Article

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

Serving those who serve has been one of the most meaningful parts of my career. A career in military medicine offers dermatologists not only a chance to practice within a unique and diverse patient population but also an opportunity to contribute to something larger than themselves. Whether working with active-duty service members and their families within the Military Health System (MHS) or caring for veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the experience can be both enriching and rewarding. This article will explore the various pathways available to dermatologists to serve military communities, whether they are at the start of their careers or are looking for a change of pace within their established practice.

Care Pathways for Military and Veterans

To care for uniformed service members, their families, and retired personnel, dermatologists typically serve within the MHS—a global, integrated network of military hospitals and clinics dedicated to delivering health care to this population.¹ TRICARE is the health insurance program that covers those eligible for care within the system, including active-duty and retired service members.² In this context, it is important to clarify what the term retired actually means, as it differs from the term veteran when it comes to accessing health care options, and these terms frequently are conflated. A retired service member is an individual who completed at least 20 years of active-duty service or who has been medically retired because of a condition or injury incurred while on active duty.³ In contrast, a veteran may not have completed 20 years of service but has separated honorably after serving at least 24 continuous months.⁴ Veterans typically receive care through the VA system.⁵

Serving on Active Duty

In general, there are 2 main pathways to serve as a dermatologist within the MHS. The first is to commission in the military and serve on active duty. Most often, this pathway begins with a premedical student applying to medical school. Those considering military service typically explore scholarship programs such as the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)(https://www.medicineandthemilitary.com/applying-and-what-to-expect/medical-school-programs/hpsp) or the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP), or they apply to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU)(https://www.usuhs.edu/about). The HPSP and HSCP programs financially support medical students training at civilian medical schools, though in different ways—the HPSP covers tuition and fees, while the HSCP provides a salary during training but does not cover tuition.⁶ In contrast, students of USU attend the nation’s only military medical school, serving in uniform for 4 years while earning the pay and benefits of a junior officer in their respective service branch. Any premedical student considering the HPSP, HSCP or USU routes for service must meet the commissioning standards of their chosen branch—Army, Navy, or Air Force—and enter service as an officer before beginning medical school.

While direct commission prior to medical school is the most common route to active-duty service, board-certified dermatologists also can join a military branch later through what is called Direct Accession or Direct Commission; for example, the Navy offers a Residency to Direct Accession program, which commissions residents in their final year of training to join the Navy upon graduation. In some cases, commissioning at this stage includes a bonus of up to $600,000 in exchange for a 4-year active-duty commitment.⁷ The Army and Air Force offer similar direct commission programs, though specific incentives vary.⁸ Interested residents or practitioners can contact a local recruiting office within their branch of interest to learn more. Direct accession is open at many points in a dermatologist’s career—after residency, after fellowship, or even as an established civilian practitioner—and the initial commissioning rank and bonus generally reflect one’s level of experience.

Serving as a Civilian

Outside of uniformed service, dermatologists can find opportunities to provide care for active-duty service members, veterans, and military families through employment as General Schedule (GS) employees. The GS is a role classification and pay system that covers most federal employees in professional, administrative, and technical positions (eg, physicians). The GS system classifies most of these employees based on the complexity, responsibility, and qualifications required for their role.⁹ Such positions often are at the highest level of the GS pay scale, reflecting the expertise and years of education required to become a dermatologist, though pay varies by location and experience. In contrast, physicians employed through the VA system are classified as Title 38 federal employees, governed by a different pay structure and regulatory framework under the US Code of Federal Regulations.¹⁰ These regulations govern the hiring, retention, and firing guidelines for VA physicians, which differ from those of GS physicians. A full explanation is outside of the scope of this article, however.

Final Thoughts

In summary, uniformed or federal service as a dermatologist offers a meaningful and impactful way to give back to those who have served our country. Opportunities exist throughout the United States for dermatologists interested in serving within the MHS or VA. The most transparent and up-to-date resource for identifying open positions in both large metropolitan areas and smaller communities is USAJOBS.gov. While financial compensation may not always match that of private practice, the intangible benefits are considerable—stable employment, comprehensive benefits, malpractice coverage, and secure retirement, among others. There is something deeply fulfilling about using one’s medical skills in service of a larger mission. The relationships built with service members, the sense of shared purpose, and the opportunity to contribute to the readiness and well-being of those who serve all make this career path profoundly rewarding. For dermatologists seeking a practice that combines professional growth with purpose and patriotism, military medicine offers a truly special calling.

Serving those who serve has been one of the most meaningful parts of my career. A career in military medicine offers dermatologists not only a chance to practice within a unique and diverse patient population but also an opportunity to contribute to something larger than themselves. Whether working with active-duty service members and their families within the Military Health System (MHS) or caring for veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the experience can be both enriching and rewarding. This article will explore the various pathways available to dermatologists to serve military communities, whether they are at the start of their careers or are looking for a change of pace within their established practice.

Care Pathways for Military and Veterans

To care for uniformed service members, their families, and retired personnel, dermatologists typically serve within the MHS—a global, integrated network of military hospitals and clinics dedicated to delivering health care to this population.¹ TRICARE is the health insurance program that covers those eligible for care within the system, including active-duty and retired service members.² In this context, it is important to clarify what the term retired actually means, as it differs from the term veteran when it comes to accessing health care options, and these terms frequently are conflated. A retired service member is an individual who completed at least 20 years of active-duty service or who has been medically retired because of a condition or injury incurred while on active duty.³ In contrast, a veteran may not have completed 20 years of service but has separated honorably after serving at least 24 continuous months.⁴ Veterans typically receive care through the VA system.⁵

Serving on Active Duty

In general, there are 2 main pathways to serve as a dermatologist within the MHS. The first is to commission in the military and serve on active duty. Most often, this pathway begins with a premedical student applying to medical school. Those considering military service typically explore scholarship programs such as the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)(https://www.medicineandthemilitary.com/applying-and-what-to-expect/medical-school-programs/hpsp) or the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP), or they apply to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU)(https://www.usuhs.edu/about). The HPSP and HSCP programs financially support medical students training at civilian medical schools, though in different ways—the HPSP covers tuition and fees, while the HSCP provides a salary during training but does not cover tuition.⁶ In contrast, students of USU attend the nation’s only military medical school, serving in uniform for 4 years while earning the pay and benefits of a junior officer in their respective service branch. Any premedical student considering the HPSP, HSCP or USU routes for service must meet the commissioning standards of their chosen branch—Army, Navy, or Air Force—and enter service as an officer before beginning medical school.

While direct commission prior to medical school is the most common route to active-duty service, board-certified dermatologists also can join a military branch later through what is called Direct Accession or Direct Commission; for example, the Navy offers a Residency to Direct Accession program, which commissions residents in their final year of training to join the Navy upon graduation. In some cases, commissioning at this stage includes a bonus of up to $600,000 in exchange for a 4-year active-duty commitment.⁷ The Army and Air Force offer similar direct commission programs, though specific incentives vary.⁸ Interested residents or practitioners can contact a local recruiting office within their branch of interest to learn more. Direct accession is open at many points in a dermatologist’s career—after residency, after fellowship, or even as an established civilian practitioner—and the initial commissioning rank and bonus generally reflect one’s level of experience.

Serving as a Civilian

Outside of uniformed service, dermatologists can find opportunities to provide care for active-duty service members, veterans, and military families through employment as General Schedule (GS) employees. The GS is a role classification and pay system that covers most federal employees in professional, administrative, and technical positions (eg, physicians). The GS system classifies most of these employees based on the complexity, responsibility, and qualifications required for their role.⁹ Such positions often are at the highest level of the GS pay scale, reflecting the expertise and years of education required to become a dermatologist, though pay varies by location and experience. In contrast, physicians employed through the VA system are classified as Title 38 federal employees, governed by a different pay structure and regulatory framework under the US Code of Federal Regulations.¹⁰ These regulations govern the hiring, retention, and firing guidelines for VA physicians, which differ from those of GS physicians. A full explanation is outside of the scope of this article, however.

Final Thoughts

In summary, uniformed or federal service as a dermatologist offers a meaningful and impactful way to give back to those who have served our country. Opportunities exist throughout the United States for dermatologists interested in serving within the MHS or VA. The most transparent and up-to-date resource for identifying open positions in both large metropolitan areas and smaller communities is USAJOBS.gov. While financial compensation may not always match that of private practice, the intangible benefits are considerable—stable employment, comprehensive benefits, malpractice coverage, and secure retirement, among others. There is something deeply fulfilling about using one’s medical skills in service of a larger mission. The relationships built with service members, the sense of shared purpose, and the opportunity to contribute to the readiness and well-being of those who serve all make this career path profoundly rewarding. For dermatologists seeking a practice that combines professional growth with purpose and patriotism, military medicine offers a truly special calling.

Serving those who serve has been one of the most meaningful parts of my career. A career in military medicine offers dermatologists not only a chance to practice within a unique and diverse patient population but also an opportunity to contribute to something larger than themselves. Whether working with active-duty service members and their families within the Military Health System (MHS) or caring for veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the experience can be both enriching and rewarding. This article will explore the various pathways available to dermatologists to serve military communities, whether they are at the start of their careers or are looking for a change of pace within their established practice.

Care Pathways for Military and Veterans

To care for uniformed service members, their families, and retired personnel, dermatologists typically serve within the MHS—a global, integrated network of military hospitals and clinics dedicated to delivering health care to this population.¹ TRICARE is the health insurance program that covers those eligible for care within the system, including active-duty and retired service members.² In this context, it is important to clarify what the term retired actually means, as it differs from the term veteran when it comes to accessing health care options, and these terms frequently are conflated. A retired service member is an individual who completed at least 20 years of active-duty service or who has been medically retired because of a condition or injury incurred while on active duty.³ In contrast, a veteran may not have completed 20 years of service but has separated honorably after serving at least 24 continuous months.⁴ Veterans typically receive care through the VA system.⁵

Serving on Active Duty

In general, there are 2 main pathways to serve as a dermatologist within the MHS. The first is to commission in the military and serve on active duty. Most often, this pathway begins with a premedical student applying to medical school. Those considering military service typically explore scholarship programs such as the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP)(https://www.medicineandthemilitary.com/applying-and-what-to-expect/medical-school-programs/hpsp) or the Health Services Collegiate Program (HSCP), or they apply to the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU)(https://www.usuhs.edu/about). The HPSP and HSCP programs financially support medical students training at civilian medical schools, though in different ways—the HPSP covers tuition and fees, while the HSCP provides a salary during training but does not cover tuition.⁶ In contrast, students of USU attend the nation’s only military medical school, serving in uniform for 4 years while earning the pay and benefits of a junior officer in their respective service branch. Any premedical student considering the HPSP, HSCP or USU routes for service must meet the commissioning standards of their chosen branch—Army, Navy, or Air Force—and enter service as an officer before beginning medical school.

While direct commission prior to medical school is the most common route to active-duty service, board-certified dermatologists also can join a military branch later through what is called Direct Accession or Direct Commission; for example, the Navy offers a Residency to Direct Accession program, which commissions residents in their final year of training to join the Navy upon graduation. In some cases, commissioning at this stage includes a bonus of up to $600,000 in exchange for a 4-year active-duty commitment.⁷ The Army and Air Force offer similar direct commission programs, though specific incentives vary.⁸ Interested residents or practitioners can contact a local recruiting office within their branch of interest to learn more. Direct accession is open at many points in a dermatologist’s career—after residency, after fellowship, or even as an established civilian practitioner—and the initial commissioning rank and bonus generally reflect one’s level of experience.

Serving as a Civilian

Outside of uniformed service, dermatologists can find opportunities to provide care for active-duty service members, veterans, and military families through employment as General Schedule (GS) employees. The GS is a role classification and pay system that covers most federal employees in professional, administrative, and technical positions (eg, physicians). The GS system classifies most of these employees based on the complexity, responsibility, and qualifications required for their role.⁹ Such positions often are at the highest level of the GS pay scale, reflecting the expertise and years of education required to become a dermatologist, though pay varies by location and experience. In contrast, physicians employed through the VA system are classified as Title 38 federal employees, governed by a different pay structure and regulatory framework under the US Code of Federal Regulations.¹⁰ These regulations govern the hiring, retention, and firing guidelines for VA physicians, which differ from those of GS physicians. A full explanation is outside of the scope of this article, however.

Final Thoughts

In summary, uniformed or federal service as a dermatologist offers a meaningful and impactful way to give back to those who have served our country. Opportunities exist throughout the United States for dermatologists interested in serving within the MHS or VA. The most transparent and up-to-date resource for identifying open positions in both large metropolitan areas and smaller communities is USAJOBS.gov. While financial compensation may not always match that of private practice, the intangible benefits are considerable—stable employment, comprehensive benefits, malpractice coverage, and secure retirement, among others. There is something deeply fulfilling about using one’s medical skills in service of a larger mission. The relationships built with service members, the sense of shared purpose, and the opportunity to contribute to the readiness and well-being of those who serve all make this career path profoundly rewarding. For dermatologists seeking a practice that combines professional growth with purpose and patriotism, military medicine offers a truly special calling.

I was accepted into my fellowship almost 1 year ago: major milestones on my curriculum vitae are now met, fellowship application materials are complete, and the stress of the match is long gone. At the start of my fellowship, I had 2 priorities: (1) to learn as much as I could about dermatologic surgery and (2) to be the best dad possible to my newborn son, Jay. However, most nights I still find myself up late editing a manuscript draft or chasing down references, long after the “need” to publish has passed. Recently, my wife asked me why—what’s left to prove?

I’ll be the first to admit it: early on, publishing felt almost purely transactional. Each project was little more than a line on an application or a way to stand out or meet a new mentor. I have reflected before on how easily that mindset can slip into a kind of research arms race, in which productivity overshadows purpose.¹ This time, I wanted to explore the other side of that equation: the “why” behind it all.

I have learned that writing forces me to slow down and actually think about what I am seeing every day. It turns routine work into something I must understand well enough to explain. Even a small write-up can make me notice details I would otherwise skim past in clinic or surgery. These days, most of my projects start small: a case that taught me something, an observation that made me pause and think. Those seemingly small questions are what eventually grow into bigger ones. The clinical trial I am designing now did not begin as a grand plan—it started because I could not stop thinking about how we manage pain and analgesia after Mohs surgery. That curiosity, shaped by the experience of writing those earlier “smaller” papers, evolved into a study that might actually help improve patient care one day. Still, most of what I write will not revolutionize the field. It is not cutting-edge science or paradigm-shifting data; it is mostly modest analyses with a few interesting conclusions or surgical pearls that might cut down on a patient’s procedural time or save a dermatologist somewhere a few sutures. But it still feels worth doing.

While rotating with Dr. Anna Bar at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, I noticed a poster hanging on the wall titled, “Top 10 Reasons Why Our Faculty Are Dedicated to Academics and Teaching,” based on the wisdom of Dr. Jane M. Grant-Kels.² My favorite line on the poster reads, “Residents make us better by asking questions.” I think this philosophy is the main reason why I still write. Even though I am not a resident anymore, I am still asking questions. But if I had to sum up my “why” into a neat list, here is what it might look like:

Because asking questions keeps your brain wired for curiosity. Even small projects train us to remain curious, and this curiosity can mean the difference between just doing your job and continuing to evolve within it. As Dr. Rodolfo Neirotti reminds us, “Questions are useful tools—they open communication, improve understanding, and drive scientific research. In medicine, doing things without knowing why is risky.”³

Because the small stuff builds the culture. Dermatology is a small world. Even short case series, pearls, or “how we do it” pieces can shape how we practice. They may not change paradigms, but they can refine them. Over time, those small practical contributions become part of the field’s collective muscle memory.

Because it preserves perspective. Residency, fellowship, and early practice can blur together. A tiny project can become a timestamp of what you were learning or caring about at that specific moment. Years later, you may remember the case through the paper.

Because the act of writing is the point. Writing forces clarity. You cannot hide behind saying, “That’s just how I do things,” when you have to explain it to others. The discipline of organizing your thoughts sharpens your clinical reasoning and keeps you honest about what you actually know.

Because sometimes it is simply about participating. Publishing, even small pieces, is a way of staying in touch with your field. It says, “I’m still here. I’m still paying attention.”

I think about how Dr. Frederic Mohs developed the technique that now bears his name while he was still a medical student.⁴ He could have said, “I already made it into medical school. That’s enough.” But he did not. I guess my point is not that we are all on the verge of inventing something revolutionary; it is that innovation happens only when curiosity keeps moving us forward. So no, I do not write to check boxes anymore. I write because it keeps me curious, and I have realized that curiosity is a habit I never want to outgrow.

Or maybe it’s because Jay keeps me up at night, and I have nothing better to do.

I was accepted into my fellowship almost 1 year ago: major milestones on my curriculum vitae are now met, fellowship application materials are complete, and the stress of the match is long gone. At the start of my fellowship, I had 2 priorities: (1) to learn as much as I could about dermatologic surgery and (2) to be the best dad possible to my newborn son, Jay. However, most nights I still find myself up late editing a manuscript draft or chasing down references, long after the “need” to publish has passed. Recently, my wife asked me why—what’s left to prove?

I’ll be the first to admit it: early on, publishing felt almost purely transactional. Each project was little more than a line on an application or a way to stand out or meet a new mentor. I have reflected before on how easily that mindset can slip into a kind of research arms race, in which productivity overshadows purpose.¹ This time, I wanted to explore the other side of that equation: the “why” behind it all.

I have learned that writing forces me to slow down and actually think about what I am seeing every day. It turns routine work into something I must understand well enough to explain. Even a small write-up can make me notice details I would otherwise skim past in clinic or surgery. These days, most of my projects start small: a case that taught me something, an observation that made me pause and think. Those seemingly small questions are what eventually grow into bigger ones. The clinical trial I am designing now did not begin as a grand plan—it started because I could not stop thinking about how we manage pain and analgesia after Mohs surgery. That curiosity, shaped by the experience of writing those earlier “smaller” papers, evolved into a study that might actually help improve patient care one day. Still, most of what I write will not revolutionize the field. It is not cutting-edge science or paradigm-shifting data; it is mostly modest analyses with a few interesting conclusions or surgical pearls that might cut down on a patient’s procedural time or save a dermatologist somewhere a few sutures. But it still feels worth doing.

While rotating with Dr. Anna Bar at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, I noticed a poster hanging on the wall titled, “Top 10 Reasons Why Our Faculty Are Dedicated to Academics and Teaching,” based on the wisdom of Dr. Jane M. Grant-Kels.² My favorite line on the poster reads, “Residents make us better by asking questions.” I think this philosophy is the main reason why I still write. Even though I am not a resident anymore, I am still asking questions. But if I had to sum up my “why” into a neat list, here is what it might look like:

Because asking questions keeps your brain wired for curiosity. Even small projects train us to remain curious, and this curiosity can mean the difference between just doing your job and continuing to evolve within it. As Dr. Rodolfo Neirotti reminds us, “Questions are useful tools—they open communication, improve understanding, and drive scientific research. In medicine, doing things without knowing why is risky.”³

Because the small stuff builds the culture. Dermatology is a small world. Even short case series, pearls, or “how we do it” pieces can shape how we practice. They may not change paradigms, but they can refine them. Over time, those small practical contributions become part of the field’s collective muscle memory.

Because it preserves perspective. Residency, fellowship, and early practice can blur together. A tiny project can become a timestamp of what you were learning or caring about at that specific moment. Years later, you may remember the case through the paper.

Because the act of writing is the point. Writing forces clarity. You cannot hide behind saying, “That’s just how I do things,” when you have to explain it to others. The discipline of organizing your thoughts sharpens your clinical reasoning and keeps you honest about what you actually know.

Because sometimes it is simply about participating. Publishing, even small pieces, is a way of staying in touch with your field. It says, “I’m still here. I’m still paying attention.”

I think about how Dr. Frederic Mohs developed the technique that now bears his name while he was still a medical student.⁴ He could have said, “I already made it into medical school. That’s enough.” But he did not. I guess my point is not that we are all on the verge of inventing something revolutionary; it is that innovation happens only when curiosity keeps moving us forward. So no, I do not write to check boxes anymore. I write because it keeps me curious, and I have realized that curiosity is a habit I never want to outgrow.

Or maybe it’s because Jay keeps me up at night, and I have nothing better to do.

I was accepted into my fellowship almost 1 year ago: major milestones on my curriculum vitae are now met, fellowship application materials are complete, and the stress of the match is long gone. At the start of my fellowship, I had 2 priorities: (1) to learn as much as I could about dermatologic surgery and (2) to be the best dad possible to my newborn son, Jay. However, most nights I still find myself up late editing a manuscript draft or chasing down references, long after the “need” to publish has passed. Recently, my wife asked me why—what’s left to prove?

I’ll be the first to admit it: early on, publishing felt almost purely transactional. Each project was little more than a line on an application or a way to stand out or meet a new mentor. I have reflected before on how easily that mindset can slip into a kind of research arms race, in which productivity overshadows purpose.¹ This time, I wanted to explore the other side of that equation: the “why” behind it all.

I have learned that writing forces me to slow down and actually think about what I am seeing every day. It turns routine work into something I must understand well enough to explain. Even a small write-up can make me notice details I would otherwise skim past in clinic or surgery. These days, most of my projects start small: a case that taught me something, an observation that made me pause and think. Those seemingly small questions are what eventually grow into bigger ones. The clinical trial I am designing now did not begin as a grand plan—it started because I could not stop thinking about how we manage pain and analgesia after Mohs surgery. That curiosity, shaped by the experience of writing those earlier “smaller” papers, evolved into a study that might actually help improve patient care one day. Still, most of what I write will not revolutionize the field. It is not cutting-edge science or paradigm-shifting data; it is mostly modest analyses with a few interesting conclusions or surgical pearls that might cut down on a patient’s procedural time or save a dermatologist somewhere a few sutures. But it still feels worth doing.

While rotating with Dr. Anna Bar at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, I noticed a poster hanging on the wall titled, “Top 10 Reasons Why Our Faculty Are Dedicated to Academics and Teaching,” based on the wisdom of Dr. Jane M. Grant-Kels.² My favorite line on the poster reads, “Residents make us better by asking questions.” I think this philosophy is the main reason why I still write. Even though I am not a resident anymore, I am still asking questions. But if I had to sum up my “why” into a neat list, here is what it might look like:

Because asking questions keeps your brain wired for curiosity. Even small projects train us to remain curious, and this curiosity can mean the difference between just doing your job and continuing to evolve within it. As Dr. Rodolfo Neirotti reminds us, “Questions are useful tools—they open communication, improve understanding, and drive scientific research. In medicine, doing things without knowing why is risky.”³

Because the small stuff builds the culture. Dermatology is a small world. Even short case series, pearls, or “how we do it” pieces can shape how we practice. They may not change paradigms, but they can refine them. Over time, those small practical contributions become part of the field’s collective muscle memory.

Because it preserves perspective. Residency, fellowship, and early practice can blur together. A tiny project can become a timestamp of what you were learning or caring about at that specific moment. Years later, you may remember the case through the paper.

Because the act of writing is the point. Writing forces clarity. You cannot hide behind saying, “That’s just how I do things,” when you have to explain it to others. The discipline of organizing your thoughts sharpens your clinical reasoning and keeps you honest about what you actually know.

Because sometimes it is simply about participating. Publishing, even small pieces, is a way of staying in touch with your field. It says, “I’m still here. I’m still paying attention.”

I think about how Dr. Frederic Mohs developed the technique that now bears his name while he was still a medical student.⁴ He could have said, “I already made it into medical school. That’s enough.” But he did not. I guess my point is not that we are all on the verge of inventing something revolutionary; it is that innovation happens only when curiosity keeps moving us forward. So no, I do not write to check boxes anymore. I write because it keeps me curious, and I have realized that curiosity is a habit I never want to outgrow.

Or maybe it’s because Jay keeps me up at night, and I have nothing better to do.

More than 50 million US adults report experiencing chronic pain, with nearly 7% experiencing high-impact chronic pain.^1-3 Chronic pain negatively affects daily function, results in lost productivity, is a leading cause of disability, and is more prevalent among veterans compared with the general population.^1,2,4-6 Estimates from 2021 suggest the prevalence of chronic pain among veterans exceeds 30%; > 11% experienced high-impact chronic pain.¹

Primary care practitioners (PCPs) have a prominent role in chronic pain management. Pharmacologic options for treating pain, once a mainstay of therapy, present several challenges for patients and PCPs, including drug-drug interactions and adverse effects.⁷ The US opioid epidemic and shift to a biopsychosocial model of chronic pain care have increased emphasis on nonpharmacologic treatment options.^8,9 These include integrative modalities, which incorporate conventional approaches with an array of complementary health approaches.^10-12

Integrative therapy is a prominent feature in whole person care, which may be best exemplified by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Whole Health System of care.^13-14 Whole health empowers an individual to take charge of their health and well-being so they can “live their life to the fullest.”¹⁴ As implemented in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), whole health includes the use of evidence-based complementary and integrative therapies, encompassing a multimodal pain management approach. Expanding the use of these therapies requires a better understanding of PCP and patient knowledge, interest, and use of integrative modalities for chronic pain.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional survey design, PCPs and patients with chronic back pain affiliated with the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System were invited to participate in separate but similar surveys to assess knowledge, interest, and use of nonpharmacologic integrative modalities for the treatment of chronic pain. In May, June, and July 2023, 78 PCPs received 3 email invitations to participate in an electronic (Qualtrics) survey. Patients were identified based on having an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code for low back pain (M54.5, M54.40, 41, 42, M54.89) on ≥ 2 outpatient encounters within 18 months (April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023). A random sample of 200 patients was selected and sent a packet in September 2023 that included an introductory letter and a paper survey, along with a website link and QR code to complete the survey electronically if preferred. The introductory letter stated that participation is voluntary, had no impact on the health care currently received at the VA, and names are not attached to the survey, allowing them to remain anonymous. The packet also included a $10 gift card to encourage survey completion.

Both survey instruments are available upon request, were developed by the study team, and included a mix of yes/no questions, “select all that apply” items, Likert scale response items, and open-ended questions. For one question about which modalities they would like available, the respondent was instructed to select up to 5 modalities. The instruments were extensively pretested by members of the study team, which included 2 PCPs and a nonveteran with chronic back pain.

The list of integrative modalities included in the survey was derived from the tier 1 and tier 2 complementary and integrative health modalities identified in a VHA Directive on complementary and integrative health.^15,16 Tier 1 approaches are considered to have sufficient evidence and must be made available to veterans either within a VA medical facility or in the community. Tier 2 approaches are generally considered safe and may be made available but do not have sufficient evidence to mandate their provision. For participant ease, the integrative modalities were divided into 5 subgroups: manual therapies, energy/biofield therapies, mental health therapies, nutrition counseling, and movement therapies. The clinician survey assessed clinicians’ training and interest, clinical and personal use, and perceived barriers to providing integrative modalities for chronic pain. Professional and personal demographic data were also collected. Similarly, the patient survey assessed use of integrative therapies, perceptions of and interest in integrative modalities, and potential barriers to use. Demographic and health-related information was also collected.

Data analysis included descriptive statistics (eg, frequency counts, means, medians) and visual graphic displays. Separate analyses were conducted for clinicians and patients in addition to a comparative analysis of the use and potential interest in integrative modalities. Analysis were conducted using R software. This study was deemed nonresearch quality improvement by the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System facility research oversight board and institutional review board approval was not solicited.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight clinicians completed the survey, yielding a participation rate of 36%. Participating clinicians had a median (IQR) age of 48 years (9.5), 15 self-identified as White (54%), 8 as Asian (29%), 15 as female (54%), 26 as non-Hispanic (93%), and 25 were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy (89%). Nineteen (68%) worked at the main hospital outpatient clinic, and 9 practiced at community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Thirteen respondents (46%) reported having no formal education or training in integrative approaches. Among those with prior training, 8 clinicians had nutrition counseling (29%) and 7 had psychologic therapy training (25%). Thirteen respondents (46%) also reported using integrative modalities for personal health needs: 8 used psychological therapies, 8 used movement therapies, 10 used integrative modalities for stress management or relaxation, and 8 used them for physical symptoms (Table 1).

Overall, 85 of 200 patients (43%) responded to the study survey. Two patients indicated they did not have chronic back pain and were excluded. Patients had a median (IQR) age of 66 (20) years, with 66 self-identifying as White (80%), 69 as male (83%), and 66 as non-Hispanic (80%). Forty-four patients (53%) received care at CBOCs. Forty-seven patients reported excellent, very good, or good overall health (57%), while 53 reported excellent, very good, or good mental health (64%). Fifty-nine patients reported back pain duration > 5 years (71%), and 67 (81%) indicated experiencing back pain flare-ups at least once per week over the previous 12 months. Sixty patients (72%) indicated they were somewhat or very interested in using integrative therapies as a back pain treatment; however, 40 patients (48%) indicated they had not received information about these therapies. Among those who indicated they had received information, the most frequently reported source was their PCP (41%). Most patients (72%) also reported feeling somewhat to very comfortable discussing integrative medicine therapies with their PCP.

Integrative Therapy Recommendations and Use

PCPs reported recommending multiple integrative modalities: 23 (82%) recommended cognitive-behavioral therapy, 22 (79%) recommended acupuncture, 21 (75%) recommended chiropractic, 19 (68%) recommended battlefield acupuncture, recommended massage 18 (64%), 17 (61%) recommended meditation or mindfulness, and 15 (54%) recommended movement therapies such as yoga or tai chi/qigong (Figure 1). The only therapies used by at least half of the patients were chiropractic used by 59 patients (71%) and acupuncture by 42 patients (51%). Thirty-eight patients (46%) reported massage use and 21 patients (25%) used cognitive-behavioral therapy (Table 2).

Integrative Therapies Desired

A majority of PCPs identified acupuncture (n = 20, 71%), chiropractic (n = 19, 68%), and massage (n = 19, 68%) as therapies they would most like to have available for patients with chronic pain (Figure 2). Similarly, patients identified massage (n = 42, 51%), chiropractic (n = 34, 41%), and acupuncture (n = 27, 33%) as most desired. Seventeen patients (21%) expressed interest in movement therapies.

Barriers to Integrative Therapies Use

When asked about barriers to use, 26 PCPs (93%) identified access to services as a somewhat or extremely likely barrier, and 22 identified time constraints (79%) (Table 3). However, 17 PCPs (61%) noted lack of familiarity, and 18 (64%) noted a lack of scientific evidence as barriers to recommending integrative modalities. Among patients, 33 (40%) indicated not knowing what services were available at their facility as a barrier, 32 (39%) were not familiar with specific therapies, and 21 (25%) indicated a lack of clarity about the benefits of a specific therapy. Only 14 patients (17%) indicated that there were no obstacles to use.

DISCUSSION

Use of integrative therapies, including complementary treatments, is an increasingly important part of chronic pain management. This survey study suggests VA PCPs are willing to recommend integrative therapies and patients with chronic back pain both desire and use several therapies. Moreover, both groups expressed interest in greater availability of similar therapies. The results also highlight key barriers, such as knowledge gaps, that should be addressed to increase the uptake of integrative modalities for managing chronic pain.

An increasing number of US adults are using complementary health approaches, an important component of integrative therapy.¹² This trend includes an increase in use for pain management, from 42.3% in 2002 to 49.2% in 2022; chiropractic care, acupuncture, and massage were most frequently used.¹² Similarly, chiropractic, acupuncture and massage were most often used by this sample of veterans with chronic back pain and were identified by the highest percentages of PCPs and patients as the therapies they would most like available.

There were areas where the opinions of patients and clinicians differed. As has been seen previously reported, clinicians largely recommended cognitive-behavioral therapy while patients showed less interest.¹⁷ Additionally, while patients expressed interest in the availability of movement therapies, such as yoga, PCPs expressed more interest in other strategies, such as trigger point injections. These differences may reflect true preference or a tendency for clinicians and patients to select therapies with which they are more familiar. Additional research is needed to better understand the acceptability and potential use of integrative health treatments across a broad array of therapeutic options.

Despite VHA policy requiring facilities to provide certain complementary and integrative health modalities, almost all PCPs identified access to services as a major obstacle.¹⁵ Based on evidence and a rigorous vetting process, services currently required on-site, via telehealth, or through community partners include acupuncture and battlefield acupuncture (battlefield auricular acupuncture), biofeedback, clinical hypnosis, guided imagery, medical massage therapy, medication, tai chi/qigong, and yoga. Optional approaches, which may be made available to veterans, include chiropractic and healing touch. Outside the VHA, some states have introduced or enacted legislation mandating insurance coverage of nonpharmacological pain treatments.¹⁸ However, these requirements and mandates do not help address challenges such as the availability of trained/qualified practitioners.^19,20 Ensuring access to complementary and integrative health treatments requires a more concerted effort to ensure that supply meets demand. It is also important to acknowledge the budgetary and physical space constraints that further limit access to services. Although expansion and integration of integrative medicine services remain a priority within the VA Whole Health program, implementation is contingent on available financial and infrastructure resources.

Time was also identified by PCPs as a barrier to recommending integrative therapies to patients. Developing and implementing time-efficient communication strategies for patient education such as concise talking points and informational handouts could help address this barrier. Furthermore, leveraging existing programs and engaging the entire health care team in patient education and referral could help increase integrative and complementary therapy uptake and use.

Although access and time were identified as major barriers, these findings also suggest that PCP and patient knowledge are another target area for enhancing the use of complementary and integrative therapies. Like prior research, most clinicians identified a lack of familiarity with certain services and a lack of scientific evidence as extremely or somewhat likely to affect their ability to offer integrative services to patients with chronic pain.²¹ Likewise, about 40% of patients identified being unfamiliar with a specific therapy as one of the major obstacles to receiving integrative therapies, with a similar number identifying PCPs as a source of information. The lack of familiarity may be due in part to the evolving nomenclature, with terms such as alternative, complementary, and integrative used to describe approaches outside what is often considered conventional medicine.¹⁰ On the other hand, there has also been considerable expansion in the number of therapies within this domain, along with an expanding evidence base. This suggests a need for targeted educational strategies for clinicians and patients, which can be rapidly deployed and continuously adapted as new therapies and evidence emerge.

Limitations

There are some inherent limitations with a survey-based approach, including sampling, non-response, and social desirability biases. In addition, this study only included PCPs and patients affiliated with a single VA medical center. Steps to mitigate these limitations included maintaining survey anonymity and reporting information about respondent characteristics to enhance transparency about the representativeness of the study findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanding the use of nonpharmacological pain treatments, including integrative modalities, is essential for safe and effective chronic pain management and reducing opioid use. Our findings show that VA PCPs and patients with chronic back pain are interested in and have some experience with certain integrative therapies. However, even within the context of a health care system that supports the use of integrative therapies for chronic pain as part of whole person care, increasing uptake will require addressing access and time-related constraints as well as ongoing clinician and patient education.

More than 50 million US adults report experiencing chronic pain, with nearly 7% experiencing high-impact chronic pain.^1-3 Chronic pain negatively affects daily function, results in lost productivity, is a leading cause of disability, and is more prevalent among veterans compared with the general population.^1,2,4-6 Estimates from 2021 suggest the prevalence of chronic pain among veterans exceeds 30%; > 11% experienced high-impact chronic pain.¹

Primary care practitioners (PCPs) have a prominent role in chronic pain management. Pharmacologic options for treating pain, once a mainstay of therapy, present several challenges for patients and PCPs, including drug-drug interactions and adverse effects.⁷ The US opioid epidemic and shift to a biopsychosocial model of chronic pain care have increased emphasis on nonpharmacologic treatment options.^8,9 These include integrative modalities, which incorporate conventional approaches with an array of complementary health approaches.^10-12

Integrative therapy is a prominent feature in whole person care, which may be best exemplified by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Whole Health System of care.^13-14 Whole health empowers an individual to take charge of their health and well-being so they can “live their life to the fullest.”¹⁴ As implemented in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), whole health includes the use of evidence-based complementary and integrative therapies, encompassing a multimodal pain management approach. Expanding the use of these therapies requires a better understanding of PCP and patient knowledge, interest, and use of integrative modalities for chronic pain.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional survey design, PCPs and patients with chronic back pain affiliated with the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System were invited to participate in separate but similar surveys to assess knowledge, interest, and use of nonpharmacologic integrative modalities for the treatment of chronic pain. In May, June, and July 2023, 78 PCPs received 3 email invitations to participate in an electronic (Qualtrics) survey. Patients were identified based on having an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code for low back pain (M54.5, M54.40, 41, 42, M54.89) on ≥ 2 outpatient encounters within 18 months (April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023). A random sample of 200 patients was selected and sent a packet in September 2023 that included an introductory letter and a paper survey, along with a website link and QR code to complete the survey electronically if preferred. The introductory letter stated that participation is voluntary, had no impact on the health care currently received at the VA, and names are not attached to the survey, allowing them to remain anonymous. The packet also included a $10 gift card to encourage survey completion.

Both survey instruments are available upon request, were developed by the study team, and included a mix of yes/no questions, “select all that apply” items, Likert scale response items, and open-ended questions. For one question about which modalities they would like available, the respondent was instructed to select up to 5 modalities. The instruments were extensively pretested by members of the study team, which included 2 PCPs and a nonveteran with chronic back pain.

The list of integrative modalities included in the survey was derived from the tier 1 and tier 2 complementary and integrative health modalities identified in a VHA Directive on complementary and integrative health.^15,16 Tier 1 approaches are considered to have sufficient evidence and must be made available to veterans either within a VA medical facility or in the community. Tier 2 approaches are generally considered safe and may be made available but do not have sufficient evidence to mandate their provision. For participant ease, the integrative modalities were divided into 5 subgroups: manual therapies, energy/biofield therapies, mental health therapies, nutrition counseling, and movement therapies. The clinician survey assessed clinicians’ training and interest, clinical and personal use, and perceived barriers to providing integrative modalities for chronic pain. Professional and personal demographic data were also collected. Similarly, the patient survey assessed use of integrative therapies, perceptions of and interest in integrative modalities, and potential barriers to use. Demographic and health-related information was also collected.

Data analysis included descriptive statistics (eg, frequency counts, means, medians) and visual graphic displays. Separate analyses were conducted for clinicians and patients in addition to a comparative analysis of the use and potential interest in integrative modalities. Analysis were conducted using R software. This study was deemed nonresearch quality improvement by the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System facility research oversight board and institutional review board approval was not solicited.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight clinicians completed the survey, yielding a participation rate of 36%. Participating clinicians had a median (IQR) age of 48 years (9.5), 15 self-identified as White (54%), 8 as Asian (29%), 15 as female (54%), 26 as non-Hispanic (93%), and 25 were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy (89%). Nineteen (68%) worked at the main hospital outpatient clinic, and 9 practiced at community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Thirteen respondents (46%) reported having no formal education or training in integrative approaches. Among those with prior training, 8 clinicians had nutrition counseling (29%) and 7 had psychologic therapy training (25%). Thirteen respondents (46%) also reported using integrative modalities for personal health needs: 8 used psychological therapies, 8 used movement therapies, 10 used integrative modalities for stress management or relaxation, and 8 used them for physical symptoms (Table 1).

Overall, 85 of 200 patients (43%) responded to the study survey. Two patients indicated they did not have chronic back pain and were excluded. Patients had a median (IQR) age of 66 (20) years, with 66 self-identifying as White (80%), 69 as male (83%), and 66 as non-Hispanic (80%). Forty-four patients (53%) received care at CBOCs. Forty-seven patients reported excellent, very good, or good overall health (57%), while 53 reported excellent, very good, or good mental health (64%). Fifty-nine patients reported back pain duration > 5 years (71%), and 67 (81%) indicated experiencing back pain flare-ups at least once per week over the previous 12 months. Sixty patients (72%) indicated they were somewhat or very interested in using integrative therapies as a back pain treatment; however, 40 patients (48%) indicated they had not received information about these therapies. Among those who indicated they had received information, the most frequently reported source was their PCP (41%). Most patients (72%) also reported feeling somewhat to very comfortable discussing integrative medicine therapies with their PCP.

Integrative Therapy Recommendations and Use

PCPs reported recommending multiple integrative modalities: 23 (82%) recommended cognitive-behavioral therapy, 22 (79%) recommended acupuncture, 21 (75%) recommended chiropractic, 19 (68%) recommended battlefield acupuncture, recommended massage 18 (64%), 17 (61%) recommended meditation or mindfulness, and 15 (54%) recommended movement therapies such as yoga or tai chi/qigong (Figure 1). The only therapies used by at least half of the patients were chiropractic used by 59 patients (71%) and acupuncture by 42 patients (51%). Thirty-eight patients (46%) reported massage use and 21 patients (25%) used cognitive-behavioral therapy (Table 2).

Integrative Therapies Desired

A majority of PCPs identified acupuncture (n = 20, 71%), chiropractic (n = 19, 68%), and massage (n = 19, 68%) as therapies they would most like to have available for patients with chronic pain (Figure 2). Similarly, patients identified massage (n = 42, 51%), chiropractic (n = 34, 41%), and acupuncture (n = 27, 33%) as most desired. Seventeen patients (21%) expressed interest in movement therapies.

Barriers to Integrative Therapies Use

When asked about barriers to use, 26 PCPs (93%) identified access to services as a somewhat or extremely likely barrier, and 22 identified time constraints (79%) (Table 3). However, 17 PCPs (61%) noted lack of familiarity, and 18 (64%) noted a lack of scientific evidence as barriers to recommending integrative modalities. Among patients, 33 (40%) indicated not knowing what services were available at their facility as a barrier, 32 (39%) were not familiar with specific therapies, and 21 (25%) indicated a lack of clarity about the benefits of a specific therapy. Only 14 patients (17%) indicated that there were no obstacles to use.

DISCUSSION

Use of integrative therapies, including complementary treatments, is an increasingly important part of chronic pain management. This survey study suggests VA PCPs are willing to recommend integrative therapies and patients with chronic back pain both desire and use several therapies. Moreover, both groups expressed interest in greater availability of similar therapies. The results also highlight key barriers, such as knowledge gaps, that should be addressed to increase the uptake of integrative modalities for managing chronic pain.

An increasing number of US adults are using complementary health approaches, an important component of integrative therapy.¹² This trend includes an increase in use for pain management, from 42.3% in 2002 to 49.2% in 2022; chiropractic care, acupuncture, and massage were most frequently used.¹² Similarly, chiropractic, acupuncture and massage were most often used by this sample of veterans with chronic back pain and were identified by the highest percentages of PCPs and patients as the therapies they would most like available.

There were areas where the opinions of patients and clinicians differed. As has been seen previously reported, clinicians largely recommended cognitive-behavioral therapy while patients showed less interest.¹⁷ Additionally, while patients expressed interest in the availability of movement therapies, such as yoga, PCPs expressed more interest in other strategies, such as trigger point injections. These differences may reflect true preference or a tendency for clinicians and patients to select therapies with which they are more familiar. Additional research is needed to better understand the acceptability and potential use of integrative health treatments across a broad array of therapeutic options.

Despite VHA policy requiring facilities to provide certain complementary and integrative health modalities, almost all PCPs identified access to services as a major obstacle.¹⁵ Based on evidence and a rigorous vetting process, services currently required on-site, via telehealth, or through community partners include acupuncture and battlefield acupuncture (battlefield auricular acupuncture), biofeedback, clinical hypnosis, guided imagery, medical massage therapy, medication, tai chi/qigong, and yoga. Optional approaches, which may be made available to veterans, include chiropractic and healing touch. Outside the VHA, some states have introduced or enacted legislation mandating insurance coverage of nonpharmacological pain treatments.¹⁸ However, these requirements and mandates do not help address challenges such as the availability of trained/qualified practitioners.^19,20 Ensuring access to complementary and integrative health treatments requires a more concerted effort to ensure that supply meets demand. It is also important to acknowledge the budgetary and physical space constraints that further limit access to services. Although expansion and integration of integrative medicine services remain a priority within the VA Whole Health program, implementation is contingent on available financial and infrastructure resources.

Time was also identified by PCPs as a barrier to recommending integrative therapies to patients. Developing and implementing time-efficient communication strategies for patient education such as concise talking points and informational handouts could help address this barrier. Furthermore, leveraging existing programs and engaging the entire health care team in patient education and referral could help increase integrative and complementary therapy uptake and use.

Although access and time were identified as major barriers, these findings also suggest that PCP and patient knowledge are another target area for enhancing the use of complementary and integrative therapies. Like prior research, most clinicians identified a lack of familiarity with certain services and a lack of scientific evidence as extremely or somewhat likely to affect their ability to offer integrative services to patients with chronic pain.²¹ Likewise, about 40% of patients identified being unfamiliar with a specific therapy as one of the major obstacles to receiving integrative therapies, with a similar number identifying PCPs as a source of information. The lack of familiarity may be due in part to the evolving nomenclature, with terms such as alternative, complementary, and integrative used to describe approaches outside what is often considered conventional medicine.¹⁰ On the other hand, there has also been considerable expansion in the number of therapies within this domain, along with an expanding evidence base. This suggests a need for targeted educational strategies for clinicians and patients, which can be rapidly deployed and continuously adapted as new therapies and evidence emerge.

Limitations

There are some inherent limitations with a survey-based approach, including sampling, non-response, and social desirability biases. In addition, this study only included PCPs and patients affiliated with a single VA medical center. Steps to mitigate these limitations included maintaining survey anonymity and reporting information about respondent characteristics to enhance transparency about the representativeness of the study findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanding the use of nonpharmacological pain treatments, including integrative modalities, is essential for safe and effective chronic pain management and reducing opioid use. Our findings show that VA PCPs and patients with chronic back pain are interested in and have some experience with certain integrative therapies. However, even within the context of a health care system that supports the use of integrative therapies for chronic pain as part of whole person care, increasing uptake will require addressing access and time-related constraints as well as ongoing clinician and patient education.

More than 50 million US adults report experiencing chronic pain, with nearly 7% experiencing high-impact chronic pain.^1-3 Chronic pain negatively affects daily function, results in lost productivity, is a leading cause of disability, and is more prevalent among veterans compared with the general population.^1,2,4-6 Estimates from 2021 suggest the prevalence of chronic pain among veterans exceeds 30%; > 11% experienced high-impact chronic pain.¹

Primary care practitioners (PCPs) have a prominent role in chronic pain management. Pharmacologic options for treating pain, once a mainstay of therapy, present several challenges for patients and PCPs, including drug-drug interactions and adverse effects.⁷ The US opioid epidemic and shift to a biopsychosocial model of chronic pain care have increased emphasis on nonpharmacologic treatment options.^8,9 These include integrative modalities, which incorporate conventional approaches with an array of complementary health approaches.^10-12

Integrative therapy is a prominent feature in whole person care, which may be best exemplified by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Whole Health System of care.^13-14 Whole health empowers an individual to take charge of their health and well-being so they can “live their life to the fullest.”¹⁴ As implemented in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), whole health includes the use of evidence-based complementary and integrative therapies, encompassing a multimodal pain management approach. Expanding the use of these therapies requires a better understanding of PCP and patient knowledge, interest, and use of integrative modalities for chronic pain.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional survey design, PCPs and patients with chronic back pain affiliated with the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System were invited to participate in separate but similar surveys to assess knowledge, interest, and use of nonpharmacologic integrative modalities for the treatment of chronic pain. In May, June, and July 2023, 78 PCPs received 3 email invitations to participate in an electronic (Qualtrics) survey. Patients were identified based on having an International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code for low back pain (M54.5, M54.40, 41, 42, M54.89) on ≥ 2 outpatient encounters within 18 months (April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2023). A random sample of 200 patients was selected and sent a packet in September 2023 that included an introductory letter and a paper survey, along with a website link and QR code to complete the survey electronically if preferred. The introductory letter stated that participation is voluntary, had no impact on the health care currently received at the VA, and names are not attached to the survey, allowing them to remain anonymous. The packet also included a $10 gift card to encourage survey completion.

Both survey instruments are available upon request, were developed by the study team, and included a mix of yes/no questions, “select all that apply” items, Likert scale response items, and open-ended questions. For one question about which modalities they would like available, the respondent was instructed to select up to 5 modalities. The instruments were extensively pretested by members of the study team, which included 2 PCPs and a nonveteran with chronic back pain.

The list of integrative modalities included in the survey was derived from the tier 1 and tier 2 complementary and integrative health modalities identified in a VHA Directive on complementary and integrative health.^15,16 Tier 1 approaches are considered to have sufficient evidence and must be made available to veterans either within a VA medical facility or in the community. Tier 2 approaches are generally considered safe and may be made available but do not have sufficient evidence to mandate their provision. For participant ease, the integrative modalities were divided into 5 subgroups: manual therapies, energy/biofield therapies, mental health therapies, nutrition counseling, and movement therapies. The clinician survey assessed clinicians’ training and interest, clinical and personal use, and perceived barriers to providing integrative modalities for chronic pain. Professional and personal demographic data were also collected. Similarly, the patient survey assessed use of integrative therapies, perceptions of and interest in integrative modalities, and potential barriers to use. Demographic and health-related information was also collected.

Data analysis included descriptive statistics (eg, frequency counts, means, medians) and visual graphic displays. Separate analyses were conducted for clinicians and patients in addition to a comparative analysis of the use and potential interest in integrative modalities. Analysis were conducted using R software. This study was deemed nonresearch quality improvement by the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System facility research oversight board and institutional review board approval was not solicited.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight clinicians completed the survey, yielding a participation rate of 36%. Participating clinicians had a median (IQR) age of 48 years (9.5), 15 self-identified as White (54%), 8 as Asian (29%), 15 as female (54%), 26 as non-Hispanic (93%), and 25 were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy (89%). Nineteen (68%) worked at the main hospital outpatient clinic, and 9 practiced at community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Thirteen respondents (46%) reported having no formal education or training in integrative approaches. Among those with prior training, 8 clinicians had nutrition counseling (29%) and 7 had psychologic therapy training (25%). Thirteen respondents (46%) also reported using integrative modalities for personal health needs: 8 used psychological therapies, 8 used movement therapies, 10 used integrative modalities for stress management or relaxation, and 8 used them for physical symptoms (Table 1).

Overall, 85 of 200 patients (43%) responded to the study survey. Two patients indicated they did not have chronic back pain and were excluded. Patients had a median (IQR) age of 66 (20) years, with 66 self-identifying as White (80%), 69 as male (83%), and 66 as non-Hispanic (80%). Forty-four patients (53%) received care at CBOCs. Forty-seven patients reported excellent, very good, or good overall health (57%), while 53 reported excellent, very good, or good mental health (64%). Fifty-nine patients reported back pain duration > 5 years (71%), and 67 (81%) indicated experiencing back pain flare-ups at least once per week over the previous 12 months. Sixty patients (72%) indicated they were somewhat or very interested in using integrative therapies as a back pain treatment; however, 40 patients (48%) indicated they had not received information about these therapies. Among those who indicated they had received information, the most frequently reported source was their PCP (41%). Most patients (72%) also reported feeling somewhat to very comfortable discussing integrative medicine therapies with their PCP.

Integrative Therapy Recommendations and Use

PCPs reported recommending multiple integrative modalities: 23 (82%) recommended cognitive-behavioral therapy, 22 (79%) recommended acupuncture, 21 (75%) recommended chiropractic, 19 (68%) recommended battlefield acupuncture, recommended massage 18 (64%), 17 (61%) recommended meditation or mindfulness, and 15 (54%) recommended movement therapies such as yoga or tai chi/qigong (Figure 1). The only therapies used by at least half of the patients were chiropractic used by 59 patients (71%) and acupuncture by 42 patients (51%). Thirty-eight patients (46%) reported massage use and 21 patients (25%) used cognitive-behavioral therapy (Table 2).

Integrative Therapies Desired

A majority of PCPs identified acupuncture (n = 20, 71%), chiropractic (n = 19, 68%), and massage (n = 19, 68%) as therapies they would most like to have available for patients with chronic pain (Figure 2). Similarly, patients identified massage (n = 42, 51%), chiropractic (n = 34, 41%), and acupuncture (n = 27, 33%) as most desired. Seventeen patients (21%) expressed interest in movement therapies.

Barriers to Integrative Therapies Use

When asked about barriers to use, 26 PCPs (93%) identified access to services as a somewhat or extremely likely barrier, and 22 identified time constraints (79%) (Table 3). However, 17 PCPs (61%) noted lack of familiarity, and 18 (64%) noted a lack of scientific evidence as barriers to recommending integrative modalities. Among patients, 33 (40%) indicated not knowing what services were available at their facility as a barrier, 32 (39%) were not familiar with specific therapies, and 21 (25%) indicated a lack of clarity about the benefits of a specific therapy. Only 14 patients (17%) indicated that there were no obstacles to use.

DISCUSSION

Use of integrative therapies, including complementary treatments, is an increasingly important part of chronic pain management. This survey study suggests VA PCPs are willing to recommend integrative therapies and patients with chronic back pain both desire and use several therapies. Moreover, both groups expressed interest in greater availability of similar therapies. The results also highlight key barriers, such as knowledge gaps, that should be addressed to increase the uptake of integrative modalities for managing chronic pain.

An increasing number of US adults are using complementary health approaches, an important component of integrative therapy.¹² This trend includes an increase in use for pain management, from 42.3% in 2002 to 49.2% in 2022; chiropractic care, acupuncture, and massage were most frequently used.¹² Similarly, chiropractic, acupuncture and massage were most often used by this sample of veterans with chronic back pain and were identified by the highest percentages of PCPs and patients as the therapies they would most like available.

There were areas where the opinions of patients and clinicians differed. As has been seen previously reported, clinicians largely recommended cognitive-behavioral therapy while patients showed less interest.¹⁷ Additionally, while patients expressed interest in the availability of movement therapies, such as yoga, PCPs expressed more interest in other strategies, such as trigger point injections. These differences may reflect true preference or a tendency for clinicians and patients to select therapies with which they are more familiar. Additional research is needed to better understand the acceptability and potential use of integrative health treatments across a broad array of therapeutic options.

Despite VHA policy requiring facilities to provide certain complementary and integrative health modalities, almost all PCPs identified access to services as a major obstacle.¹⁵ Based on evidence and a rigorous vetting process, services currently required on-site, via telehealth, or through community partners include acupuncture and battlefield acupuncture (battlefield auricular acupuncture), biofeedback, clinical hypnosis, guided imagery, medical massage therapy, medication, tai chi/qigong, and yoga. Optional approaches, which may be made available to veterans, include chiropractic and healing touch. Outside the VHA, some states have introduced or enacted legislation mandating insurance coverage of nonpharmacological pain treatments.¹⁸ However, these requirements and mandates do not help address challenges such as the availability of trained/qualified practitioners.^19,20 Ensuring access to complementary and integrative health treatments requires a more concerted effort to ensure that supply meets demand. It is also important to acknowledge the budgetary and physical space constraints that further limit access to services. Although expansion and integration of integrative medicine services remain a priority within the VA Whole Health program, implementation is contingent on available financial and infrastructure resources.

Time was also identified by PCPs as a barrier to recommending integrative therapies to patients. Developing and implementing time-efficient communication strategies for patient education such as concise talking points and informational handouts could help address this barrier. Furthermore, leveraging existing programs and engaging the entire health care team in patient education and referral could help increase integrative and complementary therapy uptake and use.

Although access and time were identified as major barriers, these findings also suggest that PCP and patient knowledge are another target area for enhancing the use of complementary and integrative therapies. Like prior research, most clinicians identified a lack of familiarity with certain services and a lack of scientific evidence as extremely or somewhat likely to affect their ability to offer integrative services to patients with chronic pain.²¹ Likewise, about 40% of patients identified being unfamiliar with a specific therapy as one of the major obstacles to receiving integrative therapies, with a similar number identifying PCPs as a source of information. The lack of familiarity may be due in part to the evolving nomenclature, with terms such as alternative, complementary, and integrative used to describe approaches outside what is often considered conventional medicine.¹⁰ On the other hand, there has also been considerable expansion in the number of therapies within this domain, along with an expanding evidence base. This suggests a need for targeted educational strategies for clinicians and patients, which can be rapidly deployed and continuously adapted as new therapies and evidence emerge.

Limitations

There are some inherent limitations with a survey-based approach, including sampling, non-response, and social desirability biases. In addition, this study only included PCPs and patients affiliated with a single VA medical center. Steps to mitigate these limitations included maintaining survey anonymity and reporting information about respondent characteristics to enhance transparency about the representativeness of the study findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Expanding the use of nonpharmacological pain treatments, including integrative modalities, is essential for safe and effective chronic pain management and reducing opioid use. Our findings show that VA PCPs and patients with chronic back pain are interested in and have some experience with certain integrative therapies. However, even within the context of a health care system that supports the use of integrative therapies for chronic pain as part of whole person care, increasing uptake will require addressing access and time-related constraints as well as ongoing clinician and patient education.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) operates within the US Department of Homeland Security and represents a force of > 50,000 servicemembers.¹ The missions of the service include maritime law enforcement (drug interdiction), search and rescue, and defense readiness.²

The USCG operates 42 clinics and numerous smaller sick bays of varying sizes and medical capabilities throughout the country to provide acute and routine medical services. Health services technicians (HSs) are the most common staffing component and provide much of the support services in each USCG health care setting. The HS rating, colloquially referred to as corpsmen, is achieved through a 22-week course known as “A” school that trains servicemembers in outpatient and acute care, including emergency medical technician training.³ There are about 750 USCG HSs.

Within USCG clinics, HSs conduct ambulatory intakes for outpatient appointments, administer immunizations and blood draws, requisition medical equipment and supplies, serve as a pharmacy technician, complete physical examinations, and manage referrals, among other duties. Their familiarity with different aspects of clinic operations and medical practice must be broad. To that end, corpsmen develop and reinforce their medical knowledge through various trainings, including additional courses to specialize in certain medical skills, such as pharmacy technician “C” school or dental assistant “C” school.

The USCG employs < 15 field pharmacists, most of whom serve in an ambulatory care environment.⁴ Responsibilities of USCG pharmacists include the routine reinforcement of pharmacy knowledge with HSs. For the corpsmen who are not pharmacy technicians or who have not attended pharmacy technician “C” school, the extent of their pharmacy instruction primarily came from the “A” school curriculum, of which only 1 class is specific to pharmacy. Providing routine pharmacy-related training to the HSs further cultivates their pharmacy knowledge and confidence so that they can practice more holistically. These trainings do not need to follow any specific format.

In this study, 3 pharmacists at 3 separate USCG clinics conducted a training inspired by the Jeopardy! game show with the corpsmen at their respective clinics. This study examined the effectiveness of game-based learning on the pharmacy knowledge retention of HSs at 3 USCG clinics. A secondary objective was to evaluate the baseline pharmacy knowledge of corpsmen based on specific corpsmen demographics.

Methods

As part of a USCG quality improvement study in 2024, 28 HSs at the 3 USCG clinics were provided a preintervention assessment, completed game-based educational program (intervention), and then were assessed again following the intervention.

The HSs were presented with a 25-question assessment that included 10 knowledge questions (3 on over-the-counter medications, 2 on use of medications in pregnancy, 2 on precautions and contraindications, 2 on indications, and 1 on immunizations) and 15 brand-generic matching questions. These questions were developed and reviewed by the 3 participating pharmacists to ensure that their scope was commensurate with the overall pharmacy knowledge that could be reasonably expected of corpsmen spanning various points of their HS career.

One to 7 days after the preintervention assessment, the pharmacists hosted the game-based learning modeled after Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! categories mirrored the assessment knowledge question categories, and brand-generic nomenclature was freely discussed throughout. About 2 weeks later, the same HSs who completed the preintervention assessment and participated in the game were presented with the same assessment.

In addition to capturing the difference in scores between the 2 assessments, additional demographic data were gathered, including service time as an HS and whether they received formalized pharmacy technician training and if so, how long they have served in that capacity. Demographic data were collected to identify potential correlations between demographic characteristics and results.

Results

Twenty-eight HSs at the 3 clinics completed the game-based training and both assessments. The mean score increased from 15.1 preintervention to 17.4 postintervention (Table). Preintervention scores ranged from 1 to 24 and postintervention scores ranged from 6 to 25.

There were 19 HSs (68%) whose score increased from preintervention to postintervention and 5 (18%) had decreased scores. The largest score decrease was 4 (from 18 to 14), and the largest score increase was 11 (from 13 to 24). The mean improvement was 3.9 among the 19 HSs with increased scores

Twenty-one HSs reported no formal pharmacy technician training, 3 completed pharmacy technician “C” school, and 4 received informal on-the-job training. The mean score for the “C” school trained HSs was 23.0 preintervention and 23.7 postintervention. The mean score for HSs trained on the job was 16.0 preintervention and 18.5 postintervention. The mean score for HSs with no training was 13.9 preintervention and 16.3 postintervention.

As HSs advance in their careers, they typically assume roles with increasing technical knowledge, responsibility, and oversight, thus aligning with advancement from E-4 (third class petty officer) to E-6 (first class petty officer) and beyond. In this study, there was 1 E-3, 12 E-4s (mean time as an HS, 1.3 years), 8 E-5s (mean time as an HS, 4.8 years), and 7 E-6s (mean time as an HS, 8.6 years). The E-3 had a preintervention score of 1.0 and a postintervention score of 6.0. The E-4s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 2.4. The E-5s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 1.6. The E-6s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 2.3.

Discussion

This study is novel in its examination of the impact of game-based learning on the retention of the pharmacy knowledge of USCG corpsmen. A PubMed literature search of the phrase “((Corpsman) OR (Corpsmen)) AND (Coast Guard)” yields 135 results, though none were relevant to the USCG population described in this study. A PubMed literature search of the phrase “(Jeopardy!) AND (pharmacy)” yields 28 results, only 1 of which discusses using the game-based approach as an instructional tool.⁵ A PubMed literature search of the phrase “(game) AND (Coast Guard)” yields 55 results, none of which were specifically relevant to game-based learning in the USCG. This study appears to be among the first to discuss results and trends in game-based learning with USCG corpsmen.

The preponderance of literature for game-based learning strategies exists in children; more research in adults is needed.^6,7 With studies showing that game-based learning may impact motivation to learn and learning gains, it is unsurprising that there is some research in professional health care education. Games modeled after everything from simulated clinical scenarios to Family Feud and Chutes and Ladders-style games have been compared with traditional learning strategies. However, the results of whether game-based learning strategies improve knowledge, clinical decision-making, and motivation to learn vary, suggesting the need for more research in this field.⁸

The results of this study suggest that Jeopardy! is likely an effective instructional method for USCG corpsmen on pharmacy topics. While there were some HSs whose postintervention scores decreased, 19 (68%) had increased scores. Because the second assessment was administered about 2 weeks after the game-based learning, the results suggest some level of knowledge retention. Between these results and the informally perceived level of engagement, game-based learning could be a more stimulating alternative training method to a standard slide-based presentation.

Stratifying the data by demographics revealed additional trends, although they should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. The baseline results strongly illustrate the value of formalized training. It is generally expected that HSs who have completed the “C” school pharmacy technician training program should have more pharmacy knowledge than those with on-the-job or less training. The results indicate that “C” school trained and on-the-job trained HSs scored higher on the preintervention assessment (mean, 23.0 and 16.0, respectively), than those with no such experiences (mean, 13.9). Such results underscore the value of formalized training—whether as a pharmacy technician or in any other “C” school—in enhancing the medical knowledge of HSs that may allow them to hold roles of increased responsibility and medical scope.

In addition to stratification by pharmacy technician training, stratification by years of HS experience (roughly correlated to rank) yields a similar result. It would be expected that as HSs advance in their careers, they gain more exposure to various medical topics, including pharmacy. That is not always the case, however, as it is possible an HS never rotated through a pharmacy technician position or has not been recently exposed to pharmacy knowledge. Nevertheless, the results suggest that increased HS experience was likely associated with an increased baseline pharmacy knowledge, with mean preintervention scores increasing from 11.9 to 18.1 to 19.3 for E-4, E-5, and E-6, respectively.

While there are many explanations for these results, the authors hypothesize that when HSs are E-4s, they might not yet have exposure to all aspects of the clinic and are perhaps not as well-versed in pharmacy practice. An E-5—now a few years into their career—would have completed pharmacy technician “C” school or on-the-job training (if applicable), which could account for the significant jump in pharmacy knowledge scores. An E-6 can still engage in direct patient care activities but take on leadership and supervisory roles within the clinic, perhaps explaining the smaller increase in score.

In terms of increasing responsibility, many USCG corpsmen complete another schooling opportunity—Independent Duty Health Services Technician (IDHS)—so they can serve in independent duty roles, many of which are on USCG cutters. While cutters are deployed, that IDHS could be the sole medical personnel on the cutter and function in a midlevel practitioner extender role. Formalized training in pharmacy—the benefits of which are suggested through these results—or another field of medical practice would strengthen the skillset and confidence of IDHSs.

Though not formally assessed, the 3 pharmacists noted that the game-based learning was met with overwhelmingly positive feedback in terms of excitement, energy, and overall engagement.

Limitations

This cohort of individuals represents a small proportion of the total number of USCG corpsmen, and it is not fully representative of all practice settings. HSs can be assigned to USCG cutters as IDHSs, which would not be captured in this cohort. Even within a single clinic, the knowledge of HSs varies, as not all HS duties consist solely of clinical skills. Additionally, while the overall game framework was consistent among the 3 sites, there may have been unquantifiable differences in overall teaching style by the 3 pharmacists that may have resulted in different levels of content retention. Given the lack of similar studies in this population, this study can best be described as a quantitative descriptor of results rather than a statistical comparison of what instructional method works best.

Conclusions

The USCG greatly benefits from having trained and experienced HSs fulfilling mission support roles in the organization. In addition to traditional slide-based trainings, game-based learning can be considered to create engaging learning environments to support the knowledge retention of pharmacy and other medical topics for USCG corpsmen.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) operates within the US Department of Homeland Security and represents a force of > 50,000 servicemembers.¹ The missions of the service include maritime law enforcement (drug interdiction), search and rescue, and defense readiness.²

The USCG operates 42 clinics and numerous smaller sick bays of varying sizes and medical capabilities throughout the country to provide acute and routine medical services. Health services technicians (HSs) are the most common staffing component and provide much of the support services in each USCG health care setting. The HS rating, colloquially referred to as corpsmen, is achieved through a 22-week course known as “A” school that trains servicemembers in outpatient and acute care, including emergency medical technician training.³ There are about 750 USCG HSs.

Within USCG clinics, HSs conduct ambulatory intakes for outpatient appointments, administer immunizations and blood draws, requisition medical equipment and supplies, serve as a pharmacy technician, complete physical examinations, and manage referrals, among other duties. Their familiarity with different aspects of clinic operations and medical practice must be broad. To that end, corpsmen develop and reinforce their medical knowledge through various trainings, including additional courses to specialize in certain medical skills, such as pharmacy technician “C” school or dental assistant “C” school.

The USCG employs < 15 field pharmacists, most of whom serve in an ambulatory care environment.⁴ Responsibilities of USCG pharmacists include the routine reinforcement of pharmacy knowledge with HSs. For the corpsmen who are not pharmacy technicians or who have not attended pharmacy technician “C” school, the extent of their pharmacy instruction primarily came from the “A” school curriculum, of which only 1 class is specific to pharmacy. Providing routine pharmacy-related training to the HSs further cultivates their pharmacy knowledge and confidence so that they can practice more holistically. These trainings do not need to follow any specific format.

In this study, 3 pharmacists at 3 separate USCG clinics conducted a training inspired by the Jeopardy! game show with the corpsmen at their respective clinics. This study examined the effectiveness of game-based learning on the pharmacy knowledge retention of HSs at 3 USCG clinics. A secondary objective was to evaluate the baseline pharmacy knowledge of corpsmen based on specific corpsmen demographics.

Methods

As part of a USCG quality improvement study in 2024, 28 HSs at the 3 USCG clinics were provided a preintervention assessment, completed game-based educational program (intervention), and then were assessed again following the intervention.

The HSs were presented with a 25-question assessment that included 10 knowledge questions (3 on over-the-counter medications, 2 on use of medications in pregnancy, 2 on precautions and contraindications, 2 on indications, and 1 on immunizations) and 15 brand-generic matching questions. These questions were developed and reviewed by the 3 participating pharmacists to ensure that their scope was commensurate with the overall pharmacy knowledge that could be reasonably expected of corpsmen spanning various points of their HS career.

One to 7 days after the preintervention assessment, the pharmacists hosted the game-based learning modeled after Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! categories mirrored the assessment knowledge question categories, and brand-generic nomenclature was freely discussed throughout. About 2 weeks later, the same HSs who completed the preintervention assessment and participated in the game were presented with the same assessment.

In addition to capturing the difference in scores between the 2 assessments, additional demographic data were gathered, including service time as an HS and whether they received formalized pharmacy technician training and if so, how long they have served in that capacity. Demographic data were collected to identify potential correlations between demographic characteristics and results.

Results

Twenty-eight HSs at the 3 clinics completed the game-based training and both assessments. The mean score increased from 15.1 preintervention to 17.4 postintervention (Table). Preintervention scores ranged from 1 to 24 and postintervention scores ranged from 6 to 25.

There were 19 HSs (68%) whose score increased from preintervention to postintervention and 5 (18%) had decreased scores. The largest score decrease was 4 (from 18 to 14), and the largest score increase was 11 (from 13 to 24). The mean improvement was 3.9 among the 19 HSs with increased scores

Twenty-one HSs reported no formal pharmacy technician training, 3 completed pharmacy technician “C” school, and 4 received informal on-the-job training. The mean score for the “C” school trained HSs was 23.0 preintervention and 23.7 postintervention. The mean score for HSs trained on the job was 16.0 preintervention and 18.5 postintervention. The mean score for HSs with no training was 13.9 preintervention and 16.3 postintervention.

As HSs advance in their careers, they typically assume roles with increasing technical knowledge, responsibility, and oversight, thus aligning with advancement from E-4 (third class petty officer) to E-6 (first class petty officer) and beyond. In this study, there was 1 E-3, 12 E-4s (mean time as an HS, 1.3 years), 8 E-5s (mean time as an HS, 4.8 years), and 7 E-6s (mean time as an HS, 8.6 years). The E-3 had a preintervention score of 1.0 and a postintervention score of 6.0. The E-4s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 2.4. The E-5s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 1.6. The E-6s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 2.3.

Discussion

This study is novel in its examination of the impact of game-based learning on the retention of the pharmacy knowledge of USCG corpsmen. A PubMed literature search of the phrase “((Corpsman) OR (Corpsmen)) AND (Coast Guard)” yields 135 results, though none were relevant to the USCG population described in this study. A PubMed literature search of the phrase “(Jeopardy!) AND (pharmacy)” yields 28 results, only 1 of which discusses using the game-based approach as an instructional tool.⁵ A PubMed literature search of the phrase “(game) AND (Coast Guard)” yields 55 results, none of which were specifically relevant to game-based learning in the USCG. This study appears to be among the first to discuss results and trends in game-based learning with USCG corpsmen.

The preponderance of literature for game-based learning strategies exists in children; more research in adults is needed.^6,7 With studies showing that game-based learning may impact motivation to learn and learning gains, it is unsurprising that there is some research in professional health care education. Games modeled after everything from simulated clinical scenarios to Family Feud and Chutes and Ladders-style games have been compared with traditional learning strategies. However, the results of whether game-based learning strategies improve knowledge, clinical decision-making, and motivation to learn vary, suggesting the need for more research in this field.⁸

The results of this study suggest that Jeopardy! is likely an effective instructional method for USCG corpsmen on pharmacy topics. While there were some HSs whose postintervention scores decreased, 19 (68%) had increased scores. Because the second assessment was administered about 2 weeks after the game-based learning, the results suggest some level of knowledge retention. Between these results and the informally perceived level of engagement, game-based learning could be a more stimulating alternative training method to a standard slide-based presentation.

Stratifying the data by demographics revealed additional trends, although they should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. The baseline results strongly illustrate the value of formalized training. It is generally expected that HSs who have completed the “C” school pharmacy technician training program should have more pharmacy knowledge than those with on-the-job or less training. The results indicate that “C” school trained and on-the-job trained HSs scored higher on the preintervention assessment (mean, 23.0 and 16.0, respectively), than those with no such experiences (mean, 13.9). Such results underscore the value of formalized training—whether as a pharmacy technician or in any other “C” school—in enhancing the medical knowledge of HSs that may allow them to hold roles of increased responsibility and medical scope.

In addition to stratification by pharmacy technician training, stratification by years of HS experience (roughly correlated to rank) yields a similar result. It would be expected that as HSs advance in their careers, they gain more exposure to various medical topics, including pharmacy. That is not always the case, however, as it is possible an HS never rotated through a pharmacy technician position or has not been recently exposed to pharmacy knowledge. Nevertheless, the results suggest that increased HS experience was likely associated with an increased baseline pharmacy knowledge, with mean preintervention scores increasing from 11.9 to 18.1 to 19.3 for E-4, E-5, and E-6, respectively.

While there are many explanations for these results, the authors hypothesize that when HSs are E-4s, they might not yet have exposure to all aspects of the clinic and are perhaps not as well-versed in pharmacy practice. An E-5—now a few years into their career—would have completed pharmacy technician “C” school or on-the-job training (if applicable), which could account for the significant jump in pharmacy knowledge scores. An E-6 can still engage in direct patient care activities but take on leadership and supervisory roles within the clinic, perhaps explaining the smaller increase in score.

In terms of increasing responsibility, many USCG corpsmen complete another schooling opportunity—Independent Duty Health Services Technician (IDHS)—so they can serve in independent duty roles, many of which are on USCG cutters. While cutters are deployed, that IDHS could be the sole medical personnel on the cutter and function in a midlevel practitioner extender role. Formalized training in pharmacy—the benefits of which are suggested through these results—or another field of medical practice would strengthen the skillset and confidence of IDHSs.

Though not formally assessed, the 3 pharmacists noted that the game-based learning was met with overwhelmingly positive feedback in terms of excitement, energy, and overall engagement.

Limitations

This cohort of individuals represents a small proportion of the total number of USCG corpsmen, and it is not fully representative of all practice settings. HSs can be assigned to USCG cutters as IDHSs, which would not be captured in this cohort. Even within a single clinic, the knowledge of HSs varies, as not all HS duties consist solely of clinical skills. Additionally, while the overall game framework was consistent among the 3 sites, there may have been unquantifiable differences in overall teaching style by the 3 pharmacists that may have resulted in different levels of content retention. Given the lack of similar studies in this population, this study can best be described as a quantitative descriptor of results rather than a statistical comparison of what instructional method works best.

Conclusions

The USCG greatly benefits from having trained and experienced HSs fulfilling mission support roles in the organization. In addition to traditional slide-based trainings, game-based learning can be considered to create engaging learning environments to support the knowledge retention of pharmacy and other medical topics for USCG corpsmen.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) operates within the US Department of Homeland Security and represents a force of > 50,000 servicemembers.¹ The missions of the service include maritime law enforcement (drug interdiction), search and rescue, and defense readiness.²

The USCG operates 42 clinics and numerous smaller sick bays of varying sizes and medical capabilities throughout the country to provide acute and routine medical services. Health services technicians (HSs) are the most common staffing component and provide much of the support services in each USCG health care setting. The HS rating, colloquially referred to as corpsmen, is achieved through a 22-week course known as “A” school that trains servicemembers in outpatient and acute care, including emergency medical technician training.³ There are about 750 USCG HSs.

Within USCG clinics, HSs conduct ambulatory intakes for outpatient appointments, administer immunizations and blood draws, requisition medical equipment and supplies, serve as a pharmacy technician, complete physical examinations, and manage referrals, among other duties. Their familiarity with different aspects of clinic operations and medical practice must be broad. To that end, corpsmen develop and reinforce their medical knowledge through various trainings, including additional courses to specialize in certain medical skills, such as pharmacy technician “C” school or dental assistant “C” school.

The USCG employs < 15 field pharmacists, most of whom serve in an ambulatory care environment.⁴ Responsibilities of USCG pharmacists include the routine reinforcement of pharmacy knowledge with HSs. For the corpsmen who are not pharmacy technicians or who have not attended pharmacy technician “C” school, the extent of their pharmacy instruction primarily came from the “A” school curriculum, of which only 1 class is specific to pharmacy. Providing routine pharmacy-related training to the HSs further cultivates their pharmacy knowledge and confidence so that they can practice more holistically. These trainings do not need to follow any specific format.

In this study, 3 pharmacists at 3 separate USCG clinics conducted a training inspired by the Jeopardy! game show with the corpsmen at their respective clinics. This study examined the effectiveness of game-based learning on the pharmacy knowledge retention of HSs at 3 USCG clinics. A secondary objective was to evaluate the baseline pharmacy knowledge of corpsmen based on specific corpsmen demographics.

Methods

As part of a USCG quality improvement study in 2024, 28 HSs at the 3 USCG clinics were provided a preintervention assessment, completed game-based educational program (intervention), and then were assessed again following the intervention.

The HSs were presented with a 25-question assessment that included 10 knowledge questions (3 on over-the-counter medications, 2 on use of medications in pregnancy, 2 on precautions and contraindications, 2 on indications, and 1 on immunizations) and 15 brand-generic matching questions. These questions were developed and reviewed by the 3 participating pharmacists to ensure that their scope was commensurate with the overall pharmacy knowledge that could be reasonably expected of corpsmen spanning various points of their HS career.

One to 7 days after the preintervention assessment, the pharmacists hosted the game-based learning modeled after Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! categories mirrored the assessment knowledge question categories, and brand-generic nomenclature was freely discussed throughout. About 2 weeks later, the same HSs who completed the preintervention assessment and participated in the game were presented with the same assessment.

In addition to capturing the difference in scores between the 2 assessments, additional demographic data were gathered, including service time as an HS and whether they received formalized pharmacy technician training and if so, how long they have served in that capacity. Demographic data were collected to identify potential correlations between demographic characteristics and results.

Results

Twenty-eight HSs at the 3 clinics completed the game-based training and both assessments. The mean score increased from 15.1 preintervention to 17.4 postintervention (Table). Preintervention scores ranged from 1 to 24 and postintervention scores ranged from 6 to 25.

There were 19 HSs (68%) whose score increased from preintervention to postintervention and 5 (18%) had decreased scores. The largest score decrease was 4 (from 18 to 14), and the largest score increase was 11 (from 13 to 24). The mean improvement was 3.9 among the 19 HSs with increased scores

Twenty-one HSs reported no formal pharmacy technician training, 3 completed pharmacy technician “C” school, and 4 received informal on-the-job training. The mean score for the “C” school trained HSs was 23.0 preintervention and 23.7 postintervention. The mean score for HSs trained on the job was 16.0 preintervention and 18.5 postintervention. The mean score for HSs with no training was 13.9 preintervention and 16.3 postintervention.

As HSs advance in their careers, they typically assume roles with increasing technical knowledge, responsibility, and oversight, thus aligning with advancement from E-4 (third class petty officer) to E-6 (first class petty officer) and beyond. In this study, there was 1 E-3, 12 E-4s (mean time as an HS, 1.3 years), 8 E-5s (mean time as an HS, 4.8 years), and 7 E-6s (mean time as an HS, 8.6 years). The E-3 had a preintervention score of 1.0 and a postintervention score of 6.0. The E-4s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 2.4. The E-5s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 1.6. The E-6s had a mean change in score from pre- to postintervention of 2.3.

Discussion

This study is novel in its examination of the impact of game-based learning on the retention of the pharmacy knowledge of USCG corpsmen. A PubMed literature search of the phrase “((Corpsman) OR (Corpsmen)) AND (Coast Guard)” yields 135 results, though none were relevant to the USCG population described in this study. A PubMed literature search of the phrase “(Jeopardy!) AND (pharmacy)” yields 28 results, only 1 of which discusses using the game-based approach as an instructional tool.⁵ A PubMed literature search of the phrase “(game) AND (Coast Guard)” yields 55 results, none of which were specifically relevant to game-based learning in the USCG. This study appears to be among the first to discuss results and trends in game-based learning with USCG corpsmen.

The preponderance of literature for game-based learning strategies exists in children; more research in adults is needed.^6,7 With studies showing that game-based learning may impact motivation to learn and learning gains, it is unsurprising that there is some research in professional health care education. Games modeled after everything from simulated clinical scenarios to Family Feud and Chutes and Ladders-style games have been compared with traditional learning strategies. However, the results of whether game-based learning strategies improve knowledge, clinical decision-making, and motivation to learn vary, suggesting the need for more research in this field.⁸

The results of this study suggest that Jeopardy! is likely an effective instructional method for USCG corpsmen on pharmacy topics. While there were some HSs whose postintervention scores decreased, 19 (68%) had increased scores. Because the second assessment was administered about 2 weeks after the game-based learning, the results suggest some level of knowledge retention. Between these results and the informally perceived level of engagement, game-based learning could be a more stimulating alternative training method to a standard slide-based presentation.

Stratifying the data by demographics revealed additional trends, although they should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. The baseline results strongly illustrate the value of formalized training. It is generally expected that HSs who have completed the “C” school pharmacy technician training program should have more pharmacy knowledge than those with on-the-job or less training. The results indicate that “C” school trained and on-the-job trained HSs scored higher on the preintervention assessment (mean, 23.0 and 16.0, respectively), than those with no such experiences (mean, 13.9). Such results underscore the value of formalized training—whether as a pharmacy technician or in any other “C” school—in enhancing the medical knowledge of HSs that may allow them to hold roles of increased responsibility and medical scope.

In addition to stratification by pharmacy technician training, stratification by years of HS experience (roughly correlated to rank) yields a similar result. It would be expected that as HSs advance in their careers, they gain more exposure to various medical topics, including pharmacy. That is not always the case, however, as it is possible an HS never rotated through a pharmacy technician position or has not been recently exposed to pharmacy knowledge. Nevertheless, the results suggest that increased HS experience was likely associated with an increased baseline pharmacy knowledge, with mean preintervention scores increasing from 11.9 to 18.1 to 19.3 for E-4, E-5, and E-6, respectively.

While there are many explanations for these results, the authors hypothesize that when HSs are E-4s, they might not yet have exposure to all aspects of the clinic and are perhaps not as well-versed in pharmacy practice. An E-5—now a few years into their career—would have completed pharmacy technician “C” school or on-the-job training (if applicable), which could account for the significant jump in pharmacy knowledge scores. An E-6 can still engage in direct patient care activities but take on leadership and supervisory roles within the clinic, perhaps explaining the smaller increase in score.

In terms of increasing responsibility, many USCG corpsmen complete another schooling opportunity—Independent Duty Health Services Technician (IDHS)—so they can serve in independent duty roles, many of which are on USCG cutters. While cutters are deployed, that IDHS could be the sole medical personnel on the cutter and function in a midlevel practitioner extender role. Formalized training in pharmacy—the benefits of which are suggested through these results—or another field of medical practice would strengthen the skillset and confidence of IDHSs.

Though not formally assessed, the 3 pharmacists noted that the game-based learning was met with overwhelmingly positive feedback in terms of excitement, energy, and overall engagement.

Limitations

This cohort of individuals represents a small proportion of the total number of USCG corpsmen, and it is not fully representative of all practice settings. HSs can be assigned to USCG cutters as IDHSs, which would not be captured in this cohort. Even within a single clinic, the knowledge of HSs varies, as not all HS duties consist solely of clinical skills. Additionally, while the overall game framework was consistent among the 3 sites, there may have been unquantifiable differences in overall teaching style by the 3 pharmacists that may have resulted in different levels of content retention. Given the lack of similar studies in this population, this study can best be described as a quantitative descriptor of results rather than a statistical comparison of what instructional method works best.

Conclusions

The USCG greatly benefits from having trained and experienced HSs fulfilling mission support roles in the organization. In addition to traditional slide-based trainings, game-based learning can be considered to create engaging learning environments to support the knowledge retention of pharmacy and other medical topics for USCG corpsmen.

Learning health systems (LHS) promote a continuous process that can assist in making sense of uncertainty when confronting emerging complex conditions such as Long COVID. Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that detrimentally impacts veterans, their families, and the communities in which they live. This complex condition is defined by ongoing, new, or returning symptoms following COVID-19 infection that negatively affect return to meaningful participation in social, recreational, and vocational activities.^1,2 The clinical uncertainty surrounding Long COVID is amplified by unclear etiology, prognosis, and expected course of symptoms.^3,4 Uncertainty surrounding best clinical practices, processes, and policies for Long COVID care has resulted in practice variation despite the emerging evidence base for Long COVID care.⁴ Failure to address gaps in clinical evidence and care implementation threatens to perpetuate fragmented and unnecessary care.

The context surrounding Long COVID created an urgency to rapidly address clinically relevant questions and make sense of any uncertainty. Thus, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) funded a Long COVID Practice-Based Research Network (LC-PBRN) to build an infrastructure that supports Long COVID research nationally and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration. The LC-PBRN vision is to centralize Long COVID clinical, research, and operational activities. The research infrastructure of the LC-PBRN is designed with an LHS lens to facilitate feedback loops and integrate knowledge learned while making progress towards this vision.⁵ This article describes the phases of infrastructure development and network building, as well as associated lessons learned.

Designing the LC-PBRN Infrastructure

The LC-PBRN is a multisite operation with interdisciplinary representatives from 4 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems. Each site has ≥ 1 principal investigator (0.1-0.4 full-time equivalent [FTE]) and ≥ 1 project staff member (0.5-0.8 FTE). The lead site also employs data and statistical support staff (1.5 FTE). To build this infrastructure, VHA Health Services Research awarded $1 million in November 2023 to the 4 sites. The funding was distributed over 2 years. Additional funding will be required for sustainability. The components and key infrastructure elements of the LC-PBRN are outlined in the Table. The 2-year LC-PBRN implementation activities is outlined in the Appendix.

Vision

The LC-PBRN’s vision is to create an infrastructure that integrates an LHS framework by unifying the VA research approach to Long COVID to ensure veteran, clinician, operational, and researcher involvement (Figure 1). A critical aspect of this is a unifying definition of Long COVID, for which the LC-PBRN has adopted the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) definition: “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.”⁶ This is a working definition to be refined over time, as necessary, based on new data. The LC-PBRN aligns with existing VA initiatives by serving as a centralized hub for internal and external networking. This approach ensures shareholder needs are identified, resources are allocated appropriately, and redundancy in efforts is avoided. In this spirit, the LC-PBRN maintains a long-term vision of collaborating with other systems to support national efforts to address Long COVID.

Mission and Governance

The LC-PBRN operates with an executive leadership team and 5 cores. The executive leadership team is responsible for overall LC-PBRN operations, management, and direction setting of the LC-PBRN. The executive leadership team meets weekly to provide oversight of each core, which specializes in different aspects. The cores include: Administrative, Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment, Patient Identification and Analysis, Clinical Coordination and Implementation, and Dissemination (Figure 2).

The Administrative core focuses on interagency collaboration to identify and network with key operational and agency leaders to allow for ongoing exploration of funding strategies for Long COVID research. The Administrative core manages 3 teams: an advisory board, Long COVID council, and the strategic planning team. The advisory board meets biannually to oversee achievement of LC-PBRN goals, deliverables, and tactics for meeting these goals. The advisory board includes the LC-PBRN executive leadership team and 13 interagency members from various shareholders (eg, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and specialty departments within the VA).

The Long COVID council convenes quarterly to provide scientific input on important overarching issues in Long COVID research, practice, and policy. The council consists of 22 scientific representatives in VA and non-VA contexts, university affiliates, and veteran representatives. The strategic planning team convenes annually to identify how the LC-PBRN and its partners can meet the needs of the broader Long COVID ecosystem and conduct a strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats analysis to identify strategic objectives and expected outcomes. The strategic planning team includes the executive leadership team and key Long COVID shareholders within VHA and affiliated partners. The Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core aims to solicit feedback from veterans, clinicians, researchers, and operational leadership. Input is gathered through a Veteran Engagement Panel and a modified Delphi consensus process. The panel was formed using a Community Engagement Studio model to engage veterans as consultants on research.⁷ Currently, 10 members represent a range of ages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and military experience. All veterans have a history of Long COVID and are paid as consultants. Video conference panel meetings occur quarterly for 1 to 2 hours; the meeting length is shorter than typical engagement studios to accommodate for fatigue-related symptoms that may limit attention and ability to participate in longer meetings. Before each panel, the Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core helps identify key questions and creates a structured agenda. Each panel begins with a presentation of a research study followed by a group discussion led by a trained facilitator. The modified Delphi consensus process focuses on identifying research priority areas for Long COVID within the VA. Veterans living with Long COVID, as well as clinicians and researchers who work closely with patients who have Long COVID, complete a series of progressive surveys to provide input on research priorities.

The Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core also actively provides outreach to important partners in research, clinical care, and operational leadership to facilitate introductory meetings to (1) ask partners to describe their 5 largest pain points, (2) find pain points within the scope of LC-PBRN resources, and (3) discuss the strengths and capacity of the PBRN. During introductory meetings, communications preferences and a cadence for subsequent meetings are established. Subsequent engagement meetings aim to provide updates and codevelop solutions to emerging issues. This core maintains a living document to track engagement efforts, points of contact for identified and emerging partners, and ensure all communication is timely.

The Patient Identification and Analysis core develops a database of veterans with confirmed or suspected Long COVID. The goal is for researchers to use the database to identify potential participants for clinical trials and monitor clinical care outcomes. When possible, this core works with existing VA data to facilitate research that aligns with the LC-PBRN mission. The core can also use natural language processing and machine learning to work with researchers conducting clinical trials to help identify patients who may meet eligibility criteria.

The Clinical Coordination and Implementation core gathers information on the best practices for identifying and recruiting veterans for Long COVID research as well as compiles strategies for standardized clinical assessments that can both facilitate ongoing research and the successful implementation of evidence-based care. The Clinical Coordination and Implementation core provides support to pilot and multisite trials in 3 ways. First, it develops toolkits such as best practice strategies for recruiting participants for research, template examples of recruitment materials, and a library of patient-reported outcome measures, standardized clinical note titles and templates in use for Long COVID in the national electronic health record. Second, it partners with the Patient Identification and Analysis core to facilitate access to and use of algorithms that identify Long COVID cases based on electronic health records for recruitment. Finally, it compiles a detailed list of potential collaborating sites. The steps to facilitate patient identification and recruitment inform feasibility assessments and improve efficiency of launching pilot studies and multisite trials. The library of outcome measures, standardized clinical notes, and templates can aid and expedite data collection.

The Dissemination core focuses on developing a website, creating a dissemination plan, and actively disseminating products of the LC-PBRN and its partners. This core’s foundational framework is based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Quick-Start Guide to Dissemination for PBRNs.^8,9 The core built an internal- and external-facing website to connect users with LC-PBRN products, potential outreach contacts, and promote timely updates on LC-PBRN activities. A manual of operating procedures will be drafted to include the development of training for practitioners involved in research projects to learn the processes involved in presenting clinical results for education and training initiatives, presentations, and manuscript preparation. A toolkit will also be developed to support dissemination activities designed to reach a variety of end-users, such as education materials, policy briefings, educational briefs, newsletters, and presentations at local, regional, and national levels.

Key Partners

Key partners exist specific to the LC-PBRN and within the broader VA ecosystem, including VA clinical operations, VA research, and intra-agency collaborations.

LC-PBRN Specific. In addition to the LC-PBRN council, advisory board, and Veteran Engagement Panel discussed earlier, the LC-PBRN has 8 VA Long COVID clinical sites that have joined the network. As part of the network, these sites gain greater insight into the Long COVID ecosystem within the VA through priority access to the Long COVID Veteran Engagement Panel and recognition as members of the network. The LC-PBRN also meets monthly with pilot projects conducted at other VA facilities to learn more about how Long COVID research is being implemented and identify how the LC-PBRN can assist in troubleshooting barriers.

VA Clinical Operations. To support clinical operations, a Long COVID Field Advisory Board was formed through the VA Office of Specialty Care as an operational effort to develop clinical best practice. The LC-PBRN consults with this group on veteran engagement strategies for input on clinical guides and dissemination of practice guide materials. The LC-PBRN also partners with an existing Long COVID Community of Practice and the Office of Primary Care. The Community of Practice provides a learning space for VA staff interested in advancing Long COVID care and assists with disseminating LC-PBRN to the broader Long COVID clinical community. A member of the Office of Primary Care sits on the PBRN advisory board to provide input on engaging primary care practitioners and ensure their unique needs are considered in LC-PBRN initiatives.

VA Research & Interagency Collaborations. The LC-PBRN engages monthly with an interagency workgroup led by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Long COVID Research and Practice. These engagements support identification of research gaps that the VA may help address, monitor emerging funding opportunities, and foster collaborations. LC-PBRN representatives also meet with staff at the National Institutes of Health Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery initiative to identify pathways for veteran recruitment.

LHS Feedback Loops

The LC-PBRN was designed with an LHS approach in mind.¹⁰ Throughout development of the LC-PBRN, consideration was given to (1) capture data on new efforts within the Long COVID ecosystem (performance to data), (2) examine performance gaps and identify approaches for best practice (data to knowledge), and (3) implement best practices, develop toolkits, disseminate findings, and measure impacts (knowledge to performance). With this approach, the LC-PBRN is constantly evolving based on new information coming from the internal and external Long COVID ecosystem. Each element was deliberatively considered in relation to how data can be transformed into knowledge, knowledge into performance, and performance into data.

First, an important mechanism for feedback involves establishing clear channels of communication. Regular check-ins with key partners occur through virtual meetings to provide updates, assess needs and challenges, and codevelop action plans. For example, during a check-in with the Long COVID Field Advisory Board, members expressed a desire to incorporate veteran feedback into VA clinical practice recommendations. We provided expertise on different engagement modalities (eg, focus groups vs individual interviews), and collaboration occurred to identify key interview questions for veterans. This process resulted in a published clinician-facing Long COVID Nervous System Clinical Guide (available at [email protected]) that integrated critical feedback from veterans related to neurological symptoms.

Second, weekly executive leadership meetings include dedicated time for reflection on partner feedback, the current state of Long COVID, and contextual changes that impact deliverable priorities and timelines. Outcomes from these discussions are communicated with VHA Health Services Research and, when appropriate, to key partners to ensure alignment. For example, the Patient Identification and Analysis core was originally tasked with identifying a definition of Long COVID. However, as the broader community moved away from a singular definition, efforts were redirected toward higher-priority issues within the VA Long COVID ecosystem, including veteran enrollment in clinical trials.

Third, the Veteran Engagement Panel captures feedback from those with lived experience to inform Long COVID research and clinical efforts. The panel meetings are strategically designed to ask veterans living with Long COVID specific questions related to a given research or clinical topic of interest. For example, panel sessions with the Field Advisory Board focused on concerns articulated by veterans related to the mental health and gastroenterological symptoms associated with Long COVID. Insights from these discussions will inform development of Long COVID mental health and gastroenterological clinical care guides, with several PBRN investigators serving as subject matter experts. This collaborative approach ensures that veteran perspectives are represented in developing Long COVID clinical care processes.

Fourth, research priorities identified through the Delphi consensus process will inform development of VA Request for Funding Proposals related to Long COVID. The initial survey was developed in collaboration with veterans, clinicians, and researchers across the Veteran Engagement Panel, the Field Advisory Board, and the National Research Action Plan on Long COVID.¹¹ The process was launched in October 2024 and concluded in June 2025. The team conducted 3 consensus rounds with veterans and VA clinicians and researchers. Top priority areas included the testing assessments for diagnosing Long COVID, studying subtypes of Long COVID and treatments for each, and finding biomarkers for Long COVID. A formal publication of the results and analysis is the focus of a future publication.

Fifth, ongoing engagement with the Field Advisory Board has supported adoption of a preliminary set of clinical outcome measures. If universally adopted, these instruments may contribute to the development of a standardized data collection process and serve as common data elements collected for epidemiologic, health services, or clinical trial research.

Lessons Learned and Practice Implications

Throughout the development of the LC-PBRN, several decisions were identified that have impacted infrastructure development and implementation.

Include veterans’ voices to ensure network efforts align with patient needs. Given the novelty of Long COVID, practitioners and researchers are learning as they go. It is important to listen to individuals who live with Long COVID. Throughout the development of the LC-PBRN, veteran perspective has proven how vital it is for them to be heard when it comes to their health care. Clinicians similarly highlighted the value of incorporating patient perspectives into the development of tools and treatment strategies. Develop an interdisciplinary leadership team to foster the diverse viewpoints needed to tackle multifaceted problems. It is important to consider as many clinical and research perspectives as possible because Long COVID is a complex condition with symptoms impacting major organ systems.^12-15 Therefore, the team spans across a multitude of specialties and locations.

Set clear expectations and goals with partners to uphold timely deliverables and stay within the PBRN’s capacity. When including a multitude of partners, teams should consider each of those partners’ experiences and opinions in decision-making conversations. Expectation setting is important to ensure all partners are on the same page and understand the capacity of the LC-PBRN. This allows the team to focus its efforts, avoid being overwhelmed with requests, and provide quality deliverables.

Build engaging relationships to bridge gaps between internal and external partners. A substantial number of resources focus on building relationships with partners so they can trust the LC-PBRN has their best interests in mind. These relationships are important to ensure the VA avoids duplicate efforts. This includes prioritizing connecting partners who are working on similar efforts to promote collaboration across facilities.

Clinical practice implications. The LC-PBRN is working towards clinical practice initiatives derived from this process in partnership with the Long COVID Community of Practice and the participating clinical sites. This may include efforts to increase the uptake of standardized instruments endorsed by clinical partners that facilitate assessment of outcomes. PBRN partners can then use outcomes data to ask and answer clinically relevant research questions and assess care quality to inform the learning process that is integral to an LHS. Future dissemination efforts will be centered around individual initiatives and deliverables from the LC-PBRN.

Conclusions

PBRNs provide an important mechanism to use LHS approaches to successfully convene research around complex issues. PBRNs can support integration across the LHS cycle, allowing for multiple feedback loops, and coordinate activities that work to achieve a larger vision. PBRNs offer centralized mechanisms to collaboratively understand and address complex problems, such as Long COVID, where the uncertainty regarding how to treat occurs in tandem with the urgency to treat. The LC-PBRN model described in this article has the potential to transcend Long COVID by building infrastructure necessary to proactively address current or future clinical conditions or populations with a LHS lens. The infrastructure can require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient- and family-centeredness. Future efforts will focus on building out a larger network of VHA sites, facilitating recruitment at site and veteran levels into Long COVID trials through case identification, and systematically support the standardization of clinical data for clinical utility and evaluation of quality and/or outcomes across the VHA.

Learning health systems (LHS) promote a continuous process that can assist in making sense of uncertainty when confronting emerging complex conditions such as Long COVID. Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that detrimentally impacts veterans, their families, and the communities in which they live. This complex condition is defined by ongoing, new, or returning symptoms following COVID-19 infection that negatively affect return to meaningful participation in social, recreational, and vocational activities.^1,2 The clinical uncertainty surrounding Long COVID is amplified by unclear etiology, prognosis, and expected course of symptoms.^3,4 Uncertainty surrounding best clinical practices, processes, and policies for Long COVID care has resulted in practice variation despite the emerging evidence base for Long COVID care.⁴ Failure to address gaps in clinical evidence and care implementation threatens to perpetuate fragmented and unnecessary care.

The context surrounding Long COVID created an urgency to rapidly address clinically relevant questions and make sense of any uncertainty. Thus, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) funded a Long COVID Practice-Based Research Network (LC-PBRN) to build an infrastructure that supports Long COVID research nationally and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration. The LC-PBRN vision is to centralize Long COVID clinical, research, and operational activities. The research infrastructure of the LC-PBRN is designed with an LHS lens to facilitate feedback loops and integrate knowledge learned while making progress towards this vision.⁵ This article describes the phases of infrastructure development and network building, as well as associated lessons learned.

Designing the LC-PBRN Infrastructure

The LC-PBRN is a multisite operation with interdisciplinary representatives from 4 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems. Each site has ≥ 1 principal investigator (0.1-0.4 full-time equivalent [FTE]) and ≥ 1 project staff member (0.5-0.8 FTE). The lead site also employs data and statistical support staff (1.5 FTE). To build this infrastructure, VHA Health Services Research awarded $1 million in November 2023 to the 4 sites. The funding was distributed over 2 years. Additional funding will be required for sustainability. The components and key infrastructure elements of the LC-PBRN are outlined in the Table. The 2-year LC-PBRN implementation activities is outlined in the Appendix.

Vision

The LC-PBRN’s vision is to create an infrastructure that integrates an LHS framework by unifying the VA research approach to Long COVID to ensure veteran, clinician, operational, and researcher involvement (Figure 1). A critical aspect of this is a unifying definition of Long COVID, for which the LC-PBRN has adopted the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) definition: “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.”⁶ This is a working definition to be refined over time, as necessary, based on new data. The LC-PBRN aligns with existing VA initiatives by serving as a centralized hub for internal and external networking. This approach ensures shareholder needs are identified, resources are allocated appropriately, and redundancy in efforts is avoided. In this spirit, the LC-PBRN maintains a long-term vision of collaborating with other systems to support national efforts to address Long COVID.

Mission and Governance

The LC-PBRN operates with an executive leadership team and 5 cores. The executive leadership team is responsible for overall LC-PBRN operations, management, and direction setting of the LC-PBRN. The executive leadership team meets weekly to provide oversight of each core, which specializes in different aspects. The cores include: Administrative, Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment, Patient Identification and Analysis, Clinical Coordination and Implementation, and Dissemination (Figure 2).

The Administrative core focuses on interagency collaboration to identify and network with key operational and agency leaders to allow for ongoing exploration of funding strategies for Long COVID research. The Administrative core manages 3 teams: an advisory board, Long COVID council, and the strategic planning team. The advisory board meets biannually to oversee achievement of LC-PBRN goals, deliverables, and tactics for meeting these goals. The advisory board includes the LC-PBRN executive leadership team and 13 interagency members from various shareholders (eg, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and specialty departments within the VA).

The Long COVID council convenes quarterly to provide scientific input on important overarching issues in Long COVID research, practice, and policy. The council consists of 22 scientific representatives in VA and non-VA contexts, university affiliates, and veteran representatives. The strategic planning team convenes annually to identify how the LC-PBRN and its partners can meet the needs of the broader Long COVID ecosystem and conduct a strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats analysis to identify strategic objectives and expected outcomes. The strategic planning team includes the executive leadership team and key Long COVID shareholders within VHA and affiliated partners. The Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core aims to solicit feedback from veterans, clinicians, researchers, and operational leadership. Input is gathered through a Veteran Engagement Panel and a modified Delphi consensus process. The panel was formed using a Community Engagement Studio model to engage veterans as consultants on research.⁷ Currently, 10 members represent a range of ages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and military experience. All veterans have a history of Long COVID and are paid as consultants. Video conference panel meetings occur quarterly for 1 to 2 hours; the meeting length is shorter than typical engagement studios to accommodate for fatigue-related symptoms that may limit attention and ability to participate in longer meetings. Before each panel, the Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core helps identify key questions and creates a structured agenda. Each panel begins with a presentation of a research study followed by a group discussion led by a trained facilitator. The modified Delphi consensus process focuses on identifying research priority areas for Long COVID within the VA. Veterans living with Long COVID, as well as clinicians and researchers who work closely with patients who have Long COVID, complete a series of progressive surveys to provide input on research priorities.

The Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core also actively provides outreach to important partners in research, clinical care, and operational leadership to facilitate introductory meetings to (1) ask partners to describe their 5 largest pain points, (2) find pain points within the scope of LC-PBRN resources, and (3) discuss the strengths and capacity of the PBRN. During introductory meetings, communications preferences and a cadence for subsequent meetings are established. Subsequent engagement meetings aim to provide updates and codevelop solutions to emerging issues. This core maintains a living document to track engagement efforts, points of contact for identified and emerging partners, and ensure all communication is timely.

The Patient Identification and Analysis core develops a database of veterans with confirmed or suspected Long COVID. The goal is for researchers to use the database to identify potential participants for clinical trials and monitor clinical care outcomes. When possible, this core works with existing VA data to facilitate research that aligns with the LC-PBRN mission. The core can also use natural language processing and machine learning to work with researchers conducting clinical trials to help identify patients who may meet eligibility criteria.

The Clinical Coordination and Implementation core gathers information on the best practices for identifying and recruiting veterans for Long COVID research as well as compiles strategies for standardized clinical assessments that can both facilitate ongoing research and the successful implementation of evidence-based care. The Clinical Coordination and Implementation core provides support to pilot and multisite trials in 3 ways. First, it develops toolkits such as best practice strategies for recruiting participants for research, template examples of recruitment materials, and a library of patient-reported outcome measures, standardized clinical note titles and templates in use for Long COVID in the national electronic health record. Second, it partners with the Patient Identification and Analysis core to facilitate access to and use of algorithms that identify Long COVID cases based on electronic health records for recruitment. Finally, it compiles a detailed list of potential collaborating sites. The steps to facilitate patient identification and recruitment inform feasibility assessments and improve efficiency of launching pilot studies and multisite trials. The library of outcome measures, standardized clinical notes, and templates can aid and expedite data collection.

The Dissemination core focuses on developing a website, creating a dissemination plan, and actively disseminating products of the LC-PBRN and its partners. This core’s foundational framework is based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Quick-Start Guide to Dissemination for PBRNs.^8,9 The core built an internal- and external-facing website to connect users with LC-PBRN products, potential outreach contacts, and promote timely updates on LC-PBRN activities. A manual of operating procedures will be drafted to include the development of training for practitioners involved in research projects to learn the processes involved in presenting clinical results for education and training initiatives, presentations, and manuscript preparation. A toolkit will also be developed to support dissemination activities designed to reach a variety of end-users, such as education materials, policy briefings, educational briefs, newsletters, and presentations at local, regional, and national levels.

Key Partners

Key partners exist specific to the LC-PBRN and within the broader VA ecosystem, including VA clinical operations, VA research, and intra-agency collaborations.

LC-PBRN Specific. In addition to the LC-PBRN council, advisory board, and Veteran Engagement Panel discussed earlier, the LC-PBRN has 8 VA Long COVID clinical sites that have joined the network. As part of the network, these sites gain greater insight into the Long COVID ecosystem within the VA through priority access to the Long COVID Veteran Engagement Panel and recognition as members of the network. The LC-PBRN also meets monthly with pilot projects conducted at other VA facilities to learn more about how Long COVID research is being implemented and identify how the LC-PBRN can assist in troubleshooting barriers.

VA Clinical Operations. To support clinical operations, a Long COVID Field Advisory Board was formed through the VA Office of Specialty Care as an operational effort to develop clinical best practice. The LC-PBRN consults with this group on veteran engagement strategies for input on clinical guides and dissemination of practice guide materials. The LC-PBRN also partners with an existing Long COVID Community of Practice and the Office of Primary Care. The Community of Practice provides a learning space for VA staff interested in advancing Long COVID care and assists with disseminating LC-PBRN to the broader Long COVID clinical community. A member of the Office of Primary Care sits on the PBRN advisory board to provide input on engaging primary care practitioners and ensure their unique needs are considered in LC-PBRN initiatives.

VA Research & Interagency Collaborations. The LC-PBRN engages monthly with an interagency workgroup led by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Long COVID Research and Practice. These engagements support identification of research gaps that the VA may help address, monitor emerging funding opportunities, and foster collaborations. LC-PBRN representatives also meet with staff at the National Institutes of Health Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery initiative to identify pathways for veteran recruitment.

LHS Feedback Loops

The LC-PBRN was designed with an LHS approach in mind.¹⁰ Throughout development of the LC-PBRN, consideration was given to (1) capture data on new efforts within the Long COVID ecosystem (performance to data), (2) examine performance gaps and identify approaches for best practice (data to knowledge), and (3) implement best practices, develop toolkits, disseminate findings, and measure impacts (knowledge to performance). With this approach, the LC-PBRN is constantly evolving based on new information coming from the internal and external Long COVID ecosystem. Each element was deliberatively considered in relation to how data can be transformed into knowledge, knowledge into performance, and performance into data.

First, an important mechanism for feedback involves establishing clear channels of communication. Regular check-ins with key partners occur through virtual meetings to provide updates, assess needs and challenges, and codevelop action plans. For example, during a check-in with the Long COVID Field Advisory Board, members expressed a desire to incorporate veteran feedback into VA clinical practice recommendations. We provided expertise on different engagement modalities (eg, focus groups vs individual interviews), and collaboration occurred to identify key interview questions for veterans. This process resulted in a published clinician-facing Long COVID Nervous System Clinical Guide (available at [email protected]) that integrated critical feedback from veterans related to neurological symptoms.

Second, weekly executive leadership meetings include dedicated time for reflection on partner feedback, the current state of Long COVID, and contextual changes that impact deliverable priorities and timelines. Outcomes from these discussions are communicated with VHA Health Services Research and, when appropriate, to key partners to ensure alignment. For example, the Patient Identification and Analysis core was originally tasked with identifying a definition of Long COVID. However, as the broader community moved away from a singular definition, efforts were redirected toward higher-priority issues within the VA Long COVID ecosystem, including veteran enrollment in clinical trials.

Third, the Veteran Engagement Panel captures feedback from those with lived experience to inform Long COVID research and clinical efforts. The panel meetings are strategically designed to ask veterans living with Long COVID specific questions related to a given research or clinical topic of interest. For example, panel sessions with the Field Advisory Board focused on concerns articulated by veterans related to the mental health and gastroenterological symptoms associated with Long COVID. Insights from these discussions will inform development of Long COVID mental health and gastroenterological clinical care guides, with several PBRN investigators serving as subject matter experts. This collaborative approach ensures that veteran perspectives are represented in developing Long COVID clinical care processes.

Fourth, research priorities identified through the Delphi consensus process will inform development of VA Request for Funding Proposals related to Long COVID. The initial survey was developed in collaboration with veterans, clinicians, and researchers across the Veteran Engagement Panel, the Field Advisory Board, and the National Research Action Plan on Long COVID.¹¹ The process was launched in October 2024 and concluded in June 2025. The team conducted 3 consensus rounds with veterans and VA clinicians and researchers. Top priority areas included the testing assessments for diagnosing Long COVID, studying subtypes of Long COVID and treatments for each, and finding biomarkers for Long COVID. A formal publication of the results and analysis is the focus of a future publication.

Fifth, ongoing engagement with the Field Advisory Board has supported adoption of a preliminary set of clinical outcome measures. If universally adopted, these instruments may contribute to the development of a standardized data collection process and serve as common data elements collected for epidemiologic, health services, or clinical trial research.

Lessons Learned and Practice Implications

Throughout the development of the LC-PBRN, several decisions were identified that have impacted infrastructure development and implementation.

Include veterans’ voices to ensure network efforts align with patient needs. Given the novelty of Long COVID, practitioners and researchers are learning as they go. It is important to listen to individuals who live with Long COVID. Throughout the development of the LC-PBRN, veteran perspective has proven how vital it is for them to be heard when it comes to their health care. Clinicians similarly highlighted the value of incorporating patient perspectives into the development of tools and treatment strategies. Develop an interdisciplinary leadership team to foster the diverse viewpoints needed to tackle multifaceted problems. It is important to consider as many clinical and research perspectives as possible because Long COVID is a complex condition with symptoms impacting major organ systems.^12-15 Therefore, the team spans across a multitude of specialties and locations.

Set clear expectations and goals with partners to uphold timely deliverables and stay within the PBRN’s capacity. When including a multitude of partners, teams should consider each of those partners’ experiences and opinions in decision-making conversations. Expectation setting is important to ensure all partners are on the same page and understand the capacity of the LC-PBRN. This allows the team to focus its efforts, avoid being overwhelmed with requests, and provide quality deliverables.

Build engaging relationships to bridge gaps between internal and external partners. A substantial number of resources focus on building relationships with partners so they can trust the LC-PBRN has their best interests in mind. These relationships are important to ensure the VA avoids duplicate efforts. This includes prioritizing connecting partners who are working on similar efforts to promote collaboration across facilities.

Clinical practice implications. The LC-PBRN is working towards clinical practice initiatives derived from this process in partnership with the Long COVID Community of Practice and the participating clinical sites. This may include efforts to increase the uptake of standardized instruments endorsed by clinical partners that facilitate assessment of outcomes. PBRN partners can then use outcomes data to ask and answer clinically relevant research questions and assess care quality to inform the learning process that is integral to an LHS. Future dissemination efforts will be centered around individual initiatives and deliverables from the LC-PBRN.

Conclusions

PBRNs provide an important mechanism to use LHS approaches to successfully convene research around complex issues. PBRNs can support integration across the LHS cycle, allowing for multiple feedback loops, and coordinate activities that work to achieve a larger vision. PBRNs offer centralized mechanisms to collaboratively understand and address complex problems, such as Long COVID, where the uncertainty regarding how to treat occurs in tandem with the urgency to treat. The LC-PBRN model described in this article has the potential to transcend Long COVID by building infrastructure necessary to proactively address current or future clinical conditions or populations with a LHS lens. The infrastructure can require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient- and family-centeredness. Future efforts will focus on building out a larger network of VHA sites, facilitating recruitment at site and veteran levels into Long COVID trials through case identification, and systematically support the standardization of clinical data for clinical utility and evaluation of quality and/or outcomes across the VHA.

Learning health systems (LHS) promote a continuous process that can assist in making sense of uncertainty when confronting emerging complex conditions such as Long COVID. Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that detrimentally impacts veterans, their families, and the communities in which they live. This complex condition is defined by ongoing, new, or returning symptoms following COVID-19 infection that negatively affect return to meaningful participation in social, recreational, and vocational activities.^1,2 The clinical uncertainty surrounding Long COVID is amplified by unclear etiology, prognosis, and expected course of symptoms.^3,4 Uncertainty surrounding best clinical practices, processes, and policies for Long COVID care has resulted in practice variation despite the emerging evidence base for Long COVID care.⁴ Failure to address gaps in clinical evidence and care implementation threatens to perpetuate fragmented and unnecessary care.

The context surrounding Long COVID created an urgency to rapidly address clinically relevant questions and make sense of any uncertainty. Thus, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) funded a Long COVID Practice-Based Research Network (LC-PBRN) to build an infrastructure that supports Long COVID research nationally and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration. The LC-PBRN vision is to centralize Long COVID clinical, research, and operational activities. The research infrastructure of the LC-PBRN is designed with an LHS lens to facilitate feedback loops and integrate knowledge learned while making progress towards this vision.⁵ This article describes the phases of infrastructure development and network building, as well as associated lessons learned.

Designing the LC-PBRN Infrastructure

The LC-PBRN is a multisite operation with interdisciplinary representatives from 4 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems. Each site has ≥ 1 principal investigator (0.1-0.4 full-time equivalent [FTE]) and ≥ 1 project staff member (0.5-0.8 FTE). The lead site also employs data and statistical support staff (1.5 FTE). To build this infrastructure, VHA Health Services Research awarded $1 million in November 2023 to the 4 sites. The funding was distributed over 2 years. Additional funding will be required for sustainability. The components and key infrastructure elements of the LC-PBRN are outlined in the Table. The 2-year LC-PBRN implementation activities is outlined in the Appendix.

Vision

The LC-PBRN’s vision is to create an infrastructure that integrates an LHS framework by unifying the VA research approach to Long COVID to ensure veteran, clinician, operational, and researcher involvement (Figure 1). A critical aspect of this is a unifying definition of Long COVID, for which the LC-PBRN has adopted the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) definition: “Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.”⁶ This is a working definition to be refined over time, as necessary, based on new data. The LC-PBRN aligns with existing VA initiatives by serving as a centralized hub for internal and external networking. This approach ensures shareholder needs are identified, resources are allocated appropriately, and redundancy in efforts is avoided. In this spirit, the LC-PBRN maintains a long-term vision of collaborating with other systems to support national efforts to address Long COVID.

Mission and Governance

The LC-PBRN operates with an executive leadership team and 5 cores. The executive leadership team is responsible for overall LC-PBRN operations, management, and direction setting of the LC-PBRN. The executive leadership team meets weekly to provide oversight of each core, which specializes in different aspects. The cores include: Administrative, Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment, Patient Identification and Analysis, Clinical Coordination and Implementation, and Dissemination (Figure 2).

The Administrative core focuses on interagency collaboration to identify and network with key operational and agency leaders to allow for ongoing exploration of funding strategies for Long COVID research. The Administrative core manages 3 teams: an advisory board, Long COVID council, and the strategic planning team. The advisory board meets biannually to oversee achievement of LC-PBRN goals, deliverables, and tactics for meeting these goals. The advisory board includes the LC-PBRN executive leadership team and 13 interagency members from various shareholders (eg, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and specialty departments within the VA).

The Long COVID council convenes quarterly to provide scientific input on important overarching issues in Long COVID research, practice, and policy. The council consists of 22 scientific representatives in VA and non-VA contexts, university affiliates, and veteran representatives. The strategic planning team convenes annually to identify how the LC-PBRN and its partners can meet the needs of the broader Long COVID ecosystem and conduct a strengths, opportunities, weaknesses, and threats analysis to identify strategic objectives and expected outcomes. The strategic planning team includes the executive leadership team and key Long COVID shareholders within VHA and affiliated partners. The Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core aims to solicit feedback from veterans, clinicians, researchers, and operational leadership. Input is gathered through a Veteran Engagement Panel and a modified Delphi consensus process. The panel was formed using a Community Engagement Studio model to engage veterans as consultants on research.⁷ Currently, 10 members represent a range of ages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and military experience. All veterans have a history of Long COVID and are paid as consultants. Video conference panel meetings occur quarterly for 1 to 2 hours; the meeting length is shorter than typical engagement studios to accommodate for fatigue-related symptoms that may limit attention and ability to participate in longer meetings. Before each panel, the Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core helps identify key questions and creates a structured agenda. Each panel begins with a presentation of a research study followed by a group discussion led by a trained facilitator. The modified Delphi consensus process focuses on identifying research priority areas for Long COVID within the VA. Veterans living with Long COVID, as well as clinicians and researchers who work closely with patients who have Long COVID, complete a series of progressive surveys to provide input on research priorities.

The Partner Engagement and Needs Assessment core also actively provides outreach to important partners in research, clinical care, and operational leadership to facilitate introductory meetings to (1) ask partners to describe their 5 largest pain points, (2) find pain points within the scope of LC-PBRN resources, and (3) discuss the strengths and capacity of the PBRN. During introductory meetings, communications preferences and a cadence for subsequent meetings are established. Subsequent engagement meetings aim to provide updates and codevelop solutions to emerging issues. This core maintains a living document to track engagement efforts, points of contact for identified and emerging partners, and ensure all communication is timely.

The Patient Identification and Analysis core develops a database of veterans with confirmed or suspected Long COVID. The goal is for researchers to use the database to identify potential participants for clinical trials and monitor clinical care outcomes. When possible, this core works with existing VA data to facilitate research that aligns with the LC-PBRN mission. The core can also use natural language processing and machine learning to work with researchers conducting clinical trials to help identify patients who may meet eligibility criteria.

The Clinical Coordination and Implementation core gathers information on the best practices for identifying and recruiting veterans for Long COVID research as well as compiles strategies for standardized clinical assessments that can both facilitate ongoing research and the successful implementation of evidence-based care. The Clinical Coordination and Implementation core provides support to pilot and multisite trials in 3 ways. First, it develops toolkits such as best practice strategies for recruiting participants for research, template examples of recruitment materials, and a library of patient-reported outcome measures, standardized clinical note titles and templates in use for Long COVID in the national electronic health record. Second, it partners with the Patient Identification and Analysis core to facilitate access to and use of algorithms that identify Long COVID cases based on electronic health records for recruitment. Finally, it compiles a detailed list of potential collaborating sites. The steps to facilitate patient identification and recruitment inform feasibility assessments and improve efficiency of launching pilot studies and multisite trials. The library of outcome measures, standardized clinical notes, and templates can aid and expedite data collection.

The Dissemination core focuses on developing a website, creating a dissemination plan, and actively disseminating products of the LC-PBRN and its partners. This core’s foundational framework is based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Quick-Start Guide to Dissemination for PBRNs.^8,9 The core built an internal- and external-facing website to connect users with LC-PBRN products, potential outreach contacts, and promote timely updates on LC-PBRN activities. A manual of operating procedures will be drafted to include the development of training for practitioners involved in research projects to learn the processes involved in presenting clinical results for education and training initiatives, presentations, and manuscript preparation. A toolkit will also be developed to support dissemination activities designed to reach a variety of end-users, such as education materials, policy briefings, educational briefs, newsletters, and presentations at local, regional, and national levels.

Key Partners

Key partners exist specific to the LC-PBRN and within the broader VA ecosystem, including VA clinical operations, VA research, and intra-agency collaborations.

LC-PBRN Specific. In addition to the LC-PBRN council, advisory board, and Veteran Engagement Panel discussed earlier, the LC-PBRN has 8 VA Long COVID clinical sites that have joined the network. As part of the network, these sites gain greater insight into the Long COVID ecosystem within the VA through priority access to the Long COVID Veteran Engagement Panel and recognition as members of the network. The LC-PBRN also meets monthly with pilot projects conducted at other VA facilities to learn more about how Long COVID research is being implemented and identify how the LC-PBRN can assist in troubleshooting barriers.

VA Clinical Operations. To support clinical operations, a Long COVID Field Advisory Board was formed through the VA Office of Specialty Care as an operational effort to develop clinical best practice. The LC-PBRN consults with this group on veteran engagement strategies for input on clinical guides and dissemination of practice guide materials. The LC-PBRN also partners with an existing Long COVID Community of Practice and the Office of Primary Care. The Community of Practice provides a learning space for VA staff interested in advancing Long COVID care and assists with disseminating LC-PBRN to the broader Long COVID clinical community. A member of the Office of Primary Care sits on the PBRN advisory board to provide input on engaging primary care practitioners and ensure their unique needs are considered in LC-PBRN initiatives.

VA Research & Interagency Collaborations. The LC-PBRN engages monthly with an interagency workgroup led by the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Long COVID Research and Practice. These engagements support identification of research gaps that the VA may help address, monitor emerging funding opportunities, and foster collaborations. LC-PBRN representatives also meet with staff at the National Institutes of Health Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery initiative to identify pathways for veteran recruitment.

LHS Feedback Loops

The LC-PBRN was designed with an LHS approach in mind.¹⁰ Throughout development of the LC-PBRN, consideration was given to (1) capture data on new efforts within the Long COVID ecosystem (performance to data), (2) examine performance gaps and identify approaches for best practice (data to knowledge), and (3) implement best practices, develop toolkits, disseminate findings, and measure impacts (knowledge to performance). With this approach, the LC-PBRN is constantly evolving based on new information coming from the internal and external Long COVID ecosystem. Each element was deliberatively considered in relation to how data can be transformed into knowledge, knowledge into performance, and performance into data.

First, an important mechanism for feedback involves establishing clear channels of communication. Regular check-ins with key partners occur through virtual meetings to provide updates, assess needs and challenges, and codevelop action plans. For example, during a check-in with the Long COVID Field Advisory Board, members expressed a desire to incorporate veteran feedback into VA clinical practice recommendations. We provided expertise on different engagement modalities (eg, focus groups vs individual interviews), and collaboration occurred to identify key interview questions for veterans. This process resulted in a published clinician-facing Long COVID Nervous System Clinical Guide (available at [email protected]) that integrated critical feedback from veterans related to neurological symptoms.

Second, weekly executive leadership meetings include dedicated time for reflection on partner feedback, the current state of Long COVID, and contextual changes that impact deliverable priorities and timelines. Outcomes from these discussions are communicated with VHA Health Services Research and, when appropriate, to key partners to ensure alignment. For example, the Patient Identification and Analysis core was originally tasked with identifying a definition of Long COVID. However, as the broader community moved away from a singular definition, efforts were redirected toward higher-priority issues within the VA Long COVID ecosystem, including veteran enrollment in clinical trials.

Third, the Veteran Engagement Panel captures feedback from those with lived experience to inform Long COVID research and clinical efforts. The panel meetings are strategically designed to ask veterans living with Long COVID specific questions related to a given research or clinical topic of interest. For example, panel sessions with the Field Advisory Board focused on concerns articulated by veterans related to the mental health and gastroenterological symptoms associated with Long COVID. Insights from these discussions will inform development of Long COVID mental health and gastroenterological clinical care guides, with several PBRN investigators serving as subject matter experts. This collaborative approach ensures that veteran perspectives are represented in developing Long COVID clinical care processes.

Fourth, research priorities identified through the Delphi consensus process will inform development of VA Request for Funding Proposals related to Long COVID. The initial survey was developed in collaboration with veterans, clinicians, and researchers across the Veteran Engagement Panel, the Field Advisory Board, and the National Research Action Plan on Long COVID.¹¹ The process was launched in October 2024 and concluded in June 2025. The team conducted 3 consensus rounds with veterans and VA clinicians and researchers. Top priority areas included the testing assessments for diagnosing Long COVID, studying subtypes of Long COVID and treatments for each, and finding biomarkers for Long COVID. A formal publication of the results and analysis is the focus of a future publication.

Fifth, ongoing engagement with the Field Advisory Board has supported adoption of a preliminary set of clinical outcome measures. If universally adopted, these instruments may contribute to the development of a standardized data collection process and serve as common data elements collected for epidemiologic, health services, or clinical trial research.

Lessons Learned and Practice Implications

Throughout the development of the LC-PBRN, several decisions were identified that have impacted infrastructure development and implementation.

Include veterans’ voices to ensure network efforts align with patient needs. Given the novelty of Long COVID, practitioners and researchers are learning as they go. It is important to listen to individuals who live with Long COVID. Throughout the development of the LC-PBRN, veteran perspective has proven how vital it is for them to be heard when it comes to their health care. Clinicians similarly highlighted the value of incorporating patient perspectives into the development of tools and treatment strategies. Develop an interdisciplinary leadership team to foster the diverse viewpoints needed to tackle multifaceted problems. It is important to consider as many clinical and research perspectives as possible because Long COVID is a complex condition with symptoms impacting major organ systems.^12-15 Therefore, the team spans across a multitude of specialties and locations.

Set clear expectations and goals with partners to uphold timely deliverables and stay within the PBRN’s capacity. When including a multitude of partners, teams should consider each of those partners’ experiences and opinions in decision-making conversations. Expectation setting is important to ensure all partners are on the same page and understand the capacity of the LC-PBRN. This allows the team to focus its efforts, avoid being overwhelmed with requests, and provide quality deliverables.

Build engaging relationships to bridge gaps between internal and external partners. A substantial number of resources focus on building relationships with partners so they can trust the LC-PBRN has their best interests in mind. These relationships are important to ensure the VA avoids duplicate efforts. This includes prioritizing connecting partners who are working on similar efforts to promote collaboration across facilities.

Clinical practice implications. The LC-PBRN is working towards clinical practice initiatives derived from this process in partnership with the Long COVID Community of Practice and the participating clinical sites. This may include efforts to increase the uptake of standardized instruments endorsed by clinical partners that facilitate assessment of outcomes. PBRN partners can then use outcomes data to ask and answer clinically relevant research questions and assess care quality to inform the learning process that is integral to an LHS. Future dissemination efforts will be centered around individual initiatives and deliverables from the LC-PBRN.

Conclusions

PBRNs provide an important mechanism to use LHS approaches to successfully convene research around complex issues. PBRNs can support integration across the LHS cycle, allowing for multiple feedback loops, and coordinate activities that work to achieve a larger vision. PBRNs offer centralized mechanisms to collaboratively understand and address complex problems, such as Long COVID, where the uncertainty regarding how to treat occurs in tandem with the urgency to treat. The LC-PBRN model described in this article has the potential to transcend Long COVID by building infrastructure necessary to proactively address current or future clinical conditions or populations with a LHS lens. The infrastructure can require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient- and family-centeredness. Future efforts will focus on building out a larger network of VHA sites, facilitating recruitment at site and veteran levels into Long COVID trials through case identification, and systematically support the standardization of clinical data for clinical utility and evaluation of quality and/or outcomes across the VHA.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Nail Lichen Planus

The biopsy results showed features of hypergranulosis of the matricial epithelium, irregular acanthosis, apoptotic keratinocytes along the basal layer, and a lichenoid infiltrate consistent with nail lichen planus. The patient was started on topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% applied once daily under overnight occlusion. Additionally, intramatricial triamcinolone acetonide (2.5 mg/mL; 0.1 mL per injection) was administered into the affected nail matrix at 4-week intervals for a total of 2 sessions. At the 2-month follow-up visit, the patient reported improvement in longitudinal ridging; however, he subsequently was lost to follow-up.

Nail lichen planus is a chronic inflammatory disorder that occurs in 10% to 15% of patients with lichen planus worldwide and is more common in adults than children.¹ It can manifest independently or concurrently with cutaneous and/or oral mucosal involvement. The fingernails are more commonly affected than the toenails.² The clinical features of nail lichen planus can be classified based on involvement of the nail matrix (longitudinal ridging, red lunula, thinning of the nail plate, koilonychia, trachyonychia, pterygium, and anonychia) or nail bed (onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages).¹

In our patient, who presented with chronic progressive nail dystrophy affecting all 20 nails, onychomycosis, nail psoriasis, onychotillomania, and idiopathic trachyonychia were included in the differential.¹

Onychomycosis manifests as white or yellow-brown discoloration of the nail, onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, and thickening of the nail plate. Diagnosis is confirmed by the presence of septate hyphae (dermatophytes) or budding yeast cells (Candida species) on a potassium hydroxide mount. Other diagnostic modalities include dermoscopy, fungal culture, and histopathology of nail clippings, with demonstration of fungal elements identified on periodic acid-Schiff staining (eFigure 1).³

Nail psoriasis characteristically manifests as deep irregular pitting of the nails. Other features favoring psoriasis include involvement of the nail matrix manifesting as leukonychia, red lunula, and crumbling, as well as involvement of the nail bed manifesting as onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, salmon patches/oil spots, and splinter hemorrhages (eFigure 2).⁴ Diagnosis primarily is clinical, supported by histopathology when uncertainty exists.

Onychotillomania is a behavioral disorder characterized by an irresistible urge or impulse in patients to either pick or pull at their fingernails and/or toenails. Clinicopathologic features of the involved nails are nonspecific and atypical, with possible involvement of periungual and digital skin. Diagnosis of onychotillomania is challenging.⁵ Dermoscopic features including anonychia with multiple obliquely arranged nail bed hemorrhages, gray pigmentation of the nail bed, and wavy lines, has been proposed to aid the diagnosis of onychotillomania.⁶

Idiopathic trachyonychia is isolated nail involvement characterized by rough, ridged, and thin nails affecting multiple or all of the fingernails and toenails without an underlying systemic or dermatologic condition (eFigure 3). The terms trachyonychia and 20-nail dystrophy have been used interchangeably in the literature; however, trachyonychia does not always involve all 20 nails. Other conditions causing widespread dystrophy of all 20 nails cannot be diagnosed as 20-nail dystrophy or trachyonychia without the distinct morphologic features of thin brittle nails with pronounced longitudinal ridging.⁷

Prompt diagnosis and early intervention in nail lichen planus is crucial due to the potential for irreversible scarring. First-line treatment options include intramatricial and intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide for 3 to 6 months.⁴ Second-line therapies include oral retinoids such as acitretin and alitretinoin and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclosporine. Other reported treatment options include clobetasol propionate, tacrolimus, dapsone, griseofulvin, etanercept, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and UV therapy.⁴

THE DIAGNOSIS: Nail Lichen Planus

The biopsy results showed features of hypergranulosis of the matricial epithelium, irregular acanthosis, apoptotic keratinocytes along the basal layer, and a lichenoid infiltrate consistent with nail lichen planus. The patient was started on topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% applied once daily under overnight occlusion. Additionally, intramatricial triamcinolone acetonide (2.5 mg/mL; 0.1 mL per injection) was administered into the affected nail matrix at 4-week intervals for a total of 2 sessions. At the 2-month follow-up visit, the patient reported improvement in longitudinal ridging; however, he subsequently was lost to follow-up.

Nail lichen planus is a chronic inflammatory disorder that occurs in 10% to 15% of patients with lichen planus worldwide and is more common in adults than children.¹ It can manifest independently or concurrently with cutaneous and/or oral mucosal involvement. The fingernails are more commonly affected than the toenails.² The clinical features of nail lichen planus can be classified based on involvement of the nail matrix (longitudinal ridging, red lunula, thinning of the nail plate, koilonychia, trachyonychia, pterygium, and anonychia) or nail bed (onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages).¹

In our patient, who presented with chronic progressive nail dystrophy affecting all 20 nails, onychomycosis, nail psoriasis, onychotillomania, and idiopathic trachyonychia were included in the differential.¹

Onychomycosis manifests as white or yellow-brown discoloration of the nail, onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, and thickening of the nail plate. Diagnosis is confirmed by the presence of septate hyphae (dermatophytes) or budding yeast cells (Candida species) on a potassium hydroxide mount. Other diagnostic modalities include dermoscopy, fungal culture, and histopathology of nail clippings, with demonstration of fungal elements identified on periodic acid-Schiff staining (eFigure 1).³

Nail psoriasis characteristically manifests as deep irregular pitting of the nails. Other features favoring psoriasis include involvement of the nail matrix manifesting as leukonychia, red lunula, and crumbling, as well as involvement of the nail bed manifesting as onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, salmon patches/oil spots, and splinter hemorrhages (eFigure 2).⁴ Diagnosis primarily is clinical, supported by histopathology when uncertainty exists.

Onychotillomania is a behavioral disorder characterized by an irresistible urge or impulse in patients to either pick or pull at their fingernails and/or toenails. Clinicopathologic features of the involved nails are nonspecific and atypical, with possible involvement of periungual and digital skin. Diagnosis of onychotillomania is challenging.⁵ Dermoscopic features including anonychia with multiple obliquely arranged nail bed hemorrhages, gray pigmentation of the nail bed, and wavy lines, has been proposed to aid the diagnosis of onychotillomania.⁶

Idiopathic trachyonychia is isolated nail involvement characterized by rough, ridged, and thin nails affecting multiple or all of the fingernails and toenails without an underlying systemic or dermatologic condition (eFigure 3). The terms trachyonychia and 20-nail dystrophy have been used interchangeably in the literature; however, trachyonychia does not always involve all 20 nails. Other conditions causing widespread dystrophy of all 20 nails cannot be diagnosed as 20-nail dystrophy or trachyonychia without the distinct morphologic features of thin brittle nails with pronounced longitudinal ridging.⁷

Prompt diagnosis and early intervention in nail lichen planus is crucial due to the potential for irreversible scarring. First-line treatment options include intramatricial and intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide for 3 to 6 months.⁴ Second-line therapies include oral retinoids such as acitretin and alitretinoin and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclosporine. Other reported treatment options include clobetasol propionate, tacrolimus, dapsone, griseofulvin, etanercept, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and UV therapy.⁴

THE DIAGNOSIS: Nail Lichen Planus

The biopsy results showed features of hypergranulosis of the matricial epithelium, irregular acanthosis, apoptotic keratinocytes along the basal layer, and a lichenoid infiltrate consistent with nail lichen planus. The patient was started on topical clobetasol propionate 0.05% applied once daily under overnight occlusion. Additionally, intramatricial triamcinolone acetonide (2.5 mg/mL; 0.1 mL per injection) was administered into the affected nail matrix at 4-week intervals for a total of 2 sessions. At the 2-month follow-up visit, the patient reported improvement in longitudinal ridging; however, he subsequently was lost to follow-up.

Nail lichen planus is a chronic inflammatory disorder that occurs in 10% to 15% of patients with lichen planus worldwide and is more common in adults than children.¹ It can manifest independently or concurrently with cutaneous and/or oral mucosal involvement. The fingernails are more commonly affected than the toenails.² The clinical features of nail lichen planus can be classified based on involvement of the nail matrix (longitudinal ridging, red lunula, thinning of the nail plate, koilonychia, trachyonychia, pterygium, and anonychia) or nail bed (onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, and splinter hemorrhages).¹

In our patient, who presented with chronic progressive nail dystrophy affecting all 20 nails, onychomycosis, nail psoriasis, onychotillomania, and idiopathic trachyonychia were included in the differential.¹

Onychomycosis manifests as white or yellow-brown discoloration of the nail, onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, and thickening of the nail plate. Diagnosis is confirmed by the presence of septate hyphae (dermatophytes) or budding yeast cells (Candida species) on a potassium hydroxide mount. Other diagnostic modalities include dermoscopy, fungal culture, and histopathology of nail clippings, with demonstration of fungal elements identified on periodic acid-Schiff staining (eFigure 1).³

Nail psoriasis characteristically manifests as deep irregular pitting of the nails. Other features favoring psoriasis include involvement of the nail matrix manifesting as leukonychia, red lunula, and crumbling, as well as involvement of the nail bed manifesting as onycholysis, subungual hyperkeratosis, salmon patches/oil spots, and splinter hemorrhages (eFigure 2).⁴ Diagnosis primarily is clinical, supported by histopathology when uncertainty exists.

Onychotillomania is a behavioral disorder characterized by an irresistible urge or impulse in patients to either pick or pull at their fingernails and/or toenails. Clinicopathologic features of the involved nails are nonspecific and atypical, with possible involvement of periungual and digital skin. Diagnosis of onychotillomania is challenging.⁵ Dermoscopic features including anonychia with multiple obliquely arranged nail bed hemorrhages, gray pigmentation of the nail bed, and wavy lines, has been proposed to aid the diagnosis of onychotillomania.⁶

Idiopathic trachyonychia is isolated nail involvement characterized by rough, ridged, and thin nails affecting multiple or all of the fingernails and toenails without an underlying systemic or dermatologic condition (eFigure 3). The terms trachyonychia and 20-nail dystrophy have been used interchangeably in the literature; however, trachyonychia does not always involve all 20 nails. Other conditions causing widespread dystrophy of all 20 nails cannot be diagnosed as 20-nail dystrophy or trachyonychia without the distinct morphologic features of thin brittle nails with pronounced longitudinal ridging.⁷

Prompt diagnosis and early intervention in nail lichen planus is crucial due to the potential for irreversible scarring. First-line treatment options include intramatricial and intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide for 3 to 6 months.⁴ Second-line therapies include oral retinoids such as acitretin and alitretinoin and immunosuppressive agents such as azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclosporine. Other reported treatment options include clobetasol propionate, tacrolimus, dapsone, griseofulvin, etanercept, hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and UV therapy.⁴

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.