Managing Resistance to Change Along the Journey to High Reliability

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

Managing Resistance to Change Along the Journey to High Reliability

To improve safety performance, many health care organizations have embarked on the journey to becoming high reliability organizations (HROs). HROs operate in complex, high-risk, constantly changing environments and avoid catastrophic events despite the inherent risks.1 HROs maintain high levels of safety and reliability by adhering to core principles, foundational practices, rigorous processes, a strong organizational culture, and continuous learning and process improvement.1-3

Becoming an HRO requires understanding what makes systems safer for patients and staff at all levels by taking ownership of 5 principles: (1) sensitivity to operations (increased awareness of the current status of systems); (2) reluctance to simplify (avoiding oversimplification of the cause[s] of problems); (3) preoccupation with failure (anticipating risks that might be symptomatic of a larger problem); (4) deference to expertise (relying on the most qualified individuals to make decisions); and (5) commitment to resilience (planning for potential failure and being prepared to respond).1,2,4 In addition to these, the Veterans Health Administration has identified 3 pillars of HROs: leadership commitment (safety and reliability are central to leadership vision, decision-making, and action-oriented behaviors), safety culture (across the organization, safety values are key to preventing harm and learning from mistakes), and continuous process improvement (promoting constant learning and improvement with evidence-based tools and methodologies).5

Implementing these principles is not enough to achieve high reliability. This transition requires significant change, which can be met with resistance. Without attending to organizational change, implementation of HRO principles can be superficial, scattered, and isolated.6 Large organizations often struggle with change as it conflicts with the fundamental human need for stability and security.7 Consequently, the journey to becoming an HRO requires an understanding of the reasons for resistance to change (RtC) as well as evidence-based strategies.

REASONS FOR RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

RtC is the informal and covert behavior of an individual or group to a particular change. RtC is commonly recognized as the failure of employees to do anything requested by managers and is a main reason change initiatives fail.8 While some staff see change as opportunities for learning and growth, others resist based on uncertainty about how the changes will impact their current work situation, or fear, frustration, confusion, and distrust.8,9 Resistance can overtly manifest with some staff publicly expressing their discontent in public without offering solutions, or covertly by ignoring the change or avoiding participation in any aspect of the change process. Both forms of RtC are equally detrimental.8

Frequent changes in organizations can also cause cynicism. Employees will view the change as something initially popular, but will only last until another change comes along.8,9 Resistance can result in the failure to achieve desired objectives, wasted time, effort, and resources, decreased momentum, and loss of confidence and trust in leaders to effectively manage the change process.9 To understand RtC, 3 main factors must be considered: individual, interpersonal, and organizational.

Individual

An individual’s personality can be an important indicator for how they will respond to change. Some individuals welcome and thrive on change while others resist in preference for the status quo.8,10 Individuals will also resist change if they believe their position, power, or prestige within the organization are in jeopardy or that the change is contrary to current personal or organizational values, principles, and objectives.8-12 Resistance can also be the result of uncertainty about what the change means, lack of information regarding the change, or questioning motives for the change.9

Interpersonal

Another influence on RtC is the interpersonal factors of employees. The personal satisfaction individuals receive from their work and the type of interactions they experience with colleagues can impact RtC. When communication with colleagues is lacking before and during change implementation, negative reactions to the change can fuel resistance.11 Cross-functional and bidirectional communication is vital; its absence can leave staff feeling inadequately informed and less supportive of the change.8 Employees’ understanding of changes through communication between other members of the organization is critical to success.11

Organizational

How organizational leaders introduce change affects the extent to which staff respond.10 RtC can emerge if staff feel change is imposed on them. Change is better received when people are actively engaged in the process and adopt a sense of ownership that will ultimately affect them and their role within the organization.12,13 Organizations are also better equipped to address potential RtC when leadership is respected and have a genuine concern for the overall well-being of staff members. Organizational leaders who mainly focus on the bottom line and have little regard for staff are more likely to be perceived as untrustworthy, which contributes to RtC.9,13 Lack of proper education and guidance from organizational leaders, as well as poor communication, can lead to RtC.8,13

MANAGING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

RtC can be a significant factor in the success or failure of the change process. Poorly managed change can exponentially increase resistance, necessitating a multifaceted approach to managing RtC, while well-managed change can result in a high success rate. Evidence-based strategies to counter RtC focus on communication, employee participation, education and training, and engaging managers.8

Communication

Open and effective communication is critical to managing RtC, as uncertainty often exaggerates the negative aspects of change. Effective communication involves active listening, with leadership and management addressing employee concerns in a clear and concise manner. A psychologically safe culture for open dialogue is essential when addressing RtC.9,14,15 Psychological safety empowers staff to speak up, ask questions, and offer ideas, forming a solid basis for open and effective communication and participation. Leaders and managers should create opportunities for open dialogue for all members of the organization throughout the process. This can be accomplished with one-on-one meetings, open forums, town hall meetings, electronic mail, newsletters, and social media. Topics should cover the reasons for change, details of what is changing, the individual, organizational, and patient risks of not changing, as well as the benefits of changing.9 Encouraging staff to ask questions and provide feedback to promote bidirectional and closed-loop communication is essential to avoid misunderstandings.9,15 While open communication is essential, leaders must carefully plan what information to share, how much to share, and how to avoid information overload. Information about the change should be timely, adequate, applicable, and informative.15 The HRO practice of leader rounding for high reliability can be instrumental to ensure effective, bidirectional communication and collaboration among all disciplines across a health care organization through improving leadership visibility during times of change and enhancing interactions and communication with staff.3

Employee Participation

Involving staff in the change process significantly reduces RtC. Engagement fosters ownership in the change process, increasing the likelihood employees will support and even champion it. Health care professionals welcome opportunities to be involved in helping with aspects of organizational change, especially when invited to participate in the change early in the process and throughout the course of change.7,14,15

Leaders should encourage staff to provide feedback to understand the impact the change is having on them and their roles and responsibilities within the organization. This exemplifies the HRO principle of deference to expertise as the employee often has the most in-depth knowledge of their work setting. Employee perspectives can significantly influence the success of change initatives.7,14 Participation is impactful in providing employees with a sense of agency facilitating acceptance and improving desire to adopt the change.14

Tiered safety huddles and visual management systems (VMSs) also can engage staff. Tiered safety huddles provide a forum for transparent communication, increasing situational awareness, and improving a health care organization’s ability to appropriately respond to staff questions, suggestions, and concerns. VMSs display the status and progress toward organizational goals during the change process, and are highly effective in creating environments where staff feel empowered to voice concerns related to the change process.3

Education and Training

Educating employees on the value of change is crucial to overcome RtC. RtC often stems from employees not feeling prepared to adapt or adopt new processes. Health care professionals who do not receive information about change are less likely to support it.7,12,15 Staff are more likely to accept change when they understand why it is needed and how it impacts the organization’s long-term mission.11,15 Timely, compelling, and informative education on how to adapt to the change will promote more positive appraisal of the change and reduce RtC.8,15 Employees must feel confident they will receive the appropriate training, resources, and support to successfully adapt to the change. This requires leaders and managers taking time to clarify expectations, conduct a gap analysis to identify the skills and knowledge needed to support the planned change, and provide sufficient educational opportunities to fill those gaps.8 For example, the US Department of Veterans Affairs offers classes to employees on the Prosci ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) Model. This training provides individuals with the information and skills needed for change to be successful.16

Safety forums can be influential and allow leadership to educate staff on updates related to change processes and promote bidirectional communication.3 In safety forums, staff have an opportunity to ask questions, especially as they relate to learning about available resources to become more informed about the organizational changes.

Engaging Managers

Managers are pivotal to the successful implementation of organizational change.8 They serve as the bridge between senior leadership and frontline employees and are positioned to influence the adoption and success of change initiatives. Often the first point of contact for employees, managers can effectively communicate the need for change, and act as the liaison to align it with individual employee motivations. Since they are often the first to encounter resistance among employees, managers serve as advocates through the process. Through a coaching role, managers can help employees develop the knowledge and ability to be successful and thrive in the new environment. The Table summarizes the evidence-based strategies.

FDP04302046_T1

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing change in health care organizations can be challenging, especially on the journey to high reliability. RtC is the result of factors at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that leaders must address to increase chances for success. Organizational changes in health care are more likely to succeed when staff understand why the change is needed through open and continuous communication, can influence the change by sharing their own perspectives, and have the knowledge, skills, and resources to prepare for and participate in the process.

References
  1. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Dealing-Perez C, et al. A high-reliability organization mindset. Am J Med Qual. 2022;37:504-510. doi:10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000086
  2. Veazie S, Peterson K, Bourne D, et al. Implementing high-reliability organization principles into practice: a rapid evidence review. J Patient Saf. 2022;18:e320-e328. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000768
  3. Murray JS, Baghdadi A, Dannenberg W, et al. The role of high reliability organization foundational practices in building a culture of safety. Fed Pract. 2024;41:214-221. doi:10.12788/fp.0486
  4. Ford J, Isaacks DB, Anderson T. Creating, executing and sustaining a high-reliability organization in health care. The Learning Organization: An International Journal. 2024;31:817-833. doi:10.1108/TLO-03-2023-0048
  5. Cox GR, Starr LM. VHA’s movement for change: implementing high-reliability principles and practices. J Healthc Manag. 2023;68:151-157. doi:10.1097/JHM-D-00056
  6. Myers CG, Sutcliffe KM. High reliability organising in healthcare: still a long way left to go. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:845-848. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014141
  7. Nilsen P, Seing I, Ericsson C, et al. Characteristics of successful changes in health care organizations: an interview study with physicians, registered nurses and assistant nurses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:147. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-4999-8
  8. Cheraghi R, Ebrahimi H, Kheibar N, et al. Reasons for resistance to change in nursing: an integrative review. BMC Nurs. 2023;22:310. doi:10/1186/s12912-023-01460-0
  9. Warrick DD. Revisiting resistance to change and how to manage it: what has been learned and what organizations need to do. Bus Horiz. 2023;66:433-441. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2022.09.001
  10. Sverdlik N, Oreg S. Beyond the individual-level conceptualization of dispositional resistance to change: multilevel effects on the response to organizational change. J Organ Behav. 2023;44:1066-1077. doi:10.1002/job.2678
  11. Khaw KW, Alnoor A, Al-Abrrow H, et al. Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review. Curr Psychol. 2022;13:1-24. doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03070-6
  12. Pomare C, Churruca K, Long JC, et al. Organisational change in hospitals: a qualitative case-study of staff perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:840. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4704-y
  13. DuBose BM, Mayo AM. RtC: a concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2020;55:631-636. doi:10.1111/nuf.12479
  14. Sahay S, Goldthwaite C. Participatory practices during organizational change: rethinking participation and resistance. Manag Commun Q. 2024;38(2):279-306. doi:10.1177/08933189231187883
  15. Damawan AH, Azizah S. Resistance to change: causes and strategies as an organizational challenge. ASSEHR. 2020;395(2020):49-53. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.200120.010
  16. Wong Q, Lacombe M, Keller R, et al. Leading change with ADKAR. Nurs Manage. 2019;50:28-35. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000554341.70508.75
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Col (Ret) John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, CPNP, CS, USAFa; Jonathan Lee, PhDb; Joan Clifford, DNP, RN, FACHE, NEA-BCb

Author affiliations
aCognosante, Falls Church, Virginia
bVeterans Affairs Bedford Healthcare System, Massachusetts

Author disclosures The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent Not applicable.

Correspondence: John Murray ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2026;43(2). Published online February 16. doi:10.12788/fp.0668

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 43(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
46-49
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Col (Ret) John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, CPNP, CS, USAFa; Jonathan Lee, PhDb; Joan Clifford, DNP, RN, FACHE, NEA-BCb

Author affiliations
aCognosante, Falls Church, Virginia
bVeterans Affairs Bedford Healthcare System, Massachusetts

Author disclosures The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent Not applicable.

Correspondence: John Murray ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2026;43(2). Published online February 16. doi:10.12788/fp.0668

Author and Disclosure Information

Col (Ret) John S. Murray, PhD, MPH, MSGH, RN, CPNP, CS, USAFa; Jonathan Lee, PhDb; Joan Clifford, DNP, RN, FACHE, NEA-BCb

Author affiliations
aCognosante, Falls Church, Virginia
bVeterans Affairs Bedford Healthcare System, Massachusetts

Author disclosures The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent Not applicable.

Correspondence: John Murray ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2026;43(2). Published online February 16. doi:10.12788/fp.0668

Article PDF
Article PDF

To improve safety performance, many health care organizations have embarked on the journey to becoming high reliability organizations (HROs). HROs operate in complex, high-risk, constantly changing environments and avoid catastrophic events despite the inherent risks.1 HROs maintain high levels of safety and reliability by adhering to core principles, foundational practices, rigorous processes, a strong organizational culture, and continuous learning and process improvement.1-3

Becoming an HRO requires understanding what makes systems safer for patients and staff at all levels by taking ownership of 5 principles: (1) sensitivity to operations (increased awareness of the current status of systems); (2) reluctance to simplify (avoiding oversimplification of the cause[s] of problems); (3) preoccupation with failure (anticipating risks that might be symptomatic of a larger problem); (4) deference to expertise (relying on the most qualified individuals to make decisions); and (5) commitment to resilience (planning for potential failure and being prepared to respond).1,2,4 In addition to these, the Veterans Health Administration has identified 3 pillars of HROs: leadership commitment (safety and reliability are central to leadership vision, decision-making, and action-oriented behaviors), safety culture (across the organization, safety values are key to preventing harm and learning from mistakes), and continuous process improvement (promoting constant learning and improvement with evidence-based tools and methodologies).5

Implementing these principles is not enough to achieve high reliability. This transition requires significant change, which can be met with resistance. Without attending to organizational change, implementation of HRO principles can be superficial, scattered, and isolated.6 Large organizations often struggle with change as it conflicts with the fundamental human need for stability and security.7 Consequently, the journey to becoming an HRO requires an understanding of the reasons for resistance to change (RtC) as well as evidence-based strategies.

REASONS FOR RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

RtC is the informal and covert behavior of an individual or group to a particular change. RtC is commonly recognized as the failure of employees to do anything requested by managers and is a main reason change initiatives fail.8 While some staff see change as opportunities for learning and growth, others resist based on uncertainty about how the changes will impact their current work situation, or fear, frustration, confusion, and distrust.8,9 Resistance can overtly manifest with some staff publicly expressing their discontent in public without offering solutions, or covertly by ignoring the change or avoiding participation in any aspect of the change process. Both forms of RtC are equally detrimental.8

Frequent changes in organizations can also cause cynicism. Employees will view the change as something initially popular, but will only last until another change comes along.8,9 Resistance can result in the failure to achieve desired objectives, wasted time, effort, and resources, decreased momentum, and loss of confidence and trust in leaders to effectively manage the change process.9 To understand RtC, 3 main factors must be considered: individual, interpersonal, and organizational.

Individual

An individual’s personality can be an important indicator for how they will respond to change. Some individuals welcome and thrive on change while others resist in preference for the status quo.8,10 Individuals will also resist change if they believe their position, power, or prestige within the organization are in jeopardy or that the change is contrary to current personal or organizational values, principles, and objectives.8-12 Resistance can also be the result of uncertainty about what the change means, lack of information regarding the change, or questioning motives for the change.9

Interpersonal

Another influence on RtC is the interpersonal factors of employees. The personal satisfaction individuals receive from their work and the type of interactions they experience with colleagues can impact RtC. When communication with colleagues is lacking before and during change implementation, negative reactions to the change can fuel resistance.11 Cross-functional and bidirectional communication is vital; its absence can leave staff feeling inadequately informed and less supportive of the change.8 Employees’ understanding of changes through communication between other members of the organization is critical to success.11

Organizational

How organizational leaders introduce change affects the extent to which staff respond.10 RtC can emerge if staff feel change is imposed on them. Change is better received when people are actively engaged in the process and adopt a sense of ownership that will ultimately affect them and their role within the organization.12,13 Organizations are also better equipped to address potential RtC when leadership is respected and have a genuine concern for the overall well-being of staff members. Organizational leaders who mainly focus on the bottom line and have little regard for staff are more likely to be perceived as untrustworthy, which contributes to RtC.9,13 Lack of proper education and guidance from organizational leaders, as well as poor communication, can lead to RtC.8,13

MANAGING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

RtC can be a significant factor in the success or failure of the change process. Poorly managed change can exponentially increase resistance, necessitating a multifaceted approach to managing RtC, while well-managed change can result in a high success rate. Evidence-based strategies to counter RtC focus on communication, employee participation, education and training, and engaging managers.8

Communication

Open and effective communication is critical to managing RtC, as uncertainty often exaggerates the negative aspects of change. Effective communication involves active listening, with leadership and management addressing employee concerns in a clear and concise manner. A psychologically safe culture for open dialogue is essential when addressing RtC.9,14,15 Psychological safety empowers staff to speak up, ask questions, and offer ideas, forming a solid basis for open and effective communication and participation. Leaders and managers should create opportunities for open dialogue for all members of the organization throughout the process. This can be accomplished with one-on-one meetings, open forums, town hall meetings, electronic mail, newsletters, and social media. Topics should cover the reasons for change, details of what is changing, the individual, organizational, and patient risks of not changing, as well as the benefits of changing.9 Encouraging staff to ask questions and provide feedback to promote bidirectional and closed-loop communication is essential to avoid misunderstandings.9,15 While open communication is essential, leaders must carefully plan what information to share, how much to share, and how to avoid information overload. Information about the change should be timely, adequate, applicable, and informative.15 The HRO practice of leader rounding for high reliability can be instrumental to ensure effective, bidirectional communication and collaboration among all disciplines across a health care organization through improving leadership visibility during times of change and enhancing interactions and communication with staff.3

Employee Participation

Involving staff in the change process significantly reduces RtC. Engagement fosters ownership in the change process, increasing the likelihood employees will support and even champion it. Health care professionals welcome opportunities to be involved in helping with aspects of organizational change, especially when invited to participate in the change early in the process and throughout the course of change.7,14,15

Leaders should encourage staff to provide feedback to understand the impact the change is having on them and their roles and responsibilities within the organization. This exemplifies the HRO principle of deference to expertise as the employee often has the most in-depth knowledge of their work setting. Employee perspectives can significantly influence the success of change initatives.7,14 Participation is impactful in providing employees with a sense of agency facilitating acceptance and improving desire to adopt the change.14

Tiered safety huddles and visual management systems (VMSs) also can engage staff. Tiered safety huddles provide a forum for transparent communication, increasing situational awareness, and improving a health care organization’s ability to appropriately respond to staff questions, suggestions, and concerns. VMSs display the status and progress toward organizational goals during the change process, and are highly effective in creating environments where staff feel empowered to voice concerns related to the change process.3

Education and Training

Educating employees on the value of change is crucial to overcome RtC. RtC often stems from employees not feeling prepared to adapt or adopt new processes. Health care professionals who do not receive information about change are less likely to support it.7,12,15 Staff are more likely to accept change when they understand why it is needed and how it impacts the organization’s long-term mission.11,15 Timely, compelling, and informative education on how to adapt to the change will promote more positive appraisal of the change and reduce RtC.8,15 Employees must feel confident they will receive the appropriate training, resources, and support to successfully adapt to the change. This requires leaders and managers taking time to clarify expectations, conduct a gap analysis to identify the skills and knowledge needed to support the planned change, and provide sufficient educational opportunities to fill those gaps.8 For example, the US Department of Veterans Affairs offers classes to employees on the Prosci ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) Model. This training provides individuals with the information and skills needed for change to be successful.16

Safety forums can be influential and allow leadership to educate staff on updates related to change processes and promote bidirectional communication.3 In safety forums, staff have an opportunity to ask questions, especially as they relate to learning about available resources to become more informed about the organizational changes.

Engaging Managers

Managers are pivotal to the successful implementation of organizational change.8 They serve as the bridge between senior leadership and frontline employees and are positioned to influence the adoption and success of change initiatives. Often the first point of contact for employees, managers can effectively communicate the need for change, and act as the liaison to align it with individual employee motivations. Since they are often the first to encounter resistance among employees, managers serve as advocates through the process. Through a coaching role, managers can help employees develop the knowledge and ability to be successful and thrive in the new environment. The Table summarizes the evidence-based strategies.

FDP04302046_T1

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing change in health care organizations can be challenging, especially on the journey to high reliability. RtC is the result of factors at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that leaders must address to increase chances for success. Organizational changes in health care are more likely to succeed when staff understand why the change is needed through open and continuous communication, can influence the change by sharing their own perspectives, and have the knowledge, skills, and resources to prepare for and participate in the process.

To improve safety performance, many health care organizations have embarked on the journey to becoming high reliability organizations (HROs). HROs operate in complex, high-risk, constantly changing environments and avoid catastrophic events despite the inherent risks.1 HROs maintain high levels of safety and reliability by adhering to core principles, foundational practices, rigorous processes, a strong organizational culture, and continuous learning and process improvement.1-3

Becoming an HRO requires understanding what makes systems safer for patients and staff at all levels by taking ownership of 5 principles: (1) sensitivity to operations (increased awareness of the current status of systems); (2) reluctance to simplify (avoiding oversimplification of the cause[s] of problems); (3) preoccupation with failure (anticipating risks that might be symptomatic of a larger problem); (4) deference to expertise (relying on the most qualified individuals to make decisions); and (5) commitment to resilience (planning for potential failure and being prepared to respond).1,2,4 In addition to these, the Veterans Health Administration has identified 3 pillars of HROs: leadership commitment (safety and reliability are central to leadership vision, decision-making, and action-oriented behaviors), safety culture (across the organization, safety values are key to preventing harm and learning from mistakes), and continuous process improvement (promoting constant learning and improvement with evidence-based tools and methodologies).5

Implementing these principles is not enough to achieve high reliability. This transition requires significant change, which can be met with resistance. Without attending to organizational change, implementation of HRO principles can be superficial, scattered, and isolated.6 Large organizations often struggle with change as it conflicts with the fundamental human need for stability and security.7 Consequently, the journey to becoming an HRO requires an understanding of the reasons for resistance to change (RtC) as well as evidence-based strategies.

REASONS FOR RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

RtC is the informal and covert behavior of an individual or group to a particular change. RtC is commonly recognized as the failure of employees to do anything requested by managers and is a main reason change initiatives fail.8 While some staff see change as opportunities for learning and growth, others resist based on uncertainty about how the changes will impact their current work situation, or fear, frustration, confusion, and distrust.8,9 Resistance can overtly manifest with some staff publicly expressing their discontent in public without offering solutions, or covertly by ignoring the change or avoiding participation in any aspect of the change process. Both forms of RtC are equally detrimental.8

Frequent changes in organizations can also cause cynicism. Employees will view the change as something initially popular, but will only last until another change comes along.8,9 Resistance can result in the failure to achieve desired objectives, wasted time, effort, and resources, decreased momentum, and loss of confidence and trust in leaders to effectively manage the change process.9 To understand RtC, 3 main factors must be considered: individual, interpersonal, and organizational.

Individual

An individual’s personality can be an important indicator for how they will respond to change. Some individuals welcome and thrive on change while others resist in preference for the status quo.8,10 Individuals will also resist change if they believe their position, power, or prestige within the organization are in jeopardy or that the change is contrary to current personal or organizational values, principles, and objectives.8-12 Resistance can also be the result of uncertainty about what the change means, lack of information regarding the change, or questioning motives for the change.9

Interpersonal

Another influence on RtC is the interpersonal factors of employees. The personal satisfaction individuals receive from their work and the type of interactions they experience with colleagues can impact RtC. When communication with colleagues is lacking before and during change implementation, negative reactions to the change can fuel resistance.11 Cross-functional and bidirectional communication is vital; its absence can leave staff feeling inadequately informed and less supportive of the change.8 Employees’ understanding of changes through communication between other members of the organization is critical to success.11

Organizational

How organizational leaders introduce change affects the extent to which staff respond.10 RtC can emerge if staff feel change is imposed on them. Change is better received when people are actively engaged in the process and adopt a sense of ownership that will ultimately affect them and their role within the organization.12,13 Organizations are also better equipped to address potential RtC when leadership is respected and have a genuine concern for the overall well-being of staff members. Organizational leaders who mainly focus on the bottom line and have little regard for staff are more likely to be perceived as untrustworthy, which contributes to RtC.9,13 Lack of proper education and guidance from organizational leaders, as well as poor communication, can lead to RtC.8,13

MANAGING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

RtC can be a significant factor in the success or failure of the change process. Poorly managed change can exponentially increase resistance, necessitating a multifaceted approach to managing RtC, while well-managed change can result in a high success rate. Evidence-based strategies to counter RtC focus on communication, employee participation, education and training, and engaging managers.8

Communication

Open and effective communication is critical to managing RtC, as uncertainty often exaggerates the negative aspects of change. Effective communication involves active listening, with leadership and management addressing employee concerns in a clear and concise manner. A psychologically safe culture for open dialogue is essential when addressing RtC.9,14,15 Psychological safety empowers staff to speak up, ask questions, and offer ideas, forming a solid basis for open and effective communication and participation. Leaders and managers should create opportunities for open dialogue for all members of the organization throughout the process. This can be accomplished with one-on-one meetings, open forums, town hall meetings, electronic mail, newsletters, and social media. Topics should cover the reasons for change, details of what is changing, the individual, organizational, and patient risks of not changing, as well as the benefits of changing.9 Encouraging staff to ask questions and provide feedback to promote bidirectional and closed-loop communication is essential to avoid misunderstandings.9,15 While open communication is essential, leaders must carefully plan what information to share, how much to share, and how to avoid information overload. Information about the change should be timely, adequate, applicable, and informative.15 The HRO practice of leader rounding for high reliability can be instrumental to ensure effective, bidirectional communication and collaboration among all disciplines across a health care organization through improving leadership visibility during times of change and enhancing interactions and communication with staff.3

Employee Participation

Involving staff in the change process significantly reduces RtC. Engagement fosters ownership in the change process, increasing the likelihood employees will support and even champion it. Health care professionals welcome opportunities to be involved in helping with aspects of organizational change, especially when invited to participate in the change early in the process and throughout the course of change.7,14,15

Leaders should encourage staff to provide feedback to understand the impact the change is having on them and their roles and responsibilities within the organization. This exemplifies the HRO principle of deference to expertise as the employee often has the most in-depth knowledge of their work setting. Employee perspectives can significantly influence the success of change initatives.7,14 Participation is impactful in providing employees with a sense of agency facilitating acceptance and improving desire to adopt the change.14

Tiered safety huddles and visual management systems (VMSs) also can engage staff. Tiered safety huddles provide a forum for transparent communication, increasing situational awareness, and improving a health care organization’s ability to appropriately respond to staff questions, suggestions, and concerns. VMSs display the status and progress toward organizational goals during the change process, and are highly effective in creating environments where staff feel empowered to voice concerns related to the change process.3

Education and Training

Educating employees on the value of change is crucial to overcome RtC. RtC often stems from employees not feeling prepared to adapt or adopt new processes. Health care professionals who do not receive information about change are less likely to support it.7,12,15 Staff are more likely to accept change when they understand why it is needed and how it impacts the organization’s long-term mission.11,15 Timely, compelling, and informative education on how to adapt to the change will promote more positive appraisal of the change and reduce RtC.8,15 Employees must feel confident they will receive the appropriate training, resources, and support to successfully adapt to the change. This requires leaders and managers taking time to clarify expectations, conduct a gap analysis to identify the skills and knowledge needed to support the planned change, and provide sufficient educational opportunities to fill those gaps.8 For example, the US Department of Veterans Affairs offers classes to employees on the Prosci ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement) Model. This training provides individuals with the information and skills needed for change to be successful.16

Safety forums can be influential and allow leadership to educate staff on updates related to change processes and promote bidirectional communication.3 In safety forums, staff have an opportunity to ask questions, especially as they relate to learning about available resources to become more informed about the organizational changes.

Engaging Managers

Managers are pivotal to the successful implementation of organizational change.8 They serve as the bridge between senior leadership and frontline employees and are positioned to influence the adoption and success of change initiatives. Often the first point of contact for employees, managers can effectively communicate the need for change, and act as the liaison to align it with individual employee motivations. Since they are often the first to encounter resistance among employees, managers serve as advocates through the process. Through a coaching role, managers can help employees develop the knowledge and ability to be successful and thrive in the new environment. The Table summarizes the evidence-based strategies.

FDP04302046_T1

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing change in health care organizations can be challenging, especially on the journey to high reliability. RtC is the result of factors at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that leaders must address to increase chances for success. Organizational changes in health care are more likely to succeed when staff understand why the change is needed through open and continuous communication, can influence the change by sharing their own perspectives, and have the knowledge, skills, and resources to prepare for and participate in the process.

References
  1. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Dealing-Perez C, et al. A high-reliability organization mindset. Am J Med Qual. 2022;37:504-510. doi:10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000086
  2. Veazie S, Peterson K, Bourne D, et al. Implementing high-reliability organization principles into practice: a rapid evidence review. J Patient Saf. 2022;18:e320-e328. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000768
  3. Murray JS, Baghdadi A, Dannenberg W, et al. The role of high reliability organization foundational practices in building a culture of safety. Fed Pract. 2024;41:214-221. doi:10.12788/fp.0486
  4. Ford J, Isaacks DB, Anderson T. Creating, executing and sustaining a high-reliability organization in health care. The Learning Organization: An International Journal. 2024;31:817-833. doi:10.1108/TLO-03-2023-0048
  5. Cox GR, Starr LM. VHA’s movement for change: implementing high-reliability principles and practices. J Healthc Manag. 2023;68:151-157. doi:10.1097/JHM-D-00056
  6. Myers CG, Sutcliffe KM. High reliability organising in healthcare: still a long way left to go. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:845-848. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014141
  7. Nilsen P, Seing I, Ericsson C, et al. Characteristics of successful changes in health care organizations: an interview study with physicians, registered nurses and assistant nurses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:147. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-4999-8
  8. Cheraghi R, Ebrahimi H, Kheibar N, et al. Reasons for resistance to change in nursing: an integrative review. BMC Nurs. 2023;22:310. doi:10/1186/s12912-023-01460-0
  9. Warrick DD. Revisiting resistance to change and how to manage it: what has been learned and what organizations need to do. Bus Horiz. 2023;66:433-441. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2022.09.001
  10. Sverdlik N, Oreg S. Beyond the individual-level conceptualization of dispositional resistance to change: multilevel effects on the response to organizational change. J Organ Behav. 2023;44:1066-1077. doi:10.1002/job.2678
  11. Khaw KW, Alnoor A, Al-Abrrow H, et al. Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review. Curr Psychol. 2022;13:1-24. doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03070-6
  12. Pomare C, Churruca K, Long JC, et al. Organisational change in hospitals: a qualitative case-study of staff perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:840. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4704-y
  13. DuBose BM, Mayo AM. RtC: a concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2020;55:631-636. doi:10.1111/nuf.12479
  14. Sahay S, Goldthwaite C. Participatory practices during organizational change: rethinking participation and resistance. Manag Commun Q. 2024;38(2):279-306. doi:10.1177/08933189231187883
  15. Damawan AH, Azizah S. Resistance to change: causes and strategies as an organizational challenge. ASSEHR. 2020;395(2020):49-53. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.200120.010
  16. Wong Q, Lacombe M, Keller R, et al. Leading change with ADKAR. Nurs Manage. 2019;50:28-35. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000554341.70508.75
References
  1. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Dealing-Perez C, et al. A high-reliability organization mindset. Am J Med Qual. 2022;37:504-510. doi:10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000086
  2. Veazie S, Peterson K, Bourne D, et al. Implementing high-reliability organization principles into practice: a rapid evidence review. J Patient Saf. 2022;18:e320-e328. doi:10.1097/PTS.0000000000000768
  3. Murray JS, Baghdadi A, Dannenberg W, et al. The role of high reliability organization foundational practices in building a culture of safety. Fed Pract. 2024;41:214-221. doi:10.12788/fp.0486
  4. Ford J, Isaacks DB, Anderson T. Creating, executing and sustaining a high-reliability organization in health care. The Learning Organization: An International Journal. 2024;31:817-833. doi:10.1108/TLO-03-2023-0048
  5. Cox GR, Starr LM. VHA’s movement for change: implementing high-reliability principles and practices. J Healthc Manag. 2023;68:151-157. doi:10.1097/JHM-D-00056
  6. Myers CG, Sutcliffe KM. High reliability organising in healthcare: still a long way left to go. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:845-848. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014141
  7. Nilsen P, Seing I, Ericsson C, et al. Characteristics of successful changes in health care organizations: an interview study with physicians, registered nurses and assistant nurses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:147. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-4999-8
  8. Cheraghi R, Ebrahimi H, Kheibar N, et al. Reasons for resistance to change in nursing: an integrative review. BMC Nurs. 2023;22:310. doi:10/1186/s12912-023-01460-0
  9. Warrick DD. Revisiting resistance to change and how to manage it: what has been learned and what organizations need to do. Bus Horiz. 2023;66:433-441. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2022.09.001
  10. Sverdlik N, Oreg S. Beyond the individual-level conceptualization of dispositional resistance to change: multilevel effects on the response to organizational change. J Organ Behav. 2023;44:1066-1077. doi:10.1002/job.2678
  11. Khaw KW, Alnoor A, Al-Abrrow H, et al. Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review. Curr Psychol. 2022;13:1-24. doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03070-6
  12. Pomare C, Churruca K, Long JC, et al. Organisational change in hospitals: a qualitative case-study of staff perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19:840. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4704-y
  13. DuBose BM, Mayo AM. RtC: a concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2020;55:631-636. doi:10.1111/nuf.12479
  14. Sahay S, Goldthwaite C. Participatory practices during organizational change: rethinking participation and resistance. Manag Commun Q. 2024;38(2):279-306. doi:10.1177/08933189231187883
  15. Damawan AH, Azizah S. Resistance to change: causes and strategies as an organizational challenge. ASSEHR. 2020;395(2020):49-53. doi:10.2991/assehr.k.200120.010
  16. Wong Q, Lacombe M, Keller R, et al. Leading change with ADKAR. Nurs Manage. 2019;50:28-35. doi:10.1097/01.NUMA.0000554341.70508.75
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 43(2)
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 43(2)
Page Number
46-49
Page Number
46-49
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Managing Resistance to Change Along the Journey to High Reliability

Display Headline

Managing Resistance to Change Along the Journey to High Reliability

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Negotiating the VUCA World Through Tiered Huddles

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

Negotiating the VUCA World Through Tiered Huddles

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
George Orwell (1946)1

In 2019, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated a process to become a high reliability organization (HRO).2 The COVID-19 pandemic has been described in medical literature as a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) event, underscoring the necessity of resilient communication strategies.3 Challenges posed by 2024 Hurricanes Helene and Milton further highlighted the need for resilient communication strategies within HRO implementation.

Central to the HRO journey within the VHA has been the development of tiered huddles, an evolution of the safety huddle concept.4 Emerging organically as an effective communication mechanism across multiple facilities between 2019 and 2020, tiered huddles were, in part, spurred by the onset of COVID-19. Tiered huddles represent a proactive approach to identifying and addressing organizational threats in their early stages, thereby preventing their escalation to a VUCA-laden crisis.5 When conditions evolve beyond the horizon of tractability, where challenges are easily identified and resolved, tiered huddles serve as a resilient mechanism to restore dynamic equilibrium within the organization.6,7

This article describes how tiered huddles were integrated within Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 4 and explores why these huddles are essential, particularly in the context of VUCA events. What began as a local-level tactic has now gained widespread acceptance and continues to evolve across the VHA with full support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary for Health.8

The VHA is divided into 18 VISNs. Nine VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) and 46 outpatient clinics across Pennsylvania, Delaware, and parts of Ohio, New York, and New Jersey make up VISN 4. Disseminating vital information across VISN 4, in addition to the 17 other VISNs—including 170 VAMCs and 1193 clinics—presents a formidable challenge. As the largest integrated system in the US, the VHA is realigning its workforce to address organizational inefficiencies. An enterprise of this scale, shaped by recurrent organizational change, faces ongoing challenges in sustaining clear communication across all levels. These transitions create uncertainty for staff as roles and resources shift, underscoring the need for dependable vertical and horizontal information flow. Tiered huddles offer a steady means to support coordinated communication and strengthen the system’s ability to adapt.9

ERIE VA MEDICAL CENTER HRO JOURNEY

In 2019, John Gennaro, the Erie VAMC executive director, attended a presentation that showcased the Cleveland Clinic’s tiered huddle process, with an opportunity to observe its 5-tiered system.10 Erie VAMC already had a 3-tiered huddle system, but the Cleveland Clinic’s more robust model inspired Gennaro to propose a VISN 4 pilot program. Tiered huddles were perceived as innovative, yet not fully embraced within the VHA; nonetheless, VISN 4, much like several other VISNs, moved forward and established a VISN-level (Tier 4) huddle.8 It is important to note that there was a notional fifth-tier capability as VISN and program office leaders already participated in daily VHA-wide meetings under the auspices of the Hospital Operations Center (HOC).

Expanding the Tiered Huddle Process

The Erie VAMC huddle process begins with the unit level Managers and Frontline Staff (Tier 1), then moves to Service Chiefs and Managers (Tier 2). Tier 3 involves facility executive leadership team and service chiefs, clinical directors and top VAMC administrators (these configurations may vary depending on context). The sequencing and flow of information is bidirectional across levels, reflecting the importance of closed-loop communication to ensure staff at all levels understand that issues raised are followed up on and/or closed out (Figure 1).2

1226FED-eVUCA-F1

Tier 4 composition may vary among VISNs depending on size and unique mission requirements.8,11 The VISN 4 Tier 4 huddle includes the VISN director, 9 VAMC directors, and key network administrators and clinical experts. The Tier 5 huddle includes 18 VISN 4 directors with the VHA HOC (Figure 2). The tiered huddle process emphasizes team-based culture and psychological safety.12-15 Staff at all levels are encouraged to identify and transparently resolve issues, fostering a proactive and problem-solving environment across the organization. A more nuanced and detailed process across tier levels is depicted in the Table.

1226FED-eVUCA-F21226FED-eVUCA-T1

The vetting and distillation of information can present challenges as vital information ascends and spreads across organization levels. Visual management systems (VMS), whether a whiteboard or a digital platform, are key to facilitate decision-making related to what needs to be prioritized and disseminated at each tier level.2,8 At Tier 5, the HOC uses a digital VMS to provide a structured, user-friendly format for categorizing issues and topics and enhances clarity and accessibility (Figure 3). The Tier 5 VMS also facilitates tracking and reciprocal information exchange, helping to close the loop on emerging issues by monitoring their progression and resolution up and across tiers.2,8 The Tier 5 huddle process and technology supporting continue to evolve offering increasing sophistication in organizational situational awareness and responsiveness.

1226FED-eVUCA-F3

VUCA: A Lens for Health Care Challenges

First introduced by social scientists at the US Army War College in 1995, VUCA describes complex and unpredictable conditions often encountered in military operations.16,17 Prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the acronym VUCA gained recognition in health care, as leaders acknowledged the challenge of navigating rapidly changing environments. van Stralen, Byrum and Inozu, recognized authorities in high reliability, cited VUCA as the rationale for implementing HRO principles and practices. They argued that “HRO solves the problem of operations and performance in a volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous environment.” 18 To fully appreciate the VUCA environment and its relevance to health care, it is essential to unpack the 4 components of the acronym: volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous.

Volatile refers to the speed and unpredictability of change. Health care systems are interactively complex and tightly coupled, meaning that changes in 1 part of the system can rapidly impact others.6,18,19 This high degree of interdependence amplifies volatility, especially when unexpected events occur. The rapid spread of COVID- 19 and the evolving nature of its transmission challenged health care systems’ ability to respond swiftly and effectively. Volatility also may emerge in acute medical situations, such as the rapid deterioration of a patient’s condition.

Uncertain captures the lack of predictability inherent in complex systems. In health care, uncertainty arises when there is insufficient information or when an excess of data make it difficult to discern meaningful patterns. COVID-19 and recent natural disasters have introduced profound uncertainty, as the disease’s behavior, transmission, and impact were initially unknown. Health care practitioners struggled to make decisions in real time, lacking clear guidance or precedent.3,20 While health care planning and established protocols are grounded in predictability, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that as complexity increases, predictability diminishes. Moreover, complexity can complicate protocol selection, as situations may arise in which multiple protocols conflict or compete. The cognitive challenge of operating in this environment is analogous to what military strategists call the fog of war, where situational awareness is low and decision-makers must navigate without clarity.21 Tiered huddles, a core practice in HROs, mitigate uncertainty by fostering real-time communication and shared situational awareness among teams.20

Complex refers to the intricate interplay of multiple, interconnected factors within a system.22 In health care, this complexity is heightened by the sociotechnical nature of the field—where human, technology, and organizational elements all converge.19 Systems designed to prevent failures, such as redundancies and safety protocols, can themselves contribute to increased complexity. HRO practices such as tiered huddles are implemented to mitigate the risk of catastrophic failure by fostering collaborative sensemaking, enhanced situational awareness, and rapid problem-solving.5,20,23

Ambiguous refers to situations in which multiple interpretations, causes, or outcomes are possible. It explains how, despite following protocols, failure can still occur, or how individuals may reach different conclusions from the same data. Ambiguity does not offer binary solutions; instead, it presents a murky, multifaceted reality that requires thoughtful interpretation and adaptive responses. In these moments, leaders must act decisively, even in the absence of complete information, making trade-offs that balance immediate needs with long-term consequences.

MANAGING VUCA ENVIRONMENTS WITH TIERED HUDDLES

The tiered huddle process provides several key benefits that enable real-time issue resolution. These include the rapid dissemination of vital information, enhanced agility and resilience, and improved sensemaking within a VUCA environment. Additionally, tiered huddles prevent organizational drift by fostering heightened situational awareness. The tiered huddle process also supports leadership development, as unit-level leaders gain valuable insights into strategic decision-making through active participation. Each component is outlined in the following section.

Spread: The Challenge of Communicating

“The hallmark of a great organization is how quickly bad news travels upward,” argued Jay Forrester, the father of system dynamics.24 Unfortunately, steep power gradients and siloed organizational structures inhibit the flow of unfavorable information from frontline staff to senior leadership. This suppression is not necessarily intentional but is often a byproduct of organizational culture. Tiered huddles address the weakness of top-down communication models by promoting a reciprocal, bidirectional information exchange, with an emphasis on closed-loop communication. Open communication can foster a culture of trust and transparency, allowing leaders to make more informed decisions and respond quickly to emerging risks.

Enhancing Agility and Resilience

Tiered huddles contribute to a mindful infrastructure, an important aspect of maintaining organizational awareness and agility.21,25 A mindful infrastructure enables an organization to detect early warning signs of potential disruptions and respond to them before they escalate. In this sense, tiered huddles serve as a signal-sensing mechanism, providing the agility needed to adapt to changing circumstances and prevent patient harm. Tiered huddles facilitate self-organization, a concept from chaos theory known as autopoiesis. 26 This self-organizing capability allows teams to develop novel solutions in response to unforeseen challenges, exemplifying the adaptability and resilience needed in a VUCA environment. The diverse backgrounds of tiered huddle participants—both cognitively and culturally—enable a broader range of perspectives, which is critical for making sound decisions in complex and uncertain situations. “HROs cultivate diversity not just because it helps them notice more in complex environments, but also because it helps them adapt to the complexities they do spot,” argues Weick et al.27 This diversity of thought and experience enhances the organization’s ability to respond to complexity, much like firefighters continually adapt to the VUCA conditions they face.

Sensemaking and Sensitivity to Operations

Leaders at all levels must be attuned to what is happening both within and outside their organization. This continual sensing of the environment—looking for weak signals, threats, and opportunities—is important for HROs. This signal detection capability allows organizations to address problems in their nascent emerging state within a tractable horizon to successfully manage fluctuations. The horizon of tractability reflects a zone where weak signals and evolving issues can be identified, addressed, and resolved early before they evolve and cascade outside of safe operations. 7 Tiered huddles facilitate this process by creating a platform for team members to engage in respectful, collaborative dialogue. The diversity inherent in tiered huddles also supports sensemaking, a process of interpreting and understanding complex situations.27 In a VUCA environment, this multiperspective approach helps filter out noise and identify the most important signals. Tiered huddles can help overcome the phenomenon of dysfunctional momentum associated with cognitive lockup, fixation error, and tunnel vision, in which individuals or teams fixate on a particular solution, thus missing important alternative views.21,28 By fostering a common operating picture of the fluctuating environment, tiered huddles can enable more accurate decision-making and improve organizational resilience.

Avoiding Organizational Drift

One of the most significant contributions of tiered huddles is the ability to detect early signs of organizational drift, or subtle deviations from standard practices that can accumulate over time and lead to serious failures. By continuously monitoring for precursor conditions and weak signals, tiered huddles allow organizations to intervene early and prevent drift from becoming catastrophic.29,30 This vigilance is essential in health care, where complacency can lead to patient harm. Tiered huddles foster a culture of mindfulness and accountability, ensuring that staff stay engaged and alert to potential risks. This proactive approach is a safeguard against human error and the gradual erosion of safety standards.

Leadership Development

Tiered huddles serve as a powerful tool for leadership development. Effective leaders must be able to anticipate potential risks and foresee system failures. Involving future leaders in tiered huddles can facilitate the transfer of these critical skills. When emerging leaders at lower tiers participate in ascending-tier huddles, they gain a unique opportunity to engage in a structured, collaborative setting. This environment provides a safe space to develop and practice strategic skills, enhancing their ability to think proactively and manage complexity. By integrating future leaders into tiered huddles, organizations offer essential, hands-on experience in real-time decision making. This experiential learning is invaluable for preparing leaders to navigate the demands of a VUCA environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Since implementing the tiered huddle process, the Erie VAMC and VISN 4 have emerged as early adopters of VUCA, thus contributing to the expansion of this innovative communication approach across the VHA. Tiered huddles strengthen organizational resilience and agility, facilitate critical information flow to manage risk, and support the cultivation of future leaders. The Erie VAMC director and the VISN 4 network director regard the expansion of tiered huddles, including Tiers 4 and 5, as an adaptable model for the VHA. While tiered huddles have not yet been mandated across the VHA, a pilot at the Tier 5 HOC level was initiated on May 20, 2024. In a complex world in which VUCA events will continue to be inevitable, implementation of robust tiered huddles within complex health care systems provides the opportunity for improved responses and delivery of care.

References
  1. Orwell S, Angus I, eds. In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950. Godine; 2000. Orwell G. The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell; vol 4.
  2. Murray JS, Baghdadi A, Dannenberg W, Crews P, Walsh ND. The role of high reliability organization foundational practices in building a culture of safety. Fed Pract. 2024;41:214-221. doi:10.12788/fp.0486
  3. Goldenhar LM, Brady PW, Sutcliffe KM, Muething SE. Huddling for high reliability and situation awareness. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:899-906. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001467
  4. Pandit M. Critical factors for successful management of VUCA times. BMJ Lead. 2021;5:121-123. doi:10.1136/leader-2020-000305
  5. Mihaljevic T. Tiered daily huddles: the power of teamwork in managing large healthcare organisations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1050-1052. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010575
  6. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. High-reliability organizing (HRO) in the COVID-19 liminal zone: characteristics of workers and local leaders. Neonatology Today. 2021;16:90-101. http://www.neonatologytoday.net /newsletters/nt-apr21.pdf
  7. Nemeth C, Wears R, Woods D, Hollnagel E, Cook R. Minding the gaps: creating resilience in health care. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, eds. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches. Vol 3: Performance and Tools. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
  8. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Montoya A, Cox GR, Murray JS. Creating a process for the implementation of tiered huddles in a Veterans Affairs medical center. Mil Med. 2023;188:901-906. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac073
  9. Starbuck WH, Farjoun M, eds. Organization at the Limit: Lessons From the Columbia Disaster. 1st ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2005.
  10. Mihaljevic T. Tiered daily huddles: the power of teamwork in managing large healthcare organisations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1050-1052. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010575
  11. Donnelly LF, Cherian SS, Chua KB, et al. The Daily Readiness Huddle: a process to rapidly identify issues and foster improvement through problem-solving accountability. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47:22-30. doi:10.1007/s00247-016-3712-x
  12. Clark TR. The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.; 2020.
  13. Edmondson AC. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. John Wiley & Sons; 2018.
  14. Edmondson AC. The Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well. Simon Element/Simon Acumen; 2023.
  15. Murray JS, Kelly S, Hanover C. Promoting psychological safety in healthcare organizations. Mil Med. 2022;187:808 -810. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac041
  16. Barber HF. Developing strategic leadership: the US Army War College experience. J Manag Dev. 1992;11:4-12. doi:10.1108/02621719210018208
  17. US Army Heritage & Education Center. Who first originated the term VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity)? Accessed November 5, 2025. https://usawc .libanswers.com/ahec/faq/84869
  18. van Stralen D, Byrum SL, Inozu B. High Reliability for a Highly Unreliable World: Preparing for Code Blue Through Daily Operations in Healthcare. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2018.
  19. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press; 2000.
  20. Sculli G, Essen K. Soaring to Success: The Path to Developing High-Reliability Clinical Teams. HCPro; 2021. Accessed November 5, 2025. https://hcmarketplace.com /media/wysiwyg/CRM3_browse.pdf
  21. Barton MA, Sutcliffe KM, Vogus TJ, DeWitt T. Performing under uncertainty: contextualized engagement in wildland firefighting. J Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2015;23:74-83. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12076
  22. Sutcliffe KM. Mindful organizing. In: Ramanujam R, Roberts KH, eds. Organizing for Reliability: A Guide for Research and Practice. Stanford University Press; 2018:61-89.
  23. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Dealino-Perez C, Xiang J, Montoya A Jr, Murray JS. A high-reliability organization mindset. Am J Med Qual. 2022;37:504-510. doi:10.1097/jmq.0000000000000086
  24. Senge PM. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Crown Currency; 1994.
  25. Ramanujam R, Roberts KH, eds. Organizing for Reliability: A Guide for Research and Practice. Stanford University Press; 2018.
  26. Coveney PV. Self-organization and complexity: a new age for theory, computation and experiment. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2003;361:1057-1079. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1191
  27. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World. 3rd ed. Wiley; 2015.
  28. Barton M, Sutcliffe K. Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: organizational safety as a social achievement. Hum Relations. 2009;62:1327-1356. doi:10.1177/0018726709334491
  29. Dekker S. Drift Into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge; 2011.
  30. Price MR, Williams TC. When doing wrong feels so right: normalization of deviance. J Patient Saf. 2018;14:1-2. doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000157
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

John A. Gennaro, FACHE, MHSA, MBAa; Keith E. Essen, RN, PhD, MSSb; Timothy W. Liezert, FACHE, MBAc

Author affiliations

aVeterans Affairs Erie Health Care System, Pennsylvania
bVeterans Health Administration, Contractor Cognosante, Milford, Michigan
cVeterans Integrated Service Network 4, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent This article did not meet the definition of human subjects research and was determined to be exempt from institutional review board oversight in accordance with Veterans Health Administration policy.

Correspondence: Keith Essen ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2025;42(12):e0662. Published online December 23. doi:10.12788/fp.0662

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(12)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
1-6
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

John A. Gennaro, FACHE, MHSA, MBAa; Keith E. Essen, RN, PhD, MSSb; Timothy W. Liezert, FACHE, MBAc

Author affiliations

aVeterans Affairs Erie Health Care System, Pennsylvania
bVeterans Health Administration, Contractor Cognosante, Milford, Michigan
cVeterans Integrated Service Network 4, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent This article did not meet the definition of human subjects research and was determined to be exempt from institutional review board oversight in accordance with Veterans Health Administration policy.

Correspondence: Keith Essen ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2025;42(12):e0662. Published online December 23. doi:10.12788/fp.0662

Author and Disclosure Information

John A. Gennaro, FACHE, MHSA, MBAa; Keith E. Essen, RN, PhD, MSSb; Timothy W. Liezert, FACHE, MBAc

Author affiliations

aVeterans Affairs Erie Health Care System, Pennsylvania
bVeterans Health Administration, Contractor Cognosante, Milford, Michigan
cVeterans Integrated Service Network 4, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies.

Ethics and consent This article did not meet the definition of human subjects research and was determined to be exempt from institutional review board oversight in accordance with Veterans Health Administration policy.

Correspondence: Keith Essen ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2025;42(12):e0662. Published online December 23. doi:10.12788/fp.0662

Article PDF
Article PDF

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
George Orwell (1946)1

In 2019, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated a process to become a high reliability organization (HRO).2 The COVID-19 pandemic has been described in medical literature as a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) event, underscoring the necessity of resilient communication strategies.3 Challenges posed by 2024 Hurricanes Helene and Milton further highlighted the need for resilient communication strategies within HRO implementation.

Central to the HRO journey within the VHA has been the development of tiered huddles, an evolution of the safety huddle concept.4 Emerging organically as an effective communication mechanism across multiple facilities between 2019 and 2020, tiered huddles were, in part, spurred by the onset of COVID-19. Tiered huddles represent a proactive approach to identifying and addressing organizational threats in their early stages, thereby preventing their escalation to a VUCA-laden crisis.5 When conditions evolve beyond the horizon of tractability, where challenges are easily identified and resolved, tiered huddles serve as a resilient mechanism to restore dynamic equilibrium within the organization.6,7

This article describes how tiered huddles were integrated within Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 4 and explores why these huddles are essential, particularly in the context of VUCA events. What began as a local-level tactic has now gained widespread acceptance and continues to evolve across the VHA with full support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary for Health.8

The VHA is divided into 18 VISNs. Nine VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) and 46 outpatient clinics across Pennsylvania, Delaware, and parts of Ohio, New York, and New Jersey make up VISN 4. Disseminating vital information across VISN 4, in addition to the 17 other VISNs—including 170 VAMCs and 1193 clinics—presents a formidable challenge. As the largest integrated system in the US, the VHA is realigning its workforce to address organizational inefficiencies. An enterprise of this scale, shaped by recurrent organizational change, faces ongoing challenges in sustaining clear communication across all levels. These transitions create uncertainty for staff as roles and resources shift, underscoring the need for dependable vertical and horizontal information flow. Tiered huddles offer a steady means to support coordinated communication and strengthen the system’s ability to adapt.9

ERIE VA MEDICAL CENTER HRO JOURNEY

In 2019, John Gennaro, the Erie VAMC executive director, attended a presentation that showcased the Cleveland Clinic’s tiered huddle process, with an opportunity to observe its 5-tiered system.10 Erie VAMC already had a 3-tiered huddle system, but the Cleveland Clinic’s more robust model inspired Gennaro to propose a VISN 4 pilot program. Tiered huddles were perceived as innovative, yet not fully embraced within the VHA; nonetheless, VISN 4, much like several other VISNs, moved forward and established a VISN-level (Tier 4) huddle.8 It is important to note that there was a notional fifth-tier capability as VISN and program office leaders already participated in daily VHA-wide meetings under the auspices of the Hospital Operations Center (HOC).

Expanding the Tiered Huddle Process

The Erie VAMC huddle process begins with the unit level Managers and Frontline Staff (Tier 1), then moves to Service Chiefs and Managers (Tier 2). Tier 3 involves facility executive leadership team and service chiefs, clinical directors and top VAMC administrators (these configurations may vary depending on context). The sequencing and flow of information is bidirectional across levels, reflecting the importance of closed-loop communication to ensure staff at all levels understand that issues raised are followed up on and/or closed out (Figure 1).2

1226FED-eVUCA-F1

Tier 4 composition may vary among VISNs depending on size and unique mission requirements.8,11 The VISN 4 Tier 4 huddle includes the VISN director, 9 VAMC directors, and key network administrators and clinical experts. The Tier 5 huddle includes 18 VISN 4 directors with the VHA HOC (Figure 2). The tiered huddle process emphasizes team-based culture and psychological safety.12-15 Staff at all levels are encouraged to identify and transparently resolve issues, fostering a proactive and problem-solving environment across the organization. A more nuanced and detailed process across tier levels is depicted in the Table.

1226FED-eVUCA-F21226FED-eVUCA-T1

The vetting and distillation of information can present challenges as vital information ascends and spreads across organization levels. Visual management systems (VMS), whether a whiteboard or a digital platform, are key to facilitate decision-making related to what needs to be prioritized and disseminated at each tier level.2,8 At Tier 5, the HOC uses a digital VMS to provide a structured, user-friendly format for categorizing issues and topics and enhances clarity and accessibility (Figure 3). The Tier 5 VMS also facilitates tracking and reciprocal information exchange, helping to close the loop on emerging issues by monitoring their progression and resolution up and across tiers.2,8 The Tier 5 huddle process and technology supporting continue to evolve offering increasing sophistication in organizational situational awareness and responsiveness.

1226FED-eVUCA-F3

VUCA: A Lens for Health Care Challenges

First introduced by social scientists at the US Army War College in 1995, VUCA describes complex and unpredictable conditions often encountered in military operations.16,17 Prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the acronym VUCA gained recognition in health care, as leaders acknowledged the challenge of navigating rapidly changing environments. van Stralen, Byrum and Inozu, recognized authorities in high reliability, cited VUCA as the rationale for implementing HRO principles and practices. They argued that “HRO solves the problem of operations and performance in a volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous environment.” 18 To fully appreciate the VUCA environment and its relevance to health care, it is essential to unpack the 4 components of the acronym: volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous.

Volatile refers to the speed and unpredictability of change. Health care systems are interactively complex and tightly coupled, meaning that changes in 1 part of the system can rapidly impact others.6,18,19 This high degree of interdependence amplifies volatility, especially when unexpected events occur. The rapid spread of COVID- 19 and the evolving nature of its transmission challenged health care systems’ ability to respond swiftly and effectively. Volatility also may emerge in acute medical situations, such as the rapid deterioration of a patient’s condition.

Uncertain captures the lack of predictability inherent in complex systems. In health care, uncertainty arises when there is insufficient information or when an excess of data make it difficult to discern meaningful patterns. COVID-19 and recent natural disasters have introduced profound uncertainty, as the disease’s behavior, transmission, and impact were initially unknown. Health care practitioners struggled to make decisions in real time, lacking clear guidance or precedent.3,20 While health care planning and established protocols are grounded in predictability, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that as complexity increases, predictability diminishes. Moreover, complexity can complicate protocol selection, as situations may arise in which multiple protocols conflict or compete. The cognitive challenge of operating in this environment is analogous to what military strategists call the fog of war, where situational awareness is low and decision-makers must navigate without clarity.21 Tiered huddles, a core practice in HROs, mitigate uncertainty by fostering real-time communication and shared situational awareness among teams.20

Complex refers to the intricate interplay of multiple, interconnected factors within a system.22 In health care, this complexity is heightened by the sociotechnical nature of the field—where human, technology, and organizational elements all converge.19 Systems designed to prevent failures, such as redundancies and safety protocols, can themselves contribute to increased complexity. HRO practices such as tiered huddles are implemented to mitigate the risk of catastrophic failure by fostering collaborative sensemaking, enhanced situational awareness, and rapid problem-solving.5,20,23

Ambiguous refers to situations in which multiple interpretations, causes, or outcomes are possible. It explains how, despite following protocols, failure can still occur, or how individuals may reach different conclusions from the same data. Ambiguity does not offer binary solutions; instead, it presents a murky, multifaceted reality that requires thoughtful interpretation and adaptive responses. In these moments, leaders must act decisively, even in the absence of complete information, making trade-offs that balance immediate needs with long-term consequences.

MANAGING VUCA ENVIRONMENTS WITH TIERED HUDDLES

The tiered huddle process provides several key benefits that enable real-time issue resolution. These include the rapid dissemination of vital information, enhanced agility and resilience, and improved sensemaking within a VUCA environment. Additionally, tiered huddles prevent organizational drift by fostering heightened situational awareness. The tiered huddle process also supports leadership development, as unit-level leaders gain valuable insights into strategic decision-making through active participation. Each component is outlined in the following section.

Spread: The Challenge of Communicating

“The hallmark of a great organization is how quickly bad news travels upward,” argued Jay Forrester, the father of system dynamics.24 Unfortunately, steep power gradients and siloed organizational structures inhibit the flow of unfavorable information from frontline staff to senior leadership. This suppression is not necessarily intentional but is often a byproduct of organizational culture. Tiered huddles address the weakness of top-down communication models by promoting a reciprocal, bidirectional information exchange, with an emphasis on closed-loop communication. Open communication can foster a culture of trust and transparency, allowing leaders to make more informed decisions and respond quickly to emerging risks.

Enhancing Agility and Resilience

Tiered huddles contribute to a mindful infrastructure, an important aspect of maintaining organizational awareness and agility.21,25 A mindful infrastructure enables an organization to detect early warning signs of potential disruptions and respond to them before they escalate. In this sense, tiered huddles serve as a signal-sensing mechanism, providing the agility needed to adapt to changing circumstances and prevent patient harm. Tiered huddles facilitate self-organization, a concept from chaos theory known as autopoiesis. 26 This self-organizing capability allows teams to develop novel solutions in response to unforeseen challenges, exemplifying the adaptability and resilience needed in a VUCA environment. The diverse backgrounds of tiered huddle participants—both cognitively and culturally—enable a broader range of perspectives, which is critical for making sound decisions in complex and uncertain situations. “HROs cultivate diversity not just because it helps them notice more in complex environments, but also because it helps them adapt to the complexities they do spot,” argues Weick et al.27 This diversity of thought and experience enhances the organization’s ability to respond to complexity, much like firefighters continually adapt to the VUCA conditions they face.

Sensemaking and Sensitivity to Operations

Leaders at all levels must be attuned to what is happening both within and outside their organization. This continual sensing of the environment—looking for weak signals, threats, and opportunities—is important for HROs. This signal detection capability allows organizations to address problems in their nascent emerging state within a tractable horizon to successfully manage fluctuations. The horizon of tractability reflects a zone where weak signals and evolving issues can be identified, addressed, and resolved early before they evolve and cascade outside of safe operations. 7 Tiered huddles facilitate this process by creating a platform for team members to engage in respectful, collaborative dialogue. The diversity inherent in tiered huddles also supports sensemaking, a process of interpreting and understanding complex situations.27 In a VUCA environment, this multiperspective approach helps filter out noise and identify the most important signals. Tiered huddles can help overcome the phenomenon of dysfunctional momentum associated with cognitive lockup, fixation error, and tunnel vision, in which individuals or teams fixate on a particular solution, thus missing important alternative views.21,28 By fostering a common operating picture of the fluctuating environment, tiered huddles can enable more accurate decision-making and improve organizational resilience.

Avoiding Organizational Drift

One of the most significant contributions of tiered huddles is the ability to detect early signs of organizational drift, or subtle deviations from standard practices that can accumulate over time and lead to serious failures. By continuously monitoring for precursor conditions and weak signals, tiered huddles allow organizations to intervene early and prevent drift from becoming catastrophic.29,30 This vigilance is essential in health care, where complacency can lead to patient harm. Tiered huddles foster a culture of mindfulness and accountability, ensuring that staff stay engaged and alert to potential risks. This proactive approach is a safeguard against human error and the gradual erosion of safety standards.

Leadership Development

Tiered huddles serve as a powerful tool for leadership development. Effective leaders must be able to anticipate potential risks and foresee system failures. Involving future leaders in tiered huddles can facilitate the transfer of these critical skills. When emerging leaders at lower tiers participate in ascending-tier huddles, they gain a unique opportunity to engage in a structured, collaborative setting. This environment provides a safe space to develop and practice strategic skills, enhancing their ability to think proactively and manage complexity. By integrating future leaders into tiered huddles, organizations offer essential, hands-on experience in real-time decision making. This experiential learning is invaluable for preparing leaders to navigate the demands of a VUCA environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Since implementing the tiered huddle process, the Erie VAMC and VISN 4 have emerged as early adopters of VUCA, thus contributing to the expansion of this innovative communication approach across the VHA. Tiered huddles strengthen organizational resilience and agility, facilitate critical information flow to manage risk, and support the cultivation of future leaders. The Erie VAMC director and the VISN 4 network director regard the expansion of tiered huddles, including Tiers 4 and 5, as an adaptable model for the VHA. While tiered huddles have not yet been mandated across the VHA, a pilot at the Tier 5 HOC level was initiated on May 20, 2024. In a complex world in which VUCA events will continue to be inevitable, implementation of robust tiered huddles within complex health care systems provides the opportunity for improved responses and delivery of care.

To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
George Orwell (1946)1

In 2019, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiated a process to become a high reliability organization (HRO).2 The COVID-19 pandemic has been described in medical literature as a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) event, underscoring the necessity of resilient communication strategies.3 Challenges posed by 2024 Hurricanes Helene and Milton further highlighted the need for resilient communication strategies within HRO implementation.

Central to the HRO journey within the VHA has been the development of tiered huddles, an evolution of the safety huddle concept.4 Emerging organically as an effective communication mechanism across multiple facilities between 2019 and 2020, tiered huddles were, in part, spurred by the onset of COVID-19. Tiered huddles represent a proactive approach to identifying and addressing organizational threats in their early stages, thereby preventing their escalation to a VUCA-laden crisis.5 When conditions evolve beyond the horizon of tractability, where challenges are easily identified and resolved, tiered huddles serve as a resilient mechanism to restore dynamic equilibrium within the organization.6,7

This article describes how tiered huddles were integrated within Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 4 and explores why these huddles are essential, particularly in the context of VUCA events. What began as a local-level tactic has now gained widespread acceptance and continues to evolve across the VHA with full support from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary for Health.8

The VHA is divided into 18 VISNs. Nine VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) and 46 outpatient clinics across Pennsylvania, Delaware, and parts of Ohio, New York, and New Jersey make up VISN 4. Disseminating vital information across VISN 4, in addition to the 17 other VISNs—including 170 VAMCs and 1193 clinics—presents a formidable challenge. As the largest integrated system in the US, the VHA is realigning its workforce to address organizational inefficiencies. An enterprise of this scale, shaped by recurrent organizational change, faces ongoing challenges in sustaining clear communication across all levels. These transitions create uncertainty for staff as roles and resources shift, underscoring the need for dependable vertical and horizontal information flow. Tiered huddles offer a steady means to support coordinated communication and strengthen the system’s ability to adapt.9

ERIE VA MEDICAL CENTER HRO JOURNEY

In 2019, John Gennaro, the Erie VAMC executive director, attended a presentation that showcased the Cleveland Clinic’s tiered huddle process, with an opportunity to observe its 5-tiered system.10 Erie VAMC already had a 3-tiered huddle system, but the Cleveland Clinic’s more robust model inspired Gennaro to propose a VISN 4 pilot program. Tiered huddles were perceived as innovative, yet not fully embraced within the VHA; nonetheless, VISN 4, much like several other VISNs, moved forward and established a VISN-level (Tier 4) huddle.8 It is important to note that there was a notional fifth-tier capability as VISN and program office leaders already participated in daily VHA-wide meetings under the auspices of the Hospital Operations Center (HOC).

Expanding the Tiered Huddle Process

The Erie VAMC huddle process begins with the unit level Managers and Frontline Staff (Tier 1), then moves to Service Chiefs and Managers (Tier 2). Tier 3 involves facility executive leadership team and service chiefs, clinical directors and top VAMC administrators (these configurations may vary depending on context). The sequencing and flow of information is bidirectional across levels, reflecting the importance of closed-loop communication to ensure staff at all levels understand that issues raised are followed up on and/or closed out (Figure 1).2

1226FED-eVUCA-F1

Tier 4 composition may vary among VISNs depending on size and unique mission requirements.8,11 The VISN 4 Tier 4 huddle includes the VISN director, 9 VAMC directors, and key network administrators and clinical experts. The Tier 5 huddle includes 18 VISN 4 directors with the VHA HOC (Figure 2). The tiered huddle process emphasizes team-based culture and psychological safety.12-15 Staff at all levels are encouraged to identify and transparently resolve issues, fostering a proactive and problem-solving environment across the organization. A more nuanced and detailed process across tier levels is depicted in the Table.

1226FED-eVUCA-F21226FED-eVUCA-T1

The vetting and distillation of information can present challenges as vital information ascends and spreads across organization levels. Visual management systems (VMS), whether a whiteboard or a digital platform, are key to facilitate decision-making related to what needs to be prioritized and disseminated at each tier level.2,8 At Tier 5, the HOC uses a digital VMS to provide a structured, user-friendly format for categorizing issues and topics and enhances clarity and accessibility (Figure 3). The Tier 5 VMS also facilitates tracking and reciprocal information exchange, helping to close the loop on emerging issues by monitoring their progression and resolution up and across tiers.2,8 The Tier 5 huddle process and technology supporting continue to evolve offering increasing sophistication in organizational situational awareness and responsiveness.

1226FED-eVUCA-F3

VUCA: A Lens for Health Care Challenges

First introduced by social scientists at the US Army War College in 1995, VUCA describes complex and unpredictable conditions often encountered in military operations.16,17 Prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the acronym VUCA gained recognition in health care, as leaders acknowledged the challenge of navigating rapidly changing environments. van Stralen, Byrum and Inozu, recognized authorities in high reliability, cited VUCA as the rationale for implementing HRO principles and practices. They argued that “HRO solves the problem of operations and performance in a volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous environment.” 18 To fully appreciate the VUCA environment and its relevance to health care, it is essential to unpack the 4 components of the acronym: volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous.

Volatile refers to the speed and unpredictability of change. Health care systems are interactively complex and tightly coupled, meaning that changes in 1 part of the system can rapidly impact others.6,18,19 This high degree of interdependence amplifies volatility, especially when unexpected events occur. The rapid spread of COVID- 19 and the evolving nature of its transmission challenged health care systems’ ability to respond swiftly and effectively. Volatility also may emerge in acute medical situations, such as the rapid deterioration of a patient’s condition.

Uncertain captures the lack of predictability inherent in complex systems. In health care, uncertainty arises when there is insufficient information or when an excess of data make it difficult to discern meaningful patterns. COVID-19 and recent natural disasters have introduced profound uncertainty, as the disease’s behavior, transmission, and impact were initially unknown. Health care practitioners struggled to make decisions in real time, lacking clear guidance or precedent.3,20 While health care planning and established protocols are grounded in predictability, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that as complexity increases, predictability diminishes. Moreover, complexity can complicate protocol selection, as situations may arise in which multiple protocols conflict or compete. The cognitive challenge of operating in this environment is analogous to what military strategists call the fog of war, where situational awareness is low and decision-makers must navigate without clarity.21 Tiered huddles, a core practice in HROs, mitigate uncertainty by fostering real-time communication and shared situational awareness among teams.20

Complex refers to the intricate interplay of multiple, interconnected factors within a system.22 In health care, this complexity is heightened by the sociotechnical nature of the field—where human, technology, and organizational elements all converge.19 Systems designed to prevent failures, such as redundancies and safety protocols, can themselves contribute to increased complexity. HRO practices such as tiered huddles are implemented to mitigate the risk of catastrophic failure by fostering collaborative sensemaking, enhanced situational awareness, and rapid problem-solving.5,20,23

Ambiguous refers to situations in which multiple interpretations, causes, or outcomes are possible. It explains how, despite following protocols, failure can still occur, or how individuals may reach different conclusions from the same data. Ambiguity does not offer binary solutions; instead, it presents a murky, multifaceted reality that requires thoughtful interpretation and adaptive responses. In these moments, leaders must act decisively, even in the absence of complete information, making trade-offs that balance immediate needs with long-term consequences.

MANAGING VUCA ENVIRONMENTS WITH TIERED HUDDLES

The tiered huddle process provides several key benefits that enable real-time issue resolution. These include the rapid dissemination of vital information, enhanced agility and resilience, and improved sensemaking within a VUCA environment. Additionally, tiered huddles prevent organizational drift by fostering heightened situational awareness. The tiered huddle process also supports leadership development, as unit-level leaders gain valuable insights into strategic decision-making through active participation. Each component is outlined in the following section.

Spread: The Challenge of Communicating

“The hallmark of a great organization is how quickly bad news travels upward,” argued Jay Forrester, the father of system dynamics.24 Unfortunately, steep power gradients and siloed organizational structures inhibit the flow of unfavorable information from frontline staff to senior leadership. This suppression is not necessarily intentional but is often a byproduct of organizational culture. Tiered huddles address the weakness of top-down communication models by promoting a reciprocal, bidirectional information exchange, with an emphasis on closed-loop communication. Open communication can foster a culture of trust and transparency, allowing leaders to make more informed decisions and respond quickly to emerging risks.

Enhancing Agility and Resilience

Tiered huddles contribute to a mindful infrastructure, an important aspect of maintaining organizational awareness and agility.21,25 A mindful infrastructure enables an organization to detect early warning signs of potential disruptions and respond to them before they escalate. In this sense, tiered huddles serve as a signal-sensing mechanism, providing the agility needed to adapt to changing circumstances and prevent patient harm. Tiered huddles facilitate self-organization, a concept from chaos theory known as autopoiesis. 26 This self-organizing capability allows teams to develop novel solutions in response to unforeseen challenges, exemplifying the adaptability and resilience needed in a VUCA environment. The diverse backgrounds of tiered huddle participants—both cognitively and culturally—enable a broader range of perspectives, which is critical for making sound decisions in complex and uncertain situations. “HROs cultivate diversity not just because it helps them notice more in complex environments, but also because it helps them adapt to the complexities they do spot,” argues Weick et al.27 This diversity of thought and experience enhances the organization’s ability to respond to complexity, much like firefighters continually adapt to the VUCA conditions they face.

Sensemaking and Sensitivity to Operations

Leaders at all levels must be attuned to what is happening both within and outside their organization. This continual sensing of the environment—looking for weak signals, threats, and opportunities—is important for HROs. This signal detection capability allows organizations to address problems in their nascent emerging state within a tractable horizon to successfully manage fluctuations. The horizon of tractability reflects a zone where weak signals and evolving issues can be identified, addressed, and resolved early before they evolve and cascade outside of safe operations. 7 Tiered huddles facilitate this process by creating a platform for team members to engage in respectful, collaborative dialogue. The diversity inherent in tiered huddles also supports sensemaking, a process of interpreting and understanding complex situations.27 In a VUCA environment, this multiperspective approach helps filter out noise and identify the most important signals. Tiered huddles can help overcome the phenomenon of dysfunctional momentum associated with cognitive lockup, fixation error, and tunnel vision, in which individuals or teams fixate on a particular solution, thus missing important alternative views.21,28 By fostering a common operating picture of the fluctuating environment, tiered huddles can enable more accurate decision-making and improve organizational resilience.

Avoiding Organizational Drift

One of the most significant contributions of tiered huddles is the ability to detect early signs of organizational drift, or subtle deviations from standard practices that can accumulate over time and lead to serious failures. By continuously monitoring for precursor conditions and weak signals, tiered huddles allow organizations to intervene early and prevent drift from becoming catastrophic.29,30 This vigilance is essential in health care, where complacency can lead to patient harm. Tiered huddles foster a culture of mindfulness and accountability, ensuring that staff stay engaged and alert to potential risks. This proactive approach is a safeguard against human error and the gradual erosion of safety standards.

Leadership Development

Tiered huddles serve as a powerful tool for leadership development. Effective leaders must be able to anticipate potential risks and foresee system failures. Involving future leaders in tiered huddles can facilitate the transfer of these critical skills. When emerging leaders at lower tiers participate in ascending-tier huddles, they gain a unique opportunity to engage in a structured, collaborative setting. This environment provides a safe space to develop and practice strategic skills, enhancing their ability to think proactively and manage complexity. By integrating future leaders into tiered huddles, organizations offer essential, hands-on experience in real-time decision making. This experiential learning is invaluable for preparing leaders to navigate the demands of a VUCA environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Since implementing the tiered huddle process, the Erie VAMC and VISN 4 have emerged as early adopters of VUCA, thus contributing to the expansion of this innovative communication approach across the VHA. Tiered huddles strengthen organizational resilience and agility, facilitate critical information flow to manage risk, and support the cultivation of future leaders. The Erie VAMC director and the VISN 4 network director regard the expansion of tiered huddles, including Tiers 4 and 5, as an adaptable model for the VHA. While tiered huddles have not yet been mandated across the VHA, a pilot at the Tier 5 HOC level was initiated on May 20, 2024. In a complex world in which VUCA events will continue to be inevitable, implementation of robust tiered huddles within complex health care systems provides the opportunity for improved responses and delivery of care.

References
  1. Orwell S, Angus I, eds. In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950. Godine; 2000. Orwell G. The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell; vol 4.
  2. Murray JS, Baghdadi A, Dannenberg W, Crews P, Walsh ND. The role of high reliability organization foundational practices in building a culture of safety. Fed Pract. 2024;41:214-221. doi:10.12788/fp.0486
  3. Goldenhar LM, Brady PW, Sutcliffe KM, Muething SE. Huddling for high reliability and situation awareness. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:899-906. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001467
  4. Pandit M. Critical factors for successful management of VUCA times. BMJ Lead. 2021;5:121-123. doi:10.1136/leader-2020-000305
  5. Mihaljevic T. Tiered daily huddles: the power of teamwork in managing large healthcare organisations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1050-1052. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010575
  6. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. High-reliability organizing (HRO) in the COVID-19 liminal zone: characteristics of workers and local leaders. Neonatology Today. 2021;16:90-101. http://www.neonatologytoday.net /newsletters/nt-apr21.pdf
  7. Nemeth C, Wears R, Woods D, Hollnagel E, Cook R. Minding the gaps: creating resilience in health care. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, eds. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches. Vol 3: Performance and Tools. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
  8. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Montoya A, Cox GR, Murray JS. Creating a process for the implementation of tiered huddles in a Veterans Affairs medical center. Mil Med. 2023;188:901-906. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac073
  9. Starbuck WH, Farjoun M, eds. Organization at the Limit: Lessons From the Columbia Disaster. 1st ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2005.
  10. Mihaljevic T. Tiered daily huddles: the power of teamwork in managing large healthcare organisations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1050-1052. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010575
  11. Donnelly LF, Cherian SS, Chua KB, et al. The Daily Readiness Huddle: a process to rapidly identify issues and foster improvement through problem-solving accountability. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47:22-30. doi:10.1007/s00247-016-3712-x
  12. Clark TR. The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.; 2020.
  13. Edmondson AC. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. John Wiley & Sons; 2018.
  14. Edmondson AC. The Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well. Simon Element/Simon Acumen; 2023.
  15. Murray JS, Kelly S, Hanover C. Promoting psychological safety in healthcare organizations. Mil Med. 2022;187:808 -810. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac041
  16. Barber HF. Developing strategic leadership: the US Army War College experience. J Manag Dev. 1992;11:4-12. doi:10.1108/02621719210018208
  17. US Army Heritage & Education Center. Who first originated the term VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity)? Accessed November 5, 2025. https://usawc .libanswers.com/ahec/faq/84869
  18. van Stralen D, Byrum SL, Inozu B. High Reliability for a Highly Unreliable World: Preparing for Code Blue Through Daily Operations in Healthcare. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2018.
  19. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press; 2000.
  20. Sculli G, Essen K. Soaring to Success: The Path to Developing High-Reliability Clinical Teams. HCPro; 2021. Accessed November 5, 2025. https://hcmarketplace.com /media/wysiwyg/CRM3_browse.pdf
  21. Barton MA, Sutcliffe KM, Vogus TJ, DeWitt T. Performing under uncertainty: contextualized engagement in wildland firefighting. J Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2015;23:74-83. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12076
  22. Sutcliffe KM. Mindful organizing. In: Ramanujam R, Roberts KH, eds. Organizing for Reliability: A Guide for Research and Practice. Stanford University Press; 2018:61-89.
  23. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Dealino-Perez C, Xiang J, Montoya A Jr, Murray JS. A high-reliability organization mindset. Am J Med Qual. 2022;37:504-510. doi:10.1097/jmq.0000000000000086
  24. Senge PM. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Crown Currency; 1994.
  25. Ramanujam R, Roberts KH, eds. Organizing for Reliability: A Guide for Research and Practice. Stanford University Press; 2018.
  26. Coveney PV. Self-organization and complexity: a new age for theory, computation and experiment. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2003;361:1057-1079. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1191
  27. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World. 3rd ed. Wiley; 2015.
  28. Barton M, Sutcliffe K. Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: organizational safety as a social achievement. Hum Relations. 2009;62:1327-1356. doi:10.1177/0018726709334491
  29. Dekker S. Drift Into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge; 2011.
  30. Price MR, Williams TC. When doing wrong feels so right: normalization of deviance. J Patient Saf. 2018;14:1-2. doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000157
References
  1. Orwell S, Angus I, eds. In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950. Godine; 2000. Orwell G. The Collected Essays, Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell; vol 4.
  2. Murray JS, Baghdadi A, Dannenberg W, Crews P, Walsh ND. The role of high reliability organization foundational practices in building a culture of safety. Fed Pract. 2024;41:214-221. doi:10.12788/fp.0486
  3. Goldenhar LM, Brady PW, Sutcliffe KM, Muething SE. Huddling for high reliability and situation awareness. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:899-906. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001467
  4. Pandit M. Critical factors for successful management of VUCA times. BMJ Lead. 2021;5:121-123. doi:10.1136/leader-2020-000305
  5. Mihaljevic T. Tiered daily huddles: the power of teamwork in managing large healthcare organisations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1050-1052. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010575
  6. van Stralen D, Mercer TA. High-reliability organizing (HRO) in the COVID-19 liminal zone: characteristics of workers and local leaders. Neonatology Today. 2021;16:90-101. http://www.neonatologytoday.net /newsletters/nt-apr21.pdf
  7. Nemeth C, Wears R, Woods D, Hollnagel E, Cook R. Minding the gaps: creating resilience in health care. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, eds. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches. Vol 3: Performance and Tools. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
  8. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Montoya A, Cox GR, Murray JS. Creating a process for the implementation of tiered huddles in a Veterans Affairs medical center. Mil Med. 2023;188:901-906. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac073
  9. Starbuck WH, Farjoun M, eds. Organization at the Limit: Lessons From the Columbia Disaster. 1st ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2005.
  10. Mihaljevic T. Tiered daily huddles: the power of teamwork in managing large healthcare organisations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:1050-1052. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010575
  11. Donnelly LF, Cherian SS, Chua KB, et al. The Daily Readiness Huddle: a process to rapidly identify issues and foster improvement through problem-solving accountability. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47:22-30. doi:10.1007/s00247-016-3712-x
  12. Clark TR. The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.; 2020.
  13. Edmondson AC. The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. John Wiley & Sons; 2018.
  14. Edmondson AC. The Right Kind of Wrong: The Science of Failing Well. Simon Element/Simon Acumen; 2023.
  15. Murray JS, Kelly S, Hanover C. Promoting psychological safety in healthcare organizations. Mil Med. 2022;187:808 -810. doi:10.1093/milmed/usac041
  16. Barber HF. Developing strategic leadership: the US Army War College experience. J Manag Dev. 1992;11:4-12. doi:10.1108/02621719210018208
  17. US Army Heritage & Education Center. Who first originated the term VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity)? Accessed November 5, 2025. https://usawc .libanswers.com/ahec/faq/84869
  18. van Stralen D, Byrum SL, Inozu B. High Reliability for a Highly Unreliable World: Preparing for Code Blue Through Daily Operations in Healthcare. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2018.
  19. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press; 2000.
  20. Sculli G, Essen K. Soaring to Success: The Path to Developing High-Reliability Clinical Teams. HCPro; 2021. Accessed November 5, 2025. https://hcmarketplace.com /media/wysiwyg/CRM3_browse.pdf
  21. Barton MA, Sutcliffe KM, Vogus TJ, DeWitt T. Performing under uncertainty: contextualized engagement in wildland firefighting. J Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2015;23:74-83. doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12076
  22. Sutcliffe KM. Mindful organizing. In: Ramanujam R, Roberts KH, eds. Organizing for Reliability: A Guide for Research and Practice. Stanford University Press; 2018:61-89.
  23. Merchant NB, O’Neal J, Dealino-Perez C, Xiang J, Montoya A Jr, Murray JS. A high-reliability organization mindset. Am J Med Qual. 2022;37:504-510. doi:10.1097/jmq.0000000000000086
  24. Senge PM. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. Crown Currency; 1994.
  25. Ramanujam R, Roberts KH, eds. Organizing for Reliability: A Guide for Research and Practice. Stanford University Press; 2018.
  26. Coveney PV. Self-organization and complexity: a new age for theory, computation and experiment. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2003;361:1057-1079. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1191
  27. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World. 3rd ed. Wiley; 2015.
  28. Barton M, Sutcliffe K. Overcoming dysfunctional momentum: organizational safety as a social achievement. Hum Relations. 2009;62:1327-1356. doi:10.1177/0018726709334491
  29. Dekker S. Drift Into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge; 2011.
  30. Price MR, Williams TC. When doing wrong feels so right: normalization of deviance. J Patient Saf. 2018;14:1-2. doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000157
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(12)
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(12)
Page Number
1-6
Page Number
1-6
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Negotiating the VUCA World Through Tiered Huddles

Display Headline

Negotiating the VUCA World Through Tiered Huddles

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap

It's hardly news that the United States is experiencing a mental health crisis -- the CDC says as much. But experts in the field say that the current administration has severely compounded the problem by eliminating agency funding and national programs, slashing research grants and data resources, and creating new barriers to behavioral health care.

Philanthropic foundations aim to do what they can to address the shortfall. The numbers, however, just don't add up.

"Some big foundations and philanthropies have said they're going to increase what they give out in the next 4 years, but they'll never be able to fill the gap," said Morgan F. McDonald, MD, national director of population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund in New York City, which works with states on health policy. "Even if every one of them were to spend down their endowments, they still couldn't."

Given the financial limitations, some foundations are taking a different tack. While looking for ways to join forces with fellow nonprofits, they are providing emergency grants to bridge funding in the short term to keep research from grinding to a halt.

Budget Cuts Reach Far and Wide

Mental health research certainly didn't escape the extensive grant cancellations at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

"It's already affecting our ability to stay on the cutting edge of research, best practices, and treatment approaches," said Zainab Okolo, EdD, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and government relations at The Jed Foundation in New York City, which focuses on the emotional health of teens and young adults.

The upheaval is evident in an array of government agencies. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which last year awarded $12 billion in grants to community health centers and addiction treatment services, has seen > one-fourth of its staff eliminated. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has lost more than a third of its staff as federal cuts took a $1 billion bite out of its operating budget. The Education Department has halted $1 billion in grants used to hire mental health workers in school districts nationwide.

"We're very, very concerned about cuts to behavioral health systems," said Alonzo Plough, PhD, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, New Jersey. "Doctors and nurses working in safety-net clinics are seeing tremendous reductions."

All in all, the new tax and spending law means $1 trillion in cuts to health care programs including Medicaid -- the nation's largest payer for mental health services -- Medicare, and Affordable Care Act insurance. An estimated 10 million Americans are expected to lose their health coverage as a result.

"When accessibility to care goes down, there's a chance that more people will die by suicide," said Jill Harkavy-Friedman, PhD, senior vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. "But it also means people will come into care later in the course of their difficulties. Health professionals will be dealing with worse problems."

Foundations Take Emergency Measures

Even if private dollars can't replace what's been lost, philanthropic and medical foundations are stepping up.

We're seeing a lot of foundations and funders that are shifting their funding," said Alyson Niemann, CEO of Mindful Philanthropy, an organization that works with > 1000 private funders to marshal resources for mental health. This year, in response to federal cuts, "many increased funding to health and well-being, doubling or even tripling it," Niemann noted.

"They're making a great deal of effort to respond with emergency funds, really getting in the trenches and being good partners to their grantees," she said. "We've seen them asking deliberate questions, thinking about where their funding can have the most impact."

The American Psychological Foundation (APF), a longtime supporter of research and innovation, is addressing the current crisis with 2 initiatives, Michelle Quist Ryder, PhD, the organization's CEO, explained in an email. The first is APF Director Action, which funds innovative interventions at the community level. The second, Direct Action Crisis Funding Grants, will help continue research that is at risk of stalling because of budget cuts.

"Studies that are 'paused' or lose funding often cannot simply pick back up where they left off. Having to halt progress on a project can invalidate the work already completed," Ryder wrote. "These Direct Action Crisis Grants help bridge funding gaps and keep research viable."

At the same time, collaboration between foundations is becoming more widespread as they seek to maximize their impact. Philanthropic organizations are sharing ideas and best practices as well as pooling fundings.

"The goal of philanthropy is to help people," Harkavy-Friedman said. "There's strength in numbers and more dollars in numbers."

Some See Hope in Raised Voices

Despite the emergency scrambling, many of those in the trenches remain surprisingly optimistic. Some point out that the current turmoil has put a helpful spotlight on behavioral health care. Practitioners, meanwhile, have an essential role to play.

"There's a reason that things were the way they were: People advocated for many years to get where we've gotten," Harkavy-Friedman said, citing veterans' mental health care, the national violent death reporting system, and 988 as examples. "We have to raise our voices louder -- professionals in particular, because they know the impact a person in the general public many not fully grasp."

As a growing numbers of health professionals call attention to the damage wrought by deep cuts in the federal budget, foundation executives see an opportunity.

"In the mental health field, there's a deficit in the narrative, where there's a lot of focus on crisis. What we're hoping to do is shift the narrative toward 'How do we flourish together?'" Niemann said. "Sometimes deficits are where the most incredible innovations appear."

Debbie Koenig is a health writer whose work has been published by WebMD, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

It's hardly news that the United States is experiencing a mental health crisis -- the CDC says as much. But experts in the field say that the current administration has severely compounded the problem by eliminating agency funding and national programs, slashing research grants and data resources, and creating new barriers to behavioral health care.

Philanthropic foundations aim to do what they can to address the shortfall. The numbers, however, just don't add up.

"Some big foundations and philanthropies have said they're going to increase what they give out in the next 4 years, but they'll never be able to fill the gap," said Morgan F. McDonald, MD, national director of population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund in New York City, which works with states on health policy. "Even if every one of them were to spend down their endowments, they still couldn't."

Given the financial limitations, some foundations are taking a different tack. While looking for ways to join forces with fellow nonprofits, they are providing emergency grants to bridge funding in the short term to keep research from grinding to a halt.

Budget Cuts Reach Far and Wide

Mental health research certainly didn't escape the extensive grant cancellations at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

"It's already affecting our ability to stay on the cutting edge of research, best practices, and treatment approaches," said Zainab Okolo, EdD, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and government relations at The Jed Foundation in New York City, which focuses on the emotional health of teens and young adults.

The upheaval is evident in an array of government agencies. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which last year awarded $12 billion in grants to community health centers and addiction treatment services, has seen > one-fourth of its staff eliminated. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has lost more than a third of its staff as federal cuts took a $1 billion bite out of its operating budget. The Education Department has halted $1 billion in grants used to hire mental health workers in school districts nationwide.

"We're very, very concerned about cuts to behavioral health systems," said Alonzo Plough, PhD, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, New Jersey. "Doctors and nurses working in safety-net clinics are seeing tremendous reductions."

All in all, the new tax and spending law means $1 trillion in cuts to health care programs including Medicaid -- the nation's largest payer for mental health services -- Medicare, and Affordable Care Act insurance. An estimated 10 million Americans are expected to lose their health coverage as a result.

"When accessibility to care goes down, there's a chance that more people will die by suicide," said Jill Harkavy-Friedman, PhD, senior vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. "But it also means people will come into care later in the course of their difficulties. Health professionals will be dealing with worse problems."

Foundations Take Emergency Measures

Even if private dollars can't replace what's been lost, philanthropic and medical foundations are stepping up.

We're seeing a lot of foundations and funders that are shifting their funding," said Alyson Niemann, CEO of Mindful Philanthropy, an organization that works with > 1000 private funders to marshal resources for mental health. This year, in response to federal cuts, "many increased funding to health and well-being, doubling or even tripling it," Niemann noted.

"They're making a great deal of effort to respond with emergency funds, really getting in the trenches and being good partners to their grantees," she said. "We've seen them asking deliberate questions, thinking about where their funding can have the most impact."

The American Psychological Foundation (APF), a longtime supporter of research and innovation, is addressing the current crisis with 2 initiatives, Michelle Quist Ryder, PhD, the organization's CEO, explained in an email. The first is APF Director Action, which funds innovative interventions at the community level. The second, Direct Action Crisis Funding Grants, will help continue research that is at risk of stalling because of budget cuts.

"Studies that are 'paused' or lose funding often cannot simply pick back up where they left off. Having to halt progress on a project can invalidate the work already completed," Ryder wrote. "These Direct Action Crisis Grants help bridge funding gaps and keep research viable."

At the same time, collaboration between foundations is becoming more widespread as they seek to maximize their impact. Philanthropic organizations are sharing ideas and best practices as well as pooling fundings.

"The goal of philanthropy is to help people," Harkavy-Friedman said. "There's strength in numbers and more dollars in numbers."

Some See Hope in Raised Voices

Despite the emergency scrambling, many of those in the trenches remain surprisingly optimistic. Some point out that the current turmoil has put a helpful spotlight on behavioral health care. Practitioners, meanwhile, have an essential role to play.

"There's a reason that things were the way they were: People advocated for many years to get where we've gotten," Harkavy-Friedman said, citing veterans' mental health care, the national violent death reporting system, and 988 as examples. "We have to raise our voices louder -- professionals in particular, because they know the impact a person in the general public many not fully grasp."

As a growing numbers of health professionals call attention to the damage wrought by deep cuts in the federal budget, foundation executives see an opportunity.

"In the mental health field, there's a deficit in the narrative, where there's a lot of focus on crisis. What we're hoping to do is shift the narrative toward 'How do we flourish together?'" Niemann said. "Sometimes deficits are where the most incredible innovations appear."

Debbie Koenig is a health writer whose work has been published by WebMD, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

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

It's hardly news that the United States is experiencing a mental health crisis -- the CDC says as much. But experts in the field say that the current administration has severely compounded the problem by eliminating agency funding and national programs, slashing research grants and data resources, and creating new barriers to behavioral health care.

Philanthropic foundations aim to do what they can to address the shortfall. The numbers, however, just don't add up.

"Some big foundations and philanthropies have said they're going to increase what they give out in the next 4 years, but they'll never be able to fill the gap," said Morgan F. McDonald, MD, national director of population health at the Milbank Memorial Fund in New York City, which works with states on health policy. "Even if every one of them were to spend down their endowments, they still couldn't."

Given the financial limitations, some foundations are taking a different tack. While looking for ways to join forces with fellow nonprofits, they are providing emergency grants to bridge funding in the short term to keep research from grinding to a halt.

Budget Cuts Reach Far and Wide

Mental health research certainly didn't escape the extensive grant cancellations at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

"It's already affecting our ability to stay on the cutting edge of research, best practices, and treatment approaches," said Zainab Okolo, EdD, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and government relations at The Jed Foundation in New York City, which focuses on the emotional health of teens and young adults.

The upheaval is evident in an array of government agencies. The Health Resources and Services Administration, which last year awarded $12 billion in grants to community health centers and addiction treatment services, has seen > one-fourth of its staff eliminated. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has lost more than a third of its staff as federal cuts took a $1 billion bite out of its operating budget. The Education Department has halted $1 billion in grants used to hire mental health workers in school districts nationwide.

"We're very, very concerned about cuts to behavioral health systems," said Alonzo Plough, PhD, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, New Jersey. "Doctors and nurses working in safety-net clinics are seeing tremendous reductions."

All in all, the new tax and spending law means $1 trillion in cuts to health care programs including Medicaid -- the nation's largest payer for mental health services -- Medicare, and Affordable Care Act insurance. An estimated 10 million Americans are expected to lose their health coverage as a result.

"When accessibility to care goes down, there's a chance that more people will die by suicide," said Jill Harkavy-Friedman, PhD, senior vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. "But it also means people will come into care later in the course of their difficulties. Health professionals will be dealing with worse problems."

Foundations Take Emergency Measures

Even if private dollars can't replace what's been lost, philanthropic and medical foundations are stepping up.

We're seeing a lot of foundations and funders that are shifting their funding," said Alyson Niemann, CEO of Mindful Philanthropy, an organization that works with > 1000 private funders to marshal resources for mental health. This year, in response to federal cuts, "many increased funding to health and well-being, doubling or even tripling it," Niemann noted.

"They're making a great deal of effort to respond with emergency funds, really getting in the trenches and being good partners to their grantees," she said. "We've seen them asking deliberate questions, thinking about where their funding can have the most impact."

The American Psychological Foundation (APF), a longtime supporter of research and innovation, is addressing the current crisis with 2 initiatives, Michelle Quist Ryder, PhD, the organization's CEO, explained in an email. The first is APF Director Action, which funds innovative interventions at the community level. The second, Direct Action Crisis Funding Grants, will help continue research that is at risk of stalling because of budget cuts.

"Studies that are 'paused' or lose funding often cannot simply pick back up where they left off. Having to halt progress on a project can invalidate the work already completed," Ryder wrote. "These Direct Action Crisis Grants help bridge funding gaps and keep research viable."

At the same time, collaboration between foundations is becoming more widespread as they seek to maximize their impact. Philanthropic organizations are sharing ideas and best practices as well as pooling fundings.

"The goal of philanthropy is to help people," Harkavy-Friedman said. "There's strength in numbers and more dollars in numbers."

Some See Hope in Raised Voices

Despite the emergency scrambling, many of those in the trenches remain surprisingly optimistic. Some point out that the current turmoil has put a helpful spotlight on behavioral health care. Practitioners, meanwhile, have an essential role to play.

"There's a reason that things were the way they were: People advocated for many years to get where we've gotten," Harkavy-Friedman said, citing veterans' mental health care, the national violent death reporting system, and 988 as examples. "We have to raise our voices louder -- professionals in particular, because they know the impact a person in the general public many not fully grasp."

As a growing numbers of health professionals call attention to the damage wrought by deep cuts in the federal budget, foundation executives see an opportunity.

"In the mental health field, there's a deficit in the narrative, where there's a lot of focus on crisis. What we're hoping to do is shift the narrative toward 'How do we flourish together?'" Niemann said. "Sometimes deficits are where the most incredible innovations appear."

Debbie Koenig is a health writer whose work has been published by WebMD, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap

Display Headline

As Federal Cuts Deepen Mental Health Crisis, Philanthropy Scrambles to Fill the Gap

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Indian Health Service: Business as Usual During Shutdown

Article Type
Changed

Despite the ongoing shutdown of the US federal government, the Indian Health Service (IHS) continues to maintain the status quo while operating on an island of relatively insulated stability.

“IHS will continue to operate business-as-usual during a lapse of appropriations,” US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said at a recent meeting with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “100% of IHS staff will report for work, and health care services across Indian Country will not be impacted.” 

The protective cocoon around IHS and its services provided is largely due to advance appropriations, and lessons learned from previous government shutdowns. During the historically long 35-day government shutdown in 2018 and 2019, all federal government operations had to halt operations unless they were deemed indispensable. IHS was not considered indispensable and consequently, about 60% of IHS employees did not receive a paycheck.

In preparation for another potential shutdown in 2023, IHS was more proactive. “Because of the fact that now we have advanced appropriations for Indian Health Services, on Oct. 1, whether or not there’s a federal budget in place, will continue providing services,” then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, said at the time.

The safeguards have held for the current shutdown, aided by tribal pressure. As the federal shutdown loomed in September, a delegation led by NCAI spent 3 days lobbying Congress—focusing primarily on the new leadership in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—to guarantee some protection for federal employees who work with tribal governments.

At the quarterly meeting of the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma (UINO) in Tulsa, Rear Adm. Travis Watts, director of the IHS Oklahoma City Area and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told attendees, “The advance appropriations allow us to keep our doors open at this particular time. We want to thank the tribal nations for their advocacy for those advance appropriations.”

IHS is funded through 2026. All 14,801 IHS staff will be paid through advance appropriations, multi-year or supplemental appropriations, third-party collections, or carryover balances. 

However, according to the proposed 2026 budget some key health-related funding is at risk, including about $128 million in Tribal set-aside funding for mental and behavioral health funding: $60 million from the Tribal Opioid Response Grants, $22.75 million from Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, $14.5 million from Medication-Assisted Treatment for Prescription and Opioid Addiction, and $3.4 million Tribal set-aside for the Zero Suicide program. Six IHS accounts are not funded by advance appropriations: Electronic Health Record System, Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, Contract Support Costs, Payments for Tribal Leases, Sanitation Facilities Construction, and Health Care Facilities Construction.

In a public statement, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said, “[W]e’re hopeful that Congress’ foresight to provide an advance appropriation for the Indian Health Service will prevent any severe disruptions as experienced during the 2013 and 2018 shutdowns. I urge both sides of the aisle to work on a path forward and reopen the government as soon as possible and call on the administration to honor the government’s Treaty and Trust responsibilities, avoid needless cuts to Tribal programs and personnel, and use its authorities to minimize harm to tribes and tribal citizens.”

Hoskin Jr. cautioned, though, that not every tribe has the same resources. Many smaller, direct-service tribes depend entirely on IHS to deliver care.

“Thank goodness for forward funding,” he said. “But we have to make that permanent in federal statute. No one in this country should be at the mercy of political dysfunction to get health care. “The United States can keep its lights off,” Hoskin Jr. said. “We’ll still be moving forward.”

Publications
Topics
Sections

Despite the ongoing shutdown of the US federal government, the Indian Health Service (IHS) continues to maintain the status quo while operating on an island of relatively insulated stability.

“IHS will continue to operate business-as-usual during a lapse of appropriations,” US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said at a recent meeting with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “100% of IHS staff will report for work, and health care services across Indian Country will not be impacted.” 

The protective cocoon around IHS and its services provided is largely due to advance appropriations, and lessons learned from previous government shutdowns. During the historically long 35-day government shutdown in 2018 and 2019, all federal government operations had to halt operations unless they were deemed indispensable. IHS was not considered indispensable and consequently, about 60% of IHS employees did not receive a paycheck.

In preparation for another potential shutdown in 2023, IHS was more proactive. “Because of the fact that now we have advanced appropriations for Indian Health Services, on Oct. 1, whether or not there’s a federal budget in place, will continue providing services,” then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, said at the time.

The safeguards have held for the current shutdown, aided by tribal pressure. As the federal shutdown loomed in September, a delegation led by NCAI spent 3 days lobbying Congress—focusing primarily on the new leadership in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—to guarantee some protection for federal employees who work with tribal governments.

At the quarterly meeting of the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma (UINO) in Tulsa, Rear Adm. Travis Watts, director of the IHS Oklahoma City Area and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told attendees, “The advance appropriations allow us to keep our doors open at this particular time. We want to thank the tribal nations for their advocacy for those advance appropriations.”

IHS is funded through 2026. All 14,801 IHS staff will be paid through advance appropriations, multi-year or supplemental appropriations, third-party collections, or carryover balances. 

However, according to the proposed 2026 budget some key health-related funding is at risk, including about $128 million in Tribal set-aside funding for mental and behavioral health funding: $60 million from the Tribal Opioid Response Grants, $22.75 million from Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, $14.5 million from Medication-Assisted Treatment for Prescription and Opioid Addiction, and $3.4 million Tribal set-aside for the Zero Suicide program. Six IHS accounts are not funded by advance appropriations: Electronic Health Record System, Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, Contract Support Costs, Payments for Tribal Leases, Sanitation Facilities Construction, and Health Care Facilities Construction.

In a public statement, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said, “[W]e’re hopeful that Congress’ foresight to provide an advance appropriation for the Indian Health Service will prevent any severe disruptions as experienced during the 2013 and 2018 shutdowns. I urge both sides of the aisle to work on a path forward and reopen the government as soon as possible and call on the administration to honor the government’s Treaty and Trust responsibilities, avoid needless cuts to Tribal programs and personnel, and use its authorities to minimize harm to tribes and tribal citizens.”

Hoskin Jr. cautioned, though, that not every tribe has the same resources. Many smaller, direct-service tribes depend entirely on IHS to deliver care.

“Thank goodness for forward funding,” he said. “But we have to make that permanent in federal statute. No one in this country should be at the mercy of political dysfunction to get health care. “The United States can keep its lights off,” Hoskin Jr. said. “We’ll still be moving forward.”

Despite the ongoing shutdown of the US federal government, the Indian Health Service (IHS) continues to maintain the status quo while operating on an island of relatively insulated stability.

“IHS will continue to operate business-as-usual during a lapse of appropriations,” US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said at a recent meeting with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “100% of IHS staff will report for work, and health care services across Indian Country will not be impacted.” 

The protective cocoon around IHS and its services provided is largely due to advance appropriations, and lessons learned from previous government shutdowns. During the historically long 35-day government shutdown in 2018 and 2019, all federal government operations had to halt operations unless they were deemed indispensable. IHS was not considered indispensable and consequently, about 60% of IHS employees did not receive a paycheck.

In preparation for another potential shutdown in 2023, IHS was more proactive. “Because of the fact that now we have advanced appropriations for Indian Health Services, on Oct. 1, whether or not there’s a federal budget in place, will continue providing services,” then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, said at the time.

The safeguards have held for the current shutdown, aided by tribal pressure. As the federal shutdown loomed in September, a delegation led by NCAI spent 3 days lobbying Congress—focusing primarily on the new leadership in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—to guarantee some protection for federal employees who work with tribal governments.

At the quarterly meeting of the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma (UINO) in Tulsa, Rear Adm. Travis Watts, director of the IHS Oklahoma City Area and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told attendees, “The advance appropriations allow us to keep our doors open at this particular time. We want to thank the tribal nations for their advocacy for those advance appropriations.”

IHS is funded through 2026. All 14,801 IHS staff will be paid through advance appropriations, multi-year or supplemental appropriations, third-party collections, or carryover balances. 

However, according to the proposed 2026 budget some key health-related funding is at risk, including about $128 million in Tribal set-aside funding for mental and behavioral health funding: $60 million from the Tribal Opioid Response Grants, $22.75 million from Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, $14.5 million from Medication-Assisted Treatment for Prescription and Opioid Addiction, and $3.4 million Tribal set-aside for the Zero Suicide program. Six IHS accounts are not funded by advance appropriations: Electronic Health Record System, Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, Contract Support Costs, Payments for Tribal Leases, Sanitation Facilities Construction, and Health Care Facilities Construction.

In a public statement, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said, “[W]e’re hopeful that Congress’ foresight to provide an advance appropriation for the Indian Health Service will prevent any severe disruptions as experienced during the 2013 and 2018 shutdowns. I urge both sides of the aisle to work on a path forward and reopen the government as soon as possible and call on the administration to honor the government’s Treaty and Trust responsibilities, avoid needless cuts to Tribal programs and personnel, and use its authorities to minimize harm to tribes and tribal citizens.”

Hoskin Jr. cautioned, though, that not every tribe has the same resources. Many smaller, direct-service tribes depend entirely on IHS to deliver care.

“Thank goodness for forward funding,” he said. “But we have to make that permanent in federal statute. No one in this country should be at the mercy of political dysfunction to get health care. “The United States can keep its lights off,” Hoskin Jr. said. “We’ll still be moving forward.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Physicians Face Medicare Telehealth Woes Amid Federal Government Shutdown

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

Physicians Face Medicare Telehealth Woes Amid Federal Government Shutdown

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

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

Publications
Topics
Sections

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

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

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

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

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Physicians Face Medicare Telehealth Woes Amid Federal Government Shutdown

Display Headline

Physicians Face Medicare Telehealth Woes Amid Federal Government Shutdown

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Architect of VA Transformation Urges Innovation Amid Uncertainty

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

Architect of VA Transformation Urges Innovation Amid Uncertainty

PHOENIX – Three decades after he initiated the transformation of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) into a model research and clinical health care system, former US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary of Health Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, urged cancer specialists to embrace this challenging moment as an opportunity for bold innovation.

At the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), Kizer acknowledged that the VA faces an “uncertain and turbulent time” in areas such as funding, staffing, community care implementation, and the rollout of a new electronic health record system. 

He also noted the grim rise of global instability, economic turmoil, climate change, infectious diseases, political violence, and mass shootings.

“This can be stressful. It can create negative energy. But this uncertainty can also be liberating, and it can prompt positive energy and innovation, depending on choices that we make,” said Kizer, who also has served as California’s top health official prior to leading the VHA from 1994 to 1999.

From “Bloated Bureaucracy’ to High-Quality Health Care System

Kizer has been credited with revitalizing VHA care through a greater commitment to quality, and harkened to his work with the VA as an example of how bold goals can lead to bold innovation. 

“What were the perceptions of VA health care in 1994? Well, they weren’t very good, frankly,” Kizer recalled. He described the VA as having a reputation at that time as “highly dysfunctional” with “a very bloated and entrenched bureaucracy.” As for quality of care, it “wasn’t viewed as very good.”

The system’s problems were so severe that patients would park motorhomes in VA medical center parking lots as they waited for care. “While they might have an appointment for one day, they may not be seen for 3 or 4 or 5 days. So they would stay in their motorhome until they finally got into their clinic appointment,” Kizer said.

Overall, “the public viewed the VA as this bleak backwater of incompetence and difference and inefficiency, and there were very strong calls to privatize the VA,” Kizer said. 

Kizer asked colleagues about what he should do after he was asked to take the under secretary job. “With one exception, they all said, don’t go near it. Don’t touch it. Walk away. That it’s impossible to change the organization.

“I looked at the VA and I saw an opportunity. When I told [members of the President Bill] Clinton [Administration] yes, my bold aim was that I would like to pursue this was to make VHA a model of excellent health care, an exemplary health care system. Most everyone else thought that I was totally delusional, but sometimes it’s good to be delusional.”

Revolutionary Changes Despite Opposition

Kizer sought reforms in 5 major strategic objectives, all without explicit congressional approval: creating an accountable management structure, decentralizing decision-making, integrating care, implementing universal primary care, and pursuing eligibility reform to create the current 8-tier VA system.

One major innovation was the implementation of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs): “Those were strongly opposed initially,” Kizer said. “Everyone, the veteran community in particular, had been led to believe that the only good care was in the hospital.”

The resistance was substantial. “There was a lot of opposition when we said we’re going to move out into the community where you live to make [care] easier to access,” Kizer said.

To make things more difficult, Congress wouldn’t fund the project: “For the first 3 years, every CBOC had to be funded by redirected savings from other things that we could do within the system,” he said. “All of this was through redirected savings and finding ways to save and reinvest.”

Innovation From the Ground Up

Kizer emphasized that many breakthrough innovations came from frontline staff rather than executive mandates. He cited the example of Barcode Medication Administration, which originated from a nurse in Topeka, Kan.

The nurse saw a barcode scanner put to work at a rental car company where it was used to check cars in and out. She wondered, “Why can’t we do this with medications when they’re given on the floor? We followed up on it, pursued those things, tested it out, it worked.”

The results were dramatic. “I was told at a meeting that they had achieved close to 80% reduction in medication errors,” Kizer said. After verifying the results personally, he “authorized $20 million, and we moved forward with it systemwide.”

This experience reinforced his belief in harvesting ideas from staff at all levels. 

Innovation remains part of the VA’s culture “despite what some people would have you believe,” Kizer said. Recently, the VA has made major advances in areas such as patient transportation and the climate crisis, he said. 

Inside the Recipe for Innovation

Boldness, persistence, adaptability, and tolerance for risk are necessary ingredients for high-risk goals, Kizer said. Ambition is also part of the picture. 

He highlighted examples such as the Apollo moon landing, the first sub-4-minute mile, and the first swim across the English Channel by a woman.

In medicine, Kizer pointed to a national patient safety campaign that saved an estimated 122,000 lives. He also mentioned recent progress in organ transplantation such as recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to establish national performance goals and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network’s target of 60,000 deceased donor transplants by 2026.

Bold doesn’t mean being reckless or careless, Kizer said. “But it does require innovation. And it does require that you try some new things, some of which aren’t going to work out.”

The key mindset, he explained, is to “embrace the unknown” because “you often really don’t know how you will accomplish the aim when you start. But you’ll figure it out as you go.”

Kizer highlighted 2 opposing strategies to handling challenging times. 

According to him, the “negative energy” approach focuses on frustrations, limitations, and asking “Why is this happening to me?” 

In contrast, a “positive energy” approach expects problems, focuses on available resources and capabilities, and asks, “What are the opportunities that these changes are creating for me?”

Kizer made it crystal clear which option he prefers.

Dr. Kizer disclosed that his comments represent his opinions only, and he noted his ongoing connections to the VA.

Publications
Topics
Sections

PHOENIX – Three decades after he initiated the transformation of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) into a model research and clinical health care system, former US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary of Health Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, urged cancer specialists to embrace this challenging moment as an opportunity for bold innovation.

At the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), Kizer acknowledged that the VA faces an “uncertain and turbulent time” in areas such as funding, staffing, community care implementation, and the rollout of a new electronic health record system. 

He also noted the grim rise of global instability, economic turmoil, climate change, infectious diseases, political violence, and mass shootings.

“This can be stressful. It can create negative energy. But this uncertainty can also be liberating, and it can prompt positive energy and innovation, depending on choices that we make,” said Kizer, who also has served as California’s top health official prior to leading the VHA from 1994 to 1999.

From “Bloated Bureaucracy’ to High-Quality Health Care System

Kizer has been credited with revitalizing VHA care through a greater commitment to quality, and harkened to his work with the VA as an example of how bold goals can lead to bold innovation. 

“What were the perceptions of VA health care in 1994? Well, they weren’t very good, frankly,” Kizer recalled. He described the VA as having a reputation at that time as “highly dysfunctional” with “a very bloated and entrenched bureaucracy.” As for quality of care, it “wasn’t viewed as very good.”

The system’s problems were so severe that patients would park motorhomes in VA medical center parking lots as they waited for care. “While they might have an appointment for one day, they may not be seen for 3 or 4 or 5 days. So they would stay in their motorhome until they finally got into their clinic appointment,” Kizer said.

Overall, “the public viewed the VA as this bleak backwater of incompetence and difference and inefficiency, and there were very strong calls to privatize the VA,” Kizer said. 

Kizer asked colleagues about what he should do after he was asked to take the under secretary job. “With one exception, they all said, don’t go near it. Don’t touch it. Walk away. That it’s impossible to change the organization.

“I looked at the VA and I saw an opportunity. When I told [members of the President Bill] Clinton [Administration] yes, my bold aim was that I would like to pursue this was to make VHA a model of excellent health care, an exemplary health care system. Most everyone else thought that I was totally delusional, but sometimes it’s good to be delusional.”

Revolutionary Changes Despite Opposition

Kizer sought reforms in 5 major strategic objectives, all without explicit congressional approval: creating an accountable management structure, decentralizing decision-making, integrating care, implementing universal primary care, and pursuing eligibility reform to create the current 8-tier VA system.

One major innovation was the implementation of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs): “Those were strongly opposed initially,” Kizer said. “Everyone, the veteran community in particular, had been led to believe that the only good care was in the hospital.”

The resistance was substantial. “There was a lot of opposition when we said we’re going to move out into the community where you live to make [care] easier to access,” Kizer said.

To make things more difficult, Congress wouldn’t fund the project: “For the first 3 years, every CBOC had to be funded by redirected savings from other things that we could do within the system,” he said. “All of this was through redirected savings and finding ways to save and reinvest.”

Innovation From the Ground Up

Kizer emphasized that many breakthrough innovations came from frontline staff rather than executive mandates. He cited the example of Barcode Medication Administration, which originated from a nurse in Topeka, Kan.

The nurse saw a barcode scanner put to work at a rental car company where it was used to check cars in and out. She wondered, “Why can’t we do this with medications when they’re given on the floor? We followed up on it, pursued those things, tested it out, it worked.”

The results were dramatic. “I was told at a meeting that they had achieved close to 80% reduction in medication errors,” Kizer said. After verifying the results personally, he “authorized $20 million, and we moved forward with it systemwide.”

This experience reinforced his belief in harvesting ideas from staff at all levels. 

Innovation remains part of the VA’s culture “despite what some people would have you believe,” Kizer said. Recently, the VA has made major advances in areas such as patient transportation and the climate crisis, he said. 

Inside the Recipe for Innovation

Boldness, persistence, adaptability, and tolerance for risk are necessary ingredients for high-risk goals, Kizer said. Ambition is also part of the picture. 

He highlighted examples such as the Apollo moon landing, the first sub-4-minute mile, and the first swim across the English Channel by a woman.

In medicine, Kizer pointed to a national patient safety campaign that saved an estimated 122,000 lives. He also mentioned recent progress in organ transplantation such as recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to establish national performance goals and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network’s target of 60,000 deceased donor transplants by 2026.

Bold doesn’t mean being reckless or careless, Kizer said. “But it does require innovation. And it does require that you try some new things, some of which aren’t going to work out.”

The key mindset, he explained, is to “embrace the unknown” because “you often really don’t know how you will accomplish the aim when you start. But you’ll figure it out as you go.”

Kizer highlighted 2 opposing strategies to handling challenging times. 

According to him, the “negative energy” approach focuses on frustrations, limitations, and asking “Why is this happening to me?” 

In contrast, a “positive energy” approach expects problems, focuses on available resources and capabilities, and asks, “What are the opportunities that these changes are creating for me?”

Kizer made it crystal clear which option he prefers.

Dr. Kizer disclosed that his comments represent his opinions only, and he noted his ongoing connections to the VA.

PHOENIX – Three decades after he initiated the transformation of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) into a model research and clinical health care system, former US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary of Health Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, urged cancer specialists to embrace this challenging moment as an opportunity for bold innovation.

At the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO), Kizer acknowledged that the VA faces an “uncertain and turbulent time” in areas such as funding, staffing, community care implementation, and the rollout of a new electronic health record system. 

He also noted the grim rise of global instability, economic turmoil, climate change, infectious diseases, political violence, and mass shootings.

“This can be stressful. It can create negative energy. But this uncertainty can also be liberating, and it can prompt positive energy and innovation, depending on choices that we make,” said Kizer, who also has served as California’s top health official prior to leading the VHA from 1994 to 1999.

From “Bloated Bureaucracy’ to High-Quality Health Care System

Kizer has been credited with revitalizing VHA care through a greater commitment to quality, and harkened to his work with the VA as an example of how bold goals can lead to bold innovation. 

“What were the perceptions of VA health care in 1994? Well, they weren’t very good, frankly,” Kizer recalled. He described the VA as having a reputation at that time as “highly dysfunctional” with “a very bloated and entrenched bureaucracy.” As for quality of care, it “wasn’t viewed as very good.”

The system’s problems were so severe that patients would park motorhomes in VA medical center parking lots as they waited for care. “While they might have an appointment for one day, they may not be seen for 3 or 4 or 5 days. So they would stay in their motorhome until they finally got into their clinic appointment,” Kizer said.

Overall, “the public viewed the VA as this bleak backwater of incompetence and difference and inefficiency, and there were very strong calls to privatize the VA,” Kizer said. 

Kizer asked colleagues about what he should do after he was asked to take the under secretary job. “With one exception, they all said, don’t go near it. Don’t touch it. Walk away. That it’s impossible to change the organization.

“I looked at the VA and I saw an opportunity. When I told [members of the President Bill] Clinton [Administration] yes, my bold aim was that I would like to pursue this was to make VHA a model of excellent health care, an exemplary health care system. Most everyone else thought that I was totally delusional, but sometimes it’s good to be delusional.”

Revolutionary Changes Despite Opposition

Kizer sought reforms in 5 major strategic objectives, all without explicit congressional approval: creating an accountable management structure, decentralizing decision-making, integrating care, implementing universal primary care, and pursuing eligibility reform to create the current 8-tier VA system.

One major innovation was the implementation of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs): “Those were strongly opposed initially,” Kizer said. “Everyone, the veteran community in particular, had been led to believe that the only good care was in the hospital.”

The resistance was substantial. “There was a lot of opposition when we said we’re going to move out into the community where you live to make [care] easier to access,” Kizer said.

To make things more difficult, Congress wouldn’t fund the project: “For the first 3 years, every CBOC had to be funded by redirected savings from other things that we could do within the system,” he said. “All of this was through redirected savings and finding ways to save and reinvest.”

Innovation From the Ground Up

Kizer emphasized that many breakthrough innovations came from frontline staff rather than executive mandates. He cited the example of Barcode Medication Administration, which originated from a nurse in Topeka, Kan.

The nurse saw a barcode scanner put to work at a rental car company where it was used to check cars in and out. She wondered, “Why can’t we do this with medications when they’re given on the floor? We followed up on it, pursued those things, tested it out, it worked.”

The results were dramatic. “I was told at a meeting that they had achieved close to 80% reduction in medication errors,” Kizer said. After verifying the results personally, he “authorized $20 million, and we moved forward with it systemwide.”

This experience reinforced his belief in harvesting ideas from staff at all levels. 

Innovation remains part of the VA’s culture “despite what some people would have you believe,” Kizer said. Recently, the VA has made major advances in areas such as patient transportation and the climate crisis, he said. 

Inside the Recipe for Innovation

Boldness, persistence, adaptability, and tolerance for risk are necessary ingredients for high-risk goals, Kizer said. Ambition is also part of the picture. 

He highlighted examples such as the Apollo moon landing, the first sub-4-minute mile, and the first swim across the English Channel by a woman.

In medicine, Kizer pointed to a national patient safety campaign that saved an estimated 122,000 lives. He also mentioned recent progress in organ transplantation such as recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to establish national performance goals and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network’s target of 60,000 deceased donor transplants by 2026.

Bold doesn’t mean being reckless or careless, Kizer said. “But it does require innovation. And it does require that you try some new things, some of which aren’t going to work out.”

The key mindset, he explained, is to “embrace the unknown” because “you often really don’t know how you will accomplish the aim when you start. But you’ll figure it out as you go.”

Kizer highlighted 2 opposing strategies to handling challenging times. 

According to him, the “negative energy” approach focuses on frustrations, limitations, and asking “Why is this happening to me?” 

In contrast, a “positive energy” approach expects problems, focuses on available resources and capabilities, and asks, “What are the opportunities that these changes are creating for me?”

Kizer made it crystal clear which option he prefers.

Dr. Kizer disclosed that his comments represent his opinions only, and he noted his ongoing connections to the VA.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

Architect of VA Transformation Urges Innovation Amid Uncertainty

Display Headline

Architect of VA Transformation Urges Innovation Amid Uncertainty

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

VHA Workforce Continues to Contract as Fiscal Year Ends

Article Type
Changed

The size of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) workforce continues to contract according to the latest data released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Applications for employment are down 44% in fiscal year (FY) 2025 with just 14,485 cumulative new hires and 28,969 losses. In 2024, the VHA had 416,667 workers—it now has 401,224. 

The reductions align with VA Secretary Doug Collins’ goal of downsizing the VA’s workforce by 30,000 employees by the end of 2025. In August, Collins outlined how a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force he proposed earlier this year.

Compared with July’s numbers, the VHA now employs 139 fewer medical officers/physicians, 418 fewer registered nurses, 107 fewer social workers, and 65 fewer psychologists. Staffing of licensed practical nurses, medical support assistants, and nursing assistants is also down (reduced by 77, 129, and 29, respectively). 

Retention rates for the first 2 years of onboarding hover around 80% for physicians and nurses. However, retention incentives have dropped from 19,484 to 8982 and recruitment incentives from 6069 to 1299.

In voluntary exit surveys, 78% of 6762 medical and dental staff who left said they would work again for the VA, while 79% said they would recommend the VA as an employer. These rates are down from a similar survey in May 2023 when 81% noted that they would work again for the VA and 82% would recommend the VA to others. Personal matters, geographic relocation, and poor working relationships with supervisors or colleagues were among the reasons cited for leaving in August 2025. 

Of 435 psychologists, 69% said they would work again for the VA, and 62% said they would recommend the VA as an employer (71% and 67%, respectively in May 2023). Their reasons for leaving in August 2025 included a lack of trust in senior leaders and policy or technology barriers to getting the work done.

An August survey from the Office of the Inspector General found that VHA facilities reported 4434 staffing shortages this fiscal year—a 50% increase from fiscal year 2024. Most (94%) of the 139 facilities reported severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% of facilities reported severe shortages for nurses. Due to the timing of the questionnaire, the responses did not yet reflect the full impact from workforce reshaping efforts.

Publications
Topics
Sections

The size of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) workforce continues to contract according to the latest data released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Applications for employment are down 44% in fiscal year (FY) 2025 with just 14,485 cumulative new hires and 28,969 losses. In 2024, the VHA had 416,667 workers—it now has 401,224. 

The reductions align with VA Secretary Doug Collins’ goal of downsizing the VA’s workforce by 30,000 employees by the end of 2025. In August, Collins outlined how a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force he proposed earlier this year.

Compared with July’s numbers, the VHA now employs 139 fewer medical officers/physicians, 418 fewer registered nurses, 107 fewer social workers, and 65 fewer psychologists. Staffing of licensed practical nurses, medical support assistants, and nursing assistants is also down (reduced by 77, 129, and 29, respectively). 

Retention rates for the first 2 years of onboarding hover around 80% for physicians and nurses. However, retention incentives have dropped from 19,484 to 8982 and recruitment incentives from 6069 to 1299.

In voluntary exit surveys, 78% of 6762 medical and dental staff who left said they would work again for the VA, while 79% said they would recommend the VA as an employer. These rates are down from a similar survey in May 2023 when 81% noted that they would work again for the VA and 82% would recommend the VA to others. Personal matters, geographic relocation, and poor working relationships with supervisors or colleagues were among the reasons cited for leaving in August 2025. 

Of 435 psychologists, 69% said they would work again for the VA, and 62% said they would recommend the VA as an employer (71% and 67%, respectively in May 2023). Their reasons for leaving in August 2025 included a lack of trust in senior leaders and policy or technology barriers to getting the work done.

An August survey from the Office of the Inspector General found that VHA facilities reported 4434 staffing shortages this fiscal year—a 50% increase from fiscal year 2024. Most (94%) of the 139 facilities reported severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% of facilities reported severe shortages for nurses. Due to the timing of the questionnaire, the responses did not yet reflect the full impact from workforce reshaping efforts.

The size of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) workforce continues to contract according to the latest data released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Applications for employment are down 44% in fiscal year (FY) 2025 with just 14,485 cumulative new hires and 28,969 losses. In 2024, the VHA had 416,667 workers—it now has 401,224. 

The reductions align with VA Secretary Doug Collins’ goal of downsizing the VA’s workforce by 30,000 employees by the end of 2025. In August, Collins outlined how a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force he proposed earlier this year.

Compared with July’s numbers, the VHA now employs 139 fewer medical officers/physicians, 418 fewer registered nurses, 107 fewer social workers, and 65 fewer psychologists. Staffing of licensed practical nurses, medical support assistants, and nursing assistants is also down (reduced by 77, 129, and 29, respectively). 

Retention rates for the first 2 years of onboarding hover around 80% for physicians and nurses. However, retention incentives have dropped from 19,484 to 8982 and recruitment incentives from 6069 to 1299.

In voluntary exit surveys, 78% of 6762 medical and dental staff who left said they would work again for the VA, while 79% said they would recommend the VA as an employer. These rates are down from a similar survey in May 2023 when 81% noted that they would work again for the VA and 82% would recommend the VA to others. Personal matters, geographic relocation, and poor working relationships with supervisors or colleagues were among the reasons cited for leaving in August 2025. 

Of 435 psychologists, 69% said they would work again for the VA, and 62% said they would recommend the VA as an employer (71% and 67%, respectively in May 2023). Their reasons for leaving in August 2025 included a lack of trust in senior leaders and policy or technology barriers to getting the work done.

An August survey from the Office of the Inspector General found that VHA facilities reported 4434 staffing shortages this fiscal year—a 50% increase from fiscal year 2024. Most (94%) of the 139 facilities reported severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% of facilities reported severe shortages for nurses. Due to the timing of the questionnaire, the responses did not yet reflect the full impact from workforce reshaping efforts.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

When The Giants and Those Who Stand on Their Shoulders Are Gone: The Loss of VA Institutional Memory

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline

When The Giants and Those Who Stand on Their Shoulders Are Gone: The Loss of VA Institutional Memory

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) 1

Early in residency, I decided I only wanted to work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It was a way to follow the example of service that my parents, an Army doctor and nurse, had set. I spent much of my residency, including all of my last year of training, at a VA medical center, hoping a vacancy would open in the psychiatry service. In those days, VA jobs were hard to come by; doctors spent their entire careers in the system, only retiring after decades of commitment to its unique mission. Finally, close to graduation, one of my favorite attending physicians left his post. After mountains of paperwork and running the human resources obstacle course with the usual stumbles, I arrived at my dream job as a VA psychiatrist.

So, it is with immense sadness and even shock that I read a recent ProPublica article reporting that from January to March 2025 almost 40% of the physicians who received employment offers from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) declined the positions.2 Medical media rapidly picked up the story, likely further discouraging potential applicants.3

There have always been health care professionals (HCPs) who had zero interest in working for the VA. Medical students and residents often have a love/hate relationship with the VA, with some trainees not having the patience for the behemoth pace of the bureaucracy or finding the old-style physical environment and more relaxed pace antiquated and inefficient.

The reasons doctors are saying no to VA employment at 4 times the previous rate are different and more disturbing. According to ProPublica, VA officials in Texas reported in a June internal presentation that about 90 people had turned down job offers due to the “uncertainty of reorganization.”2 They reported that low morale was causing existing employees to recommend against working at the VA. My own anecdotal experience is similar: contrary to prior years, few residents, if any, are interested in working at the VA because of concerns about the stability of employment and the direction of its organizational culture.

It is fair to question the objectivity of the ProPublica report. However, the latest VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) analysis of staffing had similar findings. “Despite the ability to make noncompetitive appointments for such occupations, VHA continues to experience severe occupational staffing shortages for these occupations that are fundamental to the delivery of health care.” The 4434 severe occupational shortage figures in fiscal year (FY) 2025 were 50% higher than in FY 2024.4 OIG reported that 57% of facilities noted severe occupational staffing shortages for psychology, making it the most frequently reported clinical shortage.

At this critical juncture, when new health care professional energy is not flowing into the VHA, there is an unprecedented drain of the lifeblood of any system—the departure of the bearers of institutional memory. Early and scheduled retirements, the deferred resignation program, and severance have decimated the ranks of senior HCPs, experienced leaders, and career clinicians. ProPublica noted the loss of 600 doctors and 1900 nurses at the VHA so far in 2025.2 Internal VA data from exit interviews suggest similar motivations. Many cited lack of trust and confidence in senior leaders and job stress/pressure.5

It should be noted the VA has an alternative and plausible explanation for the expected departure of 30,000 employees. They argue that the VHA was overstaffed and the increased workforce decreased the efficiency of service. Voluntary separation from employment, VA contends, has avoided the need for a far more disruptive reduction in force. VA leaders avow that downsizing has not adversely impacted its ability to deliver high-quality health care and benefits and they assert that a reduction in red tape will enable VA to provide easier access to care. VA Secretary Doug Collins has concluded that because of these difficult but necessary changes, “VA is headed in the right direction.”6

What is institutional memory, and why is it important? “The core of institutional memory is collective awareness and understanding of a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences, and know-how,” Bhugra and Ventriglio explain. “These are all held collectively at various levels in any given institution. Thus, collective memory or history can be utilized to build on what has gone before and how we take things forward.”7

The authors of this quote offer a modern twist on what Sir Isaac Newton described in more metaphorical language in the epigraph: to survive, and even more to thrive, an enterprise must have those who have accumulated technical knowledge and professional wisdom as well as those who assume responsibility for appropriating and adding to this storehouse of operational skill, expertise, unique cultural values, and ethical commitments. The VHA is losing its instructors and students of institutional memory which deals a serious blow to the stability and vitality of any learning health system.6 As Bhugra and Ventriglio put it, institutional memory identifies “what has worked in delivering the aims in the past and what has not, thereby ensuring the lessons learnt are remembered and passed on to the next generation.”7

Nearly every week, at all levels of the agency, I have encountered this exodus of builders and bearers of institutional memory. Those who have left did so for many of the same reasons cited by those who declined to come, leaving incalculable gaps at both ends of the career spectrum. Both the old and new are essential for organizational resilience: fresh ideas enable an institution to be agile in responding to challenges, while operational savvy ensures responses are ecologically aligned with the organizational mission.8

The dire shortage of HCPs—especially in mental health and primary care—has opened up unprecedented opportunities.9 Colleagues have noted that with only a little searching they found multiple lucrative positions. Once, HCPs picked the VA because they valued the commitment to public service and being part of a community of education and research more than fame or fortune. Having the best benefits packages in the industry only reinforced its value. 

Even so, surpassing a genius such as Sir Isaac Newton, writing to a scientific competitor, Robert Hooke, recognized that progress and discovery in science and medicine are nigh well impossible without the collective achievements housed in institutional memory.1 It was inspiring teachers and attending physicians—Newton’s giants—who attracted the best and brightest in medicine and nursing, other HCPs, and research, to the VA, where they could participate in a transactive organizational learning process from their seniors, and then grow that fund of knowledge to improve patient care, educate their learners, and innovate. What will happen when there are no longer shoulders of giants or anyone to stand on them?

References
  1. Chen C. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization. Springer; 2013:135.
  2. Armstrong D, Umansky E, Coleman V. Veterans’ care at risk under Trump as hundreds of doctors and nurses reject working at VA hospitals. ProPublica. August 8, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.propublica.org/article/veterans-affairs-hospital-shortages-trump
  3. Kuchno K. VA physician job offers rejections up fourfold in 2025: report. Becker’s Hospital Review. August 12, 2025. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/va-physician-job-offer-rejections-up-fourfold-in-2025-report/
  4. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General. OIG determination of Veterans Health Administration’s severe occupational staffing shortages fiscal year 2025. August 12, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.vaoig.gov/reports/national-healthcare-review/oig-determination-veterans-health-administrations-severe-1
  5. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA workforce dashboard. July 25, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.va.gov/EMPLOYEE/docs/workforce/VA-Workforce-Dashboard-Issue-27.pdf
  6. VA to reduce staff by nearly 30K by end of FY2025. News release. Veterans Affairs News. July 7, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-to-reduce-staff-by-nearly-30k-by-end-of-fy2025/
  7. Bhugra D, Ventriglio A. Institutions, institutional memory, healthcare and research. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2023;69(8):1843-1844. doi:10.1177/00207640231213905
  8. Jain A. Is organizational memory a useful capability? An analysis of its effects on productivity, absorptive capacity adaptation. In Argote L, Levine JM. The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning. Oxford; 2020.
  9. Broder J. Ready to pick a specialty? These may have the brightest futures. Medscape. April 21, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/ready-pick-specialty-these-may-have-brightest-futures-2025a10009if
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Cynthia M.A. Geppert is Editor-in-Chief.

Correspondence: Cynthia Geppert ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2025;42(9). Published online September 12. doi:10.12788/fp.0625

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
328-329
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Cynthia M.A. Geppert is Editor-in-Chief.

Correspondence: Cynthia Geppert ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2025;42(9). Published online September 12. doi:10.12788/fp.0625

Author and Disclosure Information

Cynthia M.A. Geppert is Editor-in-Chief.

Correspondence: Cynthia Geppert ([email protected])

Fed Pract. 2025;42(9). Published online September 12. doi:10.12788/fp.0625

Article PDF
Article PDF

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) 1

Early in residency, I decided I only wanted to work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It was a way to follow the example of service that my parents, an Army doctor and nurse, had set. I spent much of my residency, including all of my last year of training, at a VA medical center, hoping a vacancy would open in the psychiatry service. In those days, VA jobs were hard to come by; doctors spent their entire careers in the system, only retiring after decades of commitment to its unique mission. Finally, close to graduation, one of my favorite attending physicians left his post. After mountains of paperwork and running the human resources obstacle course with the usual stumbles, I arrived at my dream job as a VA psychiatrist.

So, it is with immense sadness and even shock that I read a recent ProPublica article reporting that from January to March 2025 almost 40% of the physicians who received employment offers from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) declined the positions.2 Medical media rapidly picked up the story, likely further discouraging potential applicants.3

There have always been health care professionals (HCPs) who had zero interest in working for the VA. Medical students and residents often have a love/hate relationship with the VA, with some trainees not having the patience for the behemoth pace of the bureaucracy or finding the old-style physical environment and more relaxed pace antiquated and inefficient.

The reasons doctors are saying no to VA employment at 4 times the previous rate are different and more disturbing. According to ProPublica, VA officials in Texas reported in a June internal presentation that about 90 people had turned down job offers due to the “uncertainty of reorganization.”2 They reported that low morale was causing existing employees to recommend against working at the VA. My own anecdotal experience is similar: contrary to prior years, few residents, if any, are interested in working at the VA because of concerns about the stability of employment and the direction of its organizational culture.

It is fair to question the objectivity of the ProPublica report. However, the latest VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) analysis of staffing had similar findings. “Despite the ability to make noncompetitive appointments for such occupations, VHA continues to experience severe occupational staffing shortages for these occupations that are fundamental to the delivery of health care.” The 4434 severe occupational shortage figures in fiscal year (FY) 2025 were 50% higher than in FY 2024.4 OIG reported that 57% of facilities noted severe occupational staffing shortages for psychology, making it the most frequently reported clinical shortage.

At this critical juncture, when new health care professional energy is not flowing into the VHA, there is an unprecedented drain of the lifeblood of any system—the departure of the bearers of institutional memory. Early and scheduled retirements, the deferred resignation program, and severance have decimated the ranks of senior HCPs, experienced leaders, and career clinicians. ProPublica noted the loss of 600 doctors and 1900 nurses at the VHA so far in 2025.2 Internal VA data from exit interviews suggest similar motivations. Many cited lack of trust and confidence in senior leaders and job stress/pressure.5

It should be noted the VA has an alternative and plausible explanation for the expected departure of 30,000 employees. They argue that the VHA was overstaffed and the increased workforce decreased the efficiency of service. Voluntary separation from employment, VA contends, has avoided the need for a far more disruptive reduction in force. VA leaders avow that downsizing has not adversely impacted its ability to deliver high-quality health care and benefits and they assert that a reduction in red tape will enable VA to provide easier access to care. VA Secretary Doug Collins has concluded that because of these difficult but necessary changes, “VA is headed in the right direction.”6

What is institutional memory, and why is it important? “The core of institutional memory is collective awareness and understanding of a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences, and know-how,” Bhugra and Ventriglio explain. “These are all held collectively at various levels in any given institution. Thus, collective memory or history can be utilized to build on what has gone before and how we take things forward.”7

The authors of this quote offer a modern twist on what Sir Isaac Newton described in more metaphorical language in the epigraph: to survive, and even more to thrive, an enterprise must have those who have accumulated technical knowledge and professional wisdom as well as those who assume responsibility for appropriating and adding to this storehouse of operational skill, expertise, unique cultural values, and ethical commitments. The VHA is losing its instructors and students of institutional memory which deals a serious blow to the stability and vitality of any learning health system.6 As Bhugra and Ventriglio put it, institutional memory identifies “what has worked in delivering the aims in the past and what has not, thereby ensuring the lessons learnt are remembered and passed on to the next generation.”7

Nearly every week, at all levels of the agency, I have encountered this exodus of builders and bearers of institutional memory. Those who have left did so for many of the same reasons cited by those who declined to come, leaving incalculable gaps at both ends of the career spectrum. Both the old and new are essential for organizational resilience: fresh ideas enable an institution to be agile in responding to challenges, while operational savvy ensures responses are ecologically aligned with the organizational mission.8

The dire shortage of HCPs—especially in mental health and primary care—has opened up unprecedented opportunities.9 Colleagues have noted that with only a little searching they found multiple lucrative positions. Once, HCPs picked the VA because they valued the commitment to public service and being part of a community of education and research more than fame or fortune. Having the best benefits packages in the industry only reinforced its value. 

Even so, surpassing a genius such as Sir Isaac Newton, writing to a scientific competitor, Robert Hooke, recognized that progress and discovery in science and medicine are nigh well impossible without the collective achievements housed in institutional memory.1 It was inspiring teachers and attending physicians—Newton’s giants—who attracted the best and brightest in medicine and nursing, other HCPs, and research, to the VA, where they could participate in a transactive organizational learning process from their seniors, and then grow that fund of knowledge to improve patient care, educate their learners, and innovate. What will happen when there are no longer shoulders of giants or anyone to stand on them?

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) 1

Early in residency, I decided I only wanted to work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It was a way to follow the example of service that my parents, an Army doctor and nurse, had set. I spent much of my residency, including all of my last year of training, at a VA medical center, hoping a vacancy would open in the psychiatry service. In those days, VA jobs were hard to come by; doctors spent their entire careers in the system, only retiring after decades of commitment to its unique mission. Finally, close to graduation, one of my favorite attending physicians left his post. After mountains of paperwork and running the human resources obstacle course with the usual stumbles, I arrived at my dream job as a VA psychiatrist.

So, it is with immense sadness and even shock that I read a recent ProPublica article reporting that from January to March 2025 almost 40% of the physicians who received employment offers from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) declined the positions.2 Medical media rapidly picked up the story, likely further discouraging potential applicants.3

There have always been health care professionals (HCPs) who had zero interest in working for the VA. Medical students and residents often have a love/hate relationship with the VA, with some trainees not having the patience for the behemoth pace of the bureaucracy or finding the old-style physical environment and more relaxed pace antiquated and inefficient.

The reasons doctors are saying no to VA employment at 4 times the previous rate are different and more disturbing. According to ProPublica, VA officials in Texas reported in a June internal presentation that about 90 people had turned down job offers due to the “uncertainty of reorganization.”2 They reported that low morale was causing existing employees to recommend against working at the VA. My own anecdotal experience is similar: contrary to prior years, few residents, if any, are interested in working at the VA because of concerns about the stability of employment and the direction of its organizational culture.

It is fair to question the objectivity of the ProPublica report. However, the latest VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) analysis of staffing had similar findings. “Despite the ability to make noncompetitive appointments for such occupations, VHA continues to experience severe occupational staffing shortages for these occupations that are fundamental to the delivery of health care.” The 4434 severe occupational shortage figures in fiscal year (FY) 2025 were 50% higher than in FY 2024.4 OIG reported that 57% of facilities noted severe occupational staffing shortages for psychology, making it the most frequently reported clinical shortage.

At this critical juncture, when new health care professional energy is not flowing into the VHA, there is an unprecedented drain of the lifeblood of any system—the departure of the bearers of institutional memory. Early and scheduled retirements, the deferred resignation program, and severance have decimated the ranks of senior HCPs, experienced leaders, and career clinicians. ProPublica noted the loss of 600 doctors and 1900 nurses at the VHA so far in 2025.2 Internal VA data from exit interviews suggest similar motivations. Many cited lack of trust and confidence in senior leaders and job stress/pressure.5

It should be noted the VA has an alternative and plausible explanation for the expected departure of 30,000 employees. They argue that the VHA was overstaffed and the increased workforce decreased the efficiency of service. Voluntary separation from employment, VA contends, has avoided the need for a far more disruptive reduction in force. VA leaders avow that downsizing has not adversely impacted its ability to deliver high-quality health care and benefits and they assert that a reduction in red tape will enable VA to provide easier access to care. VA Secretary Doug Collins has concluded that because of these difficult but necessary changes, “VA is headed in the right direction.”6

What is institutional memory, and why is it important? “The core of institutional memory is collective awareness and understanding of a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences, and know-how,” Bhugra and Ventriglio explain. “These are all held collectively at various levels in any given institution. Thus, collective memory or history can be utilized to build on what has gone before and how we take things forward.”7

The authors of this quote offer a modern twist on what Sir Isaac Newton described in more metaphorical language in the epigraph: to survive, and even more to thrive, an enterprise must have those who have accumulated technical knowledge and professional wisdom as well as those who assume responsibility for appropriating and adding to this storehouse of operational skill, expertise, unique cultural values, and ethical commitments. The VHA is losing its instructors and students of institutional memory which deals a serious blow to the stability and vitality of any learning health system.6 As Bhugra and Ventriglio put it, institutional memory identifies “what has worked in delivering the aims in the past and what has not, thereby ensuring the lessons learnt are remembered and passed on to the next generation.”7

Nearly every week, at all levels of the agency, I have encountered this exodus of builders and bearers of institutional memory. Those who have left did so for many of the same reasons cited by those who declined to come, leaving incalculable gaps at both ends of the career spectrum. Both the old and new are essential for organizational resilience: fresh ideas enable an institution to be agile in responding to challenges, while operational savvy ensures responses are ecologically aligned with the organizational mission.8

The dire shortage of HCPs—especially in mental health and primary care—has opened up unprecedented opportunities.9 Colleagues have noted that with only a little searching they found multiple lucrative positions. Once, HCPs picked the VA because they valued the commitment to public service and being part of a community of education and research more than fame or fortune. Having the best benefits packages in the industry only reinforced its value. 

Even so, surpassing a genius such as Sir Isaac Newton, writing to a scientific competitor, Robert Hooke, recognized that progress and discovery in science and medicine are nigh well impossible without the collective achievements housed in institutional memory.1 It was inspiring teachers and attending physicians—Newton’s giants—who attracted the best and brightest in medicine and nursing, other HCPs, and research, to the VA, where they could participate in a transactive organizational learning process from their seniors, and then grow that fund of knowledge to improve patient care, educate their learners, and innovate. What will happen when there are no longer shoulders of giants or anyone to stand on them?

References
  1. Chen C. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization. Springer; 2013:135.
  2. Armstrong D, Umansky E, Coleman V. Veterans’ care at risk under Trump as hundreds of doctors and nurses reject working at VA hospitals. ProPublica. August 8, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.propublica.org/article/veterans-affairs-hospital-shortages-trump
  3. Kuchno K. VA physician job offers rejections up fourfold in 2025: report. Becker’s Hospital Review. August 12, 2025. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/va-physician-job-offer-rejections-up-fourfold-in-2025-report/
  4. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General. OIG determination of Veterans Health Administration’s severe occupational staffing shortages fiscal year 2025. August 12, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.vaoig.gov/reports/national-healthcare-review/oig-determination-veterans-health-administrations-severe-1
  5. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA workforce dashboard. July 25, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.va.gov/EMPLOYEE/docs/workforce/VA-Workforce-Dashboard-Issue-27.pdf
  6. VA to reduce staff by nearly 30K by end of FY2025. News release. Veterans Affairs News. July 7, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-to-reduce-staff-by-nearly-30k-by-end-of-fy2025/
  7. Bhugra D, Ventriglio A. Institutions, institutional memory, healthcare and research. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2023;69(8):1843-1844. doi:10.1177/00207640231213905
  8. Jain A. Is organizational memory a useful capability? An analysis of its effects on productivity, absorptive capacity adaptation. In Argote L, Levine JM. The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning. Oxford; 2020.
  9. Broder J. Ready to pick a specialty? These may have the brightest futures. Medscape. April 21, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/ready-pick-specialty-these-may-have-brightest-futures-2025a10009if
References
  1. Chen C. Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization. Springer; 2013:135.
  2. Armstrong D, Umansky E, Coleman V. Veterans’ care at risk under Trump as hundreds of doctors and nurses reject working at VA hospitals. ProPublica. August 8, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.propublica.org/article/veterans-affairs-hospital-shortages-trump
  3. Kuchno K. VA physician job offers rejections up fourfold in 2025: report. Becker’s Hospital Review. August 12, 2025. Accessed August 26, 2025. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/workforce/va-physician-job-offer-rejections-up-fourfold-in-2025-report/
  4. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Inspector General. OIG determination of Veterans Health Administration’s severe occupational staffing shortages fiscal year 2025. August 12, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.vaoig.gov/reports/national-healthcare-review/oig-determination-veterans-health-administrations-severe-1
  5. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA workforce dashboard. July 25, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.va.gov/EMPLOYEE/docs/workforce/VA-Workforce-Dashboard-Issue-27.pdf
  6. VA to reduce staff by nearly 30K by end of FY2025. News release. Veterans Affairs News. July 7, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-to-reduce-staff-by-nearly-30k-by-end-of-fy2025/
  7. Bhugra D, Ventriglio A. Institutions, institutional memory, healthcare and research. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2023;69(8):1843-1844. doi:10.1177/00207640231213905
  8. Jain A. Is organizational memory a useful capability? An analysis of its effects on productivity, absorptive capacity adaptation. In Argote L, Levine JM. The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning. Oxford; 2020.
  9. Broder J. Ready to pick a specialty? These may have the brightest futures. Medscape. April 21, 2025. Accessed August 25, 2025. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/ready-pick-specialty-these-may-have-brightest-futures-2025a10009if
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)
Page Number
328-329
Page Number
328-329
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline

When The Giants and Those Who Stand on Their Shoulders Are Gone: The Loss of VA Institutional Memory

Display Headline

When The Giants and Those Who Stand on Their Shoulders Are Gone: The Loss of VA Institutional Memory

Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Hematology and Oncology Staffing Levels for Fiscal Years 19–24

Article Type
Changed

Background

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.

Methods

Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.

Analysis

For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).

Results

From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).

Conclusions

Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S34
Sections

Background

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.

Methods

Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.

Analysis

For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).

Results

From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).

Conclusions

Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.

Background

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.

Methods

Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.

Analysis

For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).

Results

From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).

Conclusions

Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)s
Page Number
S34
Page Number
S34
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Quality Improvement
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Access to Germline Genetic Testing through Clinical Pathways in Veterans With Prostate Cancer

Article Type
Changed

Background

Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.

Methods

Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.

Results

We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.

Conclusions

NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S7-S8
Sections

Background

Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.

Methods

Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.

Results

We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.

Conclusions

NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.

Background

Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.

Methods

Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.

Results

We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.

Conclusions

NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 42(9)s
Page Number
S7-S8
Page Number
S7-S8
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Quality Improvement
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date