurance coverage, long wait times, follow-up, and limited access for lower income groups.^11,12

This article describes a unique model for a severe asthma clinic located at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WDCVAMC) that is dually staffed by an allergist and pulmonologist. This clinic uses biologic agents for patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, many of whom require repeated or prolonged steroid use, in addition to prolonged and recurrent hospitalizations for exacerbations. The objective of this clinic is to provide a standardized approach to the management of severe asthma with the perspective of both an allergist and pulmonologist, thereby reducing the need to schedule appointments with multiple specialties and reducing delays in initiating biologics. This article presents the preliminary findings of 30 months of severe asthma management with various biologic agents, examining the impact of these therapies on hospitalizations, asthma exacerbations, ICU stays, and OCS use. The findings of this study support the benefits of biologics and suggest that the use of these agents within a dually staffed clinic may be a particularly effective model through which to manage severe asthma.

Background

Asthma affects approximately 20 million adults in the United States.¹³ Veterans are a population particularly impacted by asthma. Between 2015 and 2018, 10.9% of all veterans reported being diagnosed with asthma and 5.1% stated that they currently have asthma, compared with 13.4% and 8.0% of nonveterans, respectively.¹⁴ Veterans are susceptible to many of the factors that can trigger exacerbations while engaging in military service, such as chemical and environmental exposures both abroad and domestically.^15,16 Additionally, medication adherence is often challenging among the veteran population, particularly with more involved therapy, such as inhaler use.¹⁷ Such factors contribute to asthma exacerbations, with 2.9% of veterans reporting at least 1 asthma exacerbation in the past 12 months.¹⁴

Over the past several years, the development and use of biologic agents have transformed the management of severe asthma.⁸ Before the development of biologic agents for severe asthma, treatment options for patients were limited. While OCS are frequently used for asthma exacerbations, they are associated with a multiplicity of undesirable adverse effects, including weight gain, mood lability, gastrointestinal upset, hyperglycemia, risk of bone fractures, and hypertension.^18-20 The regular use of OCS are particularly problematic among other medical comorbidities commonly affecting the veteran population, such as diabetes and hypertension.^21-22

The WDCVAMC severe allergy clinic used 3 biologic agents: omalizumab (anti-IgE), benralizumab (anti-IL-5), and agent dupilumab (anti-IL-4). These medications have shown significant improvements in quality of life, reduction in asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, and decreased use of OCS.^8,9 While research has firmly established the medical benefits of the use of biologic agents in severe asthma, several barriers exist in implementing widespread use.^11,12

In Gelhorn and colleagues’ study examining both physician and patient challenges in the use of biologics for severe asthma, scheduling, administrative time, and insurance costs were found to be major barriers to the use of these medications.¹² Patients expressed a preference for the administration of these medications in a specialist’s office but cited long wait times and scheduling difficulties as barriers. One of the most notable challenges from the physician perspective was the difficulty in obtaining reimbursement from insurance companies, requiring them to devote significant portions of time to prior authorizations and documentation.¹²

This article examines a dual specialty clinic that focuses on the treatment of severe asthma with biologic agents. This model is unique for several reasons. First, given the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care model, the health care practitioners (HCPs) in this clinic can avoid much of the administrative burden of obtaining reimbursement or working with insurance companies. Additionally, by dedicating specific days to the severe asthma clinic, patients do not experience long wait times to see both an allergist and pulmonologist. By seeing both clinicians, concurrent allergic and pulmonary issues can be addressed in the same visit, rather than delaying treatment by waiting on 2 specialist appointments.

Severe Asthma Clinic

The severe asthma clinic was started in September 2017 by a pulmonologist and an allergist at WDCVAMC. After experiencing substantial delays with the initiation of biologics for their patients and multiple referrals between their clinics, these physicians wanted to start a dually staffed asthma clinic to specifically focus on evaluating and treating severe asthma. A dedicated severe asthma clinic allowed the allergist and pulmonologist to streamline resources and collaborate to advocate for patients with the pharmacy section. Additionally, patients can benefit from the perspective of both specialists, as both the pulmonologist and allergist evaluate each patient and discuss the next steps of management.

This clinic is composed of 4 registered nurses, an allergist, and a pulmonologist. Clinic is held twice monthly through both telemedicine and in-office visits. The VA has strict guidelines for the use of certain biologics, including blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/µL, failure of traditional therapy, and frequent use of OCS. Additionally, to ensure these biologic agents are prescribed to patients that will benefit from them, the patients enrolled in this clinic are already on maximum therapy for their asthma, meaning all other therapeutic options (inhalers and oral medications) are being used. The clinic services all patients with severe asthma, not just patients who are on biologic therapy. Often, patients are referred to the severe allergy clinic late in their disease course given a lack of familiarity with biologic agents from prescribers and both institutional and insurance barriers.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) tests were recorded at each visit. Initially during the pandemic, the clinic transitioned to primarily telemedicine visits due to patients’ hesitance to seek in-person care. More recently, the clinic has transitioned back to primarily office visits; patients are seen in clinic on average every 3 months. At each visit, the patient is seen by both the pulmonologist and allergist. Additionally, the nursing staff reviews inhaler adherence with patients, spacer use, documents, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and schedules follow-up visits.

Every 4 to 8 weeks, patients receive biologics agent at the WDCVAMC infusion center depending on the agent. The infusion center also instructs patients how to handle self-administered medications, like benralizumab, if the patient expresses a preference for taking it at home. Omalizumab has a boxed warning for anaphylaxis, although the other biologics in this study have a low risk of anaphylaxis. All patients receiving omalizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were provided with epinephrine injection devices in case of an allergic reaction and were taught how to use them in the clinic.^23,24

If patients continued to experience asthma exacerbations after the initiation of a biologic, a change in agent was considered after 4 to 6 months. Additionally, a complete blood count, respiratory allergy panel, and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were completed.

Clinic Patients

Preliminary data were obtained from a retrospective chart review of 15 patients enrolled in the severe asthma clinic over 30 months. The inclusion criteria for chart review consisted of patients aged > 18 years receiving a biologic agent for > 3 months for the treatment of severe asthma. The outcomes examined included steroid use, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, FEV₁, and ICU stays.

Seven patients used benralizumab, 6 used dupilumab, and 2 used omalizumab (Table).

There was a notable clinical improvement in these patients. Before starting a biologic agent, all the patients in this study were prescribed steroids at least once a year for an asthma exacerbation, with a mean of 4.2 steroid tapers per year.

Discussion

The 15 patients in this initial data were referred to the severe asthma clinic by pulmonology, ear, nose, and throat (ENT), primary care, and a hospitalist during an in-patient stay. As the enrollment in our clinic grows, an increasing number of patients are referred from the allergy clinic as well. Patients in the severe asthma clinic also are referred by regional centers as news of the clinic is spread by word of mouth to surrounding VA facilities. As our clinic gains the capacity to serve more patients, we hope to contact WDCVAMC primary care, pulmonology, allergy, and ENT departments to raise awareness of the clinic.

Benralizumab and dupilumab were the most used agents in this preliminary data. This finding was largely due to the ability of patients to self-administer benralizumab, which was particularly beneficial during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of note, 5 patients in this study switched from another biologic agent to benralizumab due to the ability to self-administer. Three of 5 patients that required steroids after initiating benralizumab used fewer steroids than they had previously. This finding suggests benralizumab may be the preferred agent when travel time to health care is a challenge, reducing the need for frequent clinic visits and transportation.

This preliminary data supports previous studies that have demonstrated that biologic agents improve clinical outcomes by reducing asthma exacerbations, OCS use, hospitalizations, and ICU stays for patients on all 4 biologic agents. In addition to improving patient health through avoiding complications of prolonged OCS use and hospital stays, the decrease in ED visits and hospitalizations provides a substantial cost reduction to the health care system.  

These findings highlight the strength of a unique model of a combined allergy/pulmonary clinic. Before this combined clinic model, both pulmonology and allergy clinics noted delays in the initiation of biologics for patients who were potential candidates. Impediments include referrals between each specialty for evaluation of concurrent pulmonary conditions or allergy testing, overlap in asthma management, and a delay in coordination with the pharmacy department to start biologic agents. A dedicated severe asthma clinic staffed by both an allergist and pulmonologist provides a convenient option for patients to be seen by both specialists, reducing the need for separate appointments with each specialty, transportation to those appointments, and clinical time. This is particularly beneficial in a clinic such as this model, as this clinic serves patients from 4 states and Washington, DC. An additional benefit of this model is trained staff who directly communicate with the pharmacy in the initiation of these agents, allocate time to educating patients in biologic use, and coordinate follow-up.

Limitations

There were several limitations to this report. First, the number of patients examined in this preliminary data set is small. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a limited ability to see patients in person, and patients were seen exclusively over telemedicine for several months. For this reason, collecting data such as patient surveys and laboratory work following the initiation of a biologic was a challenge. Additionally, during the height of COVID-19, WDCVAMC did not perform aerosolizing procedures, such as PFTs and FENOs; thus, peak flows were obtained instead. Examining metrics, such as FENOs and IgE levels, and expanding PFT data would provide additional insight into the impact of biologic agents on clinical outcomes. Patient survey data in the form of ACTs or satisfaction surveys would also yield important data examining the impact of this clinic design and biologic use on patient experience. As of December 2022, 114 patients are enrolled in the clinic. We are working to collect the above laboratory results and spirometry for these patients so that these results can be published with a more robust data set. Another limitation of the information presented is that it is a retrospective data analysis; the data collected was contingent upon documentation and the assumption that these patients were exclusively receiving care through the VA. For example, steroid use before and after initiation of biologic was taken from asthma clinic notes and the patient’s medication list. Therefore, there is a possibility that not all instances were accounted for if that patient sought care outside the VA or whether it was not documented in a follow-up note.

Conclusions

The model of a combined allergy/pulmonology clinic can be particularly efficacious in the treatment of severe asthma, as it reduces the need for multiple appointments with different specialties, reduces wait time before starting a biologic agent, and offers the perspective of 2 specialists. This kind of model could be an example to many clinics in the VA. With a rapid increase in telemedicine due to the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple physicians consulting simultaneously is becoming a more feasible possibility across multiple specialties. As the use of biologics becomes more widespread, a combined clinic design is an efficient and promising method to improve severe asthma management.

This preliminary data continue to support previous research that shows biologic agents have led to better clinical outcomes through the reduction of asthma exacerbations, hospitalizations, and improved PFTs. While this initial data set highlights the results for 15 patients, there are 86 patients currently enrolled in this clinic. We are collecting additional data to publish more comprehensive results.