Health Policy

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will conduct a scientific assessment to find out in whether kidney cancer should be considered a presumptive service-connected condition for veterans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs). This assessment is the first step in the VA presumptive condition investigative process, which could allow exposed veterans who were exposed to PFAs during their service to access more VA services.

A class of more than 12,000 chemicals, PFAs have been used in the military since the early 1970s in many items, including military-grade firefighting foam. Studies have already suggested links between the so-called forever chemicals and cancer, particularly kidney cancer.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is assessing contamination at hundreds of sites, while the National Defense Authorization Act in Fiscal Year 2020 mandated that DoD stop using those foams starting in October and remove all stocks from active and former installations and equipment. That may not happen until next year, though, because the DoD has requested a waiver through October 2025 and may extend it through 2026.

When a condition is considered presumptive, eligible veterans do not need to prove their service caused their disease to receive benefits. As part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to expand benefits and services for toxin-exposed veterans and their families, the VA expedited health care and benefits eligibility under the PACT Act by several years—including extending presumptions for head cancer, neck cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, reproductive cancer, lymphoma, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and hypertension for Vietnam era veterans. The VA has also extended presumptions for > 300 new conditions, most recently for male breast cancer, urethral cancer, and cancer of the paraurethral glands.

Whether a condition is an established presumptive condition or not, the VA will consider claims on a case-by-case basis and can grant disability compensation benefits if sufficient evidence of service connection is found. “[M]ake no mistake: Veterans should not wait for the outcome of this review to apply for the benefits and care they deserve,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a release.  “If you’re a veteran and believe your military service has negatively impacted your health, we encourage you to apply for VA care and benefits today.”

The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed scientific assessment between PFAs exposure and kidney cancer via the Federal Register. The VA is set to host a listening session on Nov. 19, 2024, to allow individuals to share research and input. Interested individuals may register to participate. The public may also comment via either forum on other conditions that would benefit from review for potential service-connection.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat and burden to health care, with > 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occurring annually in the United States.¹ To combat this issue and improve patient care, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has implemented antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) across its health care systems. ASPs are multidisciplinary teams that promote evidence-based use of antimicrobials through activities supporting appropriate selection, dosing, route, and duration of antimicrobial therapy. ASP best practices are also included in the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accreditation standards.²

The foundational charge for VA facilities to develop and maintain ASPs was outlined in 2014 and updated in 2023 in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1031 on antimicrobial stewardship programs.2 This directive outlines specific requirements for all VA ASPs, including personnel, staffing levels, and the roles and responsibilities of all team members. VHA now requires that Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs) establish robust ASP collaboratives. A VISN ASP collaborative consists of stewardship champions from each VA medical center in the VISN and is designed to support, develop, and enhance ASP programs across all facilities within that VISN.² Some VISNs may lack an ASP collaborative altogether, and others with existing groups may seek ways to expand their collaboratives in line with the updated directive. Prior to VHA Directive 1031, the VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (VISN 8) established an ASP collaborative. This article describes the structure and activities of the VISN 8 ASP collaborative and highlights a recent VISN 8 quality assurance initiative related to vancomycin area under the curve (AUC) dosing that illustrates how ASP collaboratives can enhance stewardship and clinical care across broad geographic areas.

VISN 8 ASP

The VHA, the largest integrated US health care system, is divided into 18 VISNs that provide regional systems of care to enhance access and meet the local health care needs of veterans.³ VISN 8 serves > 1.5 million veterans across 165,759 km² in Florida, South Georgia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.⁴ The network is composed of 7 health systems with 8 medical centers and > 60 outpatient clinics. These facilities provide comprehensive acute, primary, and specialty care, as well as mental health and extended care services in inpatient, outpatient, nursing home, and home care settings.⁴

The 2023 VHA Directive 1031 update recognizes the importance of VISN-level coordination of ASP activities to enhance the standardization of care and build partnerships in stewardship across all levels of care. The VISN 8 ASP collaborative workgroup (ASPWG) was established in 2015. Consistent with Directive 1031, the ASPWG is guided by clinician and pharmacist VISN leads. These leads serve as subject matter experts, facilitate access to resources, establish VISN-level consensus, and enhance communication among local ASP champions at medical centers within the VISN. All 7 health systems include = 1 ASP champion (clinician or pharmacist) in the ASPWG. Ad hoc members, whose routine duties are not solely focused on antimicrobial stewardship, contribute to specific stewardship projects as needed. For example, the ASPWG has included internal medicine, emergency department, community living center pharmacists, representatives from pharmacy administration, and trainees (pharmacy students and residents, and infectious diseases fellows) in antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. The inclusion of non-ASP champions is not discussed in VHA Directive 1031. However, these members have made valuable contributions to the ASPWG.

The ASPWG meets monthly. Agendas and priorities are developed by the VISN pharmacist and health care practitioner (HCP) leads. Monthly discussions may include but are not limited to a review of national formulary decisions, VISN goals and metrics, infectious diseases hot topics, pharmacoeconomic initiatives, strong practice presentations, regulatory and accreditation preparation, preparation of tracking reports, as well as the development of both patient-level and HCPlevel tools, resources, and education materials. This forum facilitates collaborative learning: members process and synthesize information, share and reframe ideas, and listen to other viewpoints to gain a complete understanding as a group.⁵ For example, ASPWG members have leaned on each other to prepare for Joint Commission accreditation surveys and strengthen the VISN 8 COVID-19 program through the rollout of vaccines and treatments. Other collaborative projects completed over the past few years included a penicillin allergy testing initiative and anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and pseudomonal medication use evaluations. This team-centric problem-solving approach is highly effective while also fostering professional and social relationships. However, collaboratives could be perceived to have drawbacks. There may be opportunity costs if ASP time is allocated for issues that have already been addressed locally or concerns that standardization might hinder rapid adoption of practices at individual sites. Therefore, participation in each distinct group initiative is optional. This allows sites to choose projects related to their high priority areas and maintain bandwidth to implement practices not yet adopted by the larger group.

The ASPWG tracks metrics related to antimicrobial use with quarterly data presented by the VISN pharmacist lead. Both inpatient and outpatient metrics are evaluated, such as days of therapy per 1000 days and outpatient antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 unique patients. Facilities are benchmarked against their own historical data and other VISN sites, as well as other VISNs across the country. When outliers are identified, facilities are encouraged to conduct local projects to identify reasons for different antimicrobial use patterns and subsequent initiatives to optimize antimicrobial use. Benchmarking against VISN facilities can be useful since VISN facilities may be more similar than facilities in different geographic regions. Each year, the ASPWG reviews the current metrics, makes adjustments to address VISN priorities, and votes for approval of the metrics that will be tracked in the coming year.

Participation in an ASP collaborative streamlines the rollout of ASP and quality improvement initiatives across multiple sites, allowing ASPs to impact a greater number of veterans and evaluate initiatives on a larger scale. In 2019, with the anticipation of revised vancomycin dosing and monitoring guidelines, our ASPWG began to strategize the transition to AUC-based vancomycin monitoring.⁶ This multisite initiative showcases the strengths of implementing and evaluating practice changes as part of an ASP collaborative.

Vancomycin Dosing

The antibiotic vancomycin is used primarily for the treatment of MRSA infections.⁶ The 2020 consensus guidelines for vancomycin therapeutic monitoring recommend using the AUC to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio as the pharmacodynamic target for serious MRSA infections, with an AUC/MIC goal of 400 to 600 mcg*h/mL.⁶ Prior guidelines recommended using vancomycin trough concentrations of 15 to 20 mcg/mL as a surrogate for this AUC target. However, subsequent studies have shown that trough-based dosing is associated with higher vancomycin exposures, supratherapeutic AUCs, and increased risk of vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury (AKI).^7,8 Therefore, more direct AUC estimation is now recommended.⁶ The preferred approach for AUC calculations is through Bayesian modeling. Due to limited resources and software availability, many facilities use an alternative method involving 2 postdistributive serum vancomycin concentrations and first-order pharmacokinetic equations. This approach can optimize vancomycin dosing but is more mathematically and logistically challenging. Transitioning from troughto AUC-based vancomycin monitoring requires careful planning and comprehensive staff education.

In 2019, the VISN 8 ASPWG created a comprehensive vancomycin AUC toolkit to facilitate implementation. Components included a pharmacokinetic management policy and procedure, a vancomycin dosing guide, a progress note template, educational materials specific to pharmacy, nursing, laboratory, and medical services, a pharmacist competency examination, and a vancomycin AUC calculator (eAppendix). Each component was developed by a subgroup with the understanding that sites could incorporate variations based on local practices and needs.

The vancomycin AUC calculator was developed to be user-friendly and included safety validation protocols to prevent the entry of erroneous data (eg, unrealistic patient weight or laboratory values). The calculator allowed users to copy data into the electronic health record to avoid manual transcription errors and improve operational efficiency. It offered suggested volume of distribution estimates and 2 methods to estimate elimination constant (Ke ) depending on the patient’s weight.^9,10 Creatinine clearance could be estimated using serum creatinine or cystatin C and considered amputation history. The default AUC goal in the calculator was 400 to 550 mcg*h/mL. This range was chosen based on consensus guidelines, data suggesting increased risk of AKI with AUCs > 515 mcg*h/mL, and the preference for conservative empiric dosing in the generally older VA population.¹¹ The calculator suggested loading doses of about 25 mg/kg with a 2500 mg limit. VHA facilities could make limited modifications to the calculator based on local policies and procedures (eg, adjusting default infusion times or a dosing intervals).

The VISN 8 Pharmacy Pharmacokinetic Dosing Manual was developed as a comprehensive document to guide pharmacy staff with dosing vancomycin across diverse patient populations. This document included recommendations for renal function assessment, patient-specific considerations when choosing an empiric vancomycin dose, methods of ordering vancomycin peak, trough, and surveillance levels, dose determination based on 2 levels, and other clinical insights or frequently asked questions.

ASPWG members presented an accredited continuing education webinar for pharmacists, which reviewed the rationale for AUC-targeted dosing, changes to the current pharmacokinetic dosing program, case-based scenarios across various patient populations, and potential challenges associated with vancomycin AUC-based dosing. A recording of the live training was also made available. A vancomycin AUC dosing competency test was developed with 11 basic pharmacokinetic and case-based questions and comprehensive explanations provided for each answer.

VHA facilities implemented AUC dosing in a staggered manner, allowing for lessons learned at earlier adopters to be addressed proactively at later sites. The dosing calculator and education documents were updated iteratively as opportunities for improvement were discovered. ASPWG members held local office hours to address questions or concerns from staff at their facilities. Sharing standardized materials across the VISN reduced individual site workload and complications in rolling out this complex new process.

VISN-WIDE QUALITY ASSURANCE

At the time of project conception, 4 of 7 VISN 8 health systems had transitioned to AUC-based dosing. A quality assurance protocol to compare patient outcomes before and after changing to AUC dosing was developed. Each site followed local protocols for project approval and data were deidentified, collected, and aggregated for analysis.

The primary objectives were to compare the incidence of AKI and persistent bacteremia and assess rates of AUC target attainment (400-600 mcg*h/mL) in the AUC-based and trough-based dosing groups.⁶ Data for both groups included anthropomorphic measurements, serum creatinine, amputation status, vancomycin dosing, and infection characteristics. The X² test was used for categorical data and the t test was used for continuous data. A 2-tailed α of 0.05 was used to determine significance. Each site sequentially reviewed all patients receiving ≥ 48 hours of intravenous vancomycin over a 3-month period and contributed up to 50 patients for each group. Due to staggered implementation, the study periods for sites spanned 2018 to 2023. A minimum 6-month washout period was observed between the trough and AUC groups at each site. Patients were excluded if pregnant, receiving renal replacement therapy, or presenting with AKI at the time of vancomycin initiation.

There were 168 patients in the AUC group and 172 patients in the trough group (Table 1). The rate of AUC target attainment with the initial dosing regimen varied across sites from 18% to 69% (mean, 48%). Total daily vancomycin exposure was lower in the AUC group compared with the trough group (2402 mg vs 2605 mg, respectively), with AUC-dosed patients being less likely to experience troughs level ≥ 15 or 20 mcg/mL (Table 2). There was a statistically significant lower rate of AKI in the AUC group: 2.4% in the AUC group (range, 2%-3%) vs 10.4% (range 7%-12%) in the trough group (P = .002). Rates of AKI were comparable to those observed in previous interventions.⁶ There was no statistical difference in length of stay, time to blood culture clearance, or rate of persistent bacteremia in the 2 groups, but these assessments were limited by sample size.

We did not anticipate such variability in initial target attainment across sites. The multisite quality assurance design allowed for qualitative evaluation of variability in dosing practices, which likely arose from sites and individual pharmacists having some flexibility in adjusting dosing tool parameters. Further analysis revealed that the facility with low initial target attainment was not routinely utilizing vancomycin loading doses. Sites routinely use robust loading doses achieved earlier and more consistent target attainment. Some sites used a narrower AUC target range in certain clinical scenarios (eg, > 500 mcg*h/mL for septic patients and < 500 mcg*h/mL for patients with less severe infections) rather than the 400 to 550 mcg*h/mL range for all patients. Sites targeting broader AUC ranges for all patients had higher rates of target attainment. Reviewing differences among sites allowed the ASPWG to identify best practices to optimize future care.

CONCLUSIONS

VHA ASPs must meet the standards outlined in VHA Directive 1031, including the new requirement for each VISN to develop an ASP collaborative. The VISN 8 ASPWG demonstrates how ASP champions can collaborate to solve common issues, complete tasks, explore new infectious diseases concepts, and impact large veteran populations. Furthermore, ASP collaboratives can harness their collective size to complete robust quality assurance evaluations that might otherwise be underpowered if completed at a single center. A limitation of the collaborative model is that a site with a robust ASP may already have specific practices in place. Expanding the ASP collaborative model further highlights the VHA role as a nationwide leader in ASP best practices.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat and burden to health care, with > 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occurring annually in the United States.¹ To combat this issue and improve patient care, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has implemented antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) across its health care systems. ASPs are multidisciplinary teams that promote evidence-based use of antimicrobials through activities supporting appropriate selection, dosing, route, and duration of antimicrobial therapy. ASP best practices are also included in the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accreditation standards.²

The foundational charge for VA facilities to develop and maintain ASPs was outlined in 2014 and updated in 2023 in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1031 on antimicrobial stewardship programs.2 This directive outlines specific requirements for all VA ASPs, including personnel, staffing levels, and the roles and responsibilities of all team members. VHA now requires that Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs) establish robust ASP collaboratives. A VISN ASP collaborative consists of stewardship champions from each VA medical center in the VISN and is designed to support, develop, and enhance ASP programs across all facilities within that VISN.² Some VISNs may lack an ASP collaborative altogether, and others with existing groups may seek ways to expand their collaboratives in line with the updated directive. Prior to VHA Directive 1031, the VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (VISN 8) established an ASP collaborative. This article describes the structure and activities of the VISN 8 ASP collaborative and highlights a recent VISN 8 quality assurance initiative related to vancomycin area under the curve (AUC) dosing that illustrates how ASP collaboratives can enhance stewardship and clinical care across broad geographic areas.

VISN 8 ASP

The VHA, the largest integrated US health care system, is divided into 18 VISNs that provide regional systems of care to enhance access and meet the local health care needs of veterans.³ VISN 8 serves > 1.5 million veterans across 165,759 km² in Florida, South Georgia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.⁴ The network is composed of 7 health systems with 8 medical centers and > 60 outpatient clinics. These facilities provide comprehensive acute, primary, and specialty care, as well as mental health and extended care services in inpatient, outpatient, nursing home, and home care settings.⁴

The 2023 VHA Directive 1031 update recognizes the importance of VISN-level coordination of ASP activities to enhance the standardization of care and build partnerships in stewardship across all levels of care. The VISN 8 ASP collaborative workgroup (ASPWG) was established in 2015. Consistent with Directive 1031, the ASPWG is guided by clinician and pharmacist VISN leads. These leads serve as subject matter experts, facilitate access to resources, establish VISN-level consensus, and enhance communication among local ASP champions at medical centers within the VISN. All 7 health systems include = 1 ASP champion (clinician or pharmacist) in the ASPWG. Ad hoc members, whose routine duties are not solely focused on antimicrobial stewardship, contribute to specific stewardship projects as needed. For example, the ASPWG has included internal medicine, emergency department, community living center pharmacists, representatives from pharmacy administration, and trainees (pharmacy students and residents, and infectious diseases fellows) in antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. The inclusion of non-ASP champions is not discussed in VHA Directive 1031. However, these members have made valuable contributions to the ASPWG.

The ASPWG meets monthly. Agendas and priorities are developed by the VISN pharmacist and health care practitioner (HCP) leads. Monthly discussions may include but are not limited to a review of national formulary decisions, VISN goals and metrics, infectious diseases hot topics, pharmacoeconomic initiatives, strong practice presentations, regulatory and accreditation preparation, preparation of tracking reports, as well as the development of both patient-level and HCPlevel tools, resources, and education materials. This forum facilitates collaborative learning: members process and synthesize information, share and reframe ideas, and listen to other viewpoints to gain a complete understanding as a group.⁵ For example, ASPWG members have leaned on each other to prepare for Joint Commission accreditation surveys and strengthen the VISN 8 COVID-19 program through the rollout of vaccines and treatments. Other collaborative projects completed over the past few years included a penicillin allergy testing initiative and anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and pseudomonal medication use evaluations. This team-centric problem-solving approach is highly effective while also fostering professional and social relationships. However, collaboratives could be perceived to have drawbacks. There may be opportunity costs if ASP time is allocated for issues that have already been addressed locally or concerns that standardization might hinder rapid adoption of practices at individual sites. Therefore, participation in each distinct group initiative is optional. This allows sites to choose projects related to their high priority areas and maintain bandwidth to implement practices not yet adopted by the larger group.

The ASPWG tracks metrics related to antimicrobial use with quarterly data presented by the VISN pharmacist lead. Both inpatient and outpatient metrics are evaluated, such as days of therapy per 1000 days and outpatient antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 unique patients. Facilities are benchmarked against their own historical data and other VISN sites, as well as other VISNs across the country. When outliers are identified, facilities are encouraged to conduct local projects to identify reasons for different antimicrobial use patterns and subsequent initiatives to optimize antimicrobial use. Benchmarking against VISN facilities can be useful since VISN facilities may be more similar than facilities in different geographic regions. Each year, the ASPWG reviews the current metrics, makes adjustments to address VISN priorities, and votes for approval of the metrics that will be tracked in the coming year.

Participation in an ASP collaborative streamlines the rollout of ASP and quality improvement initiatives across multiple sites, allowing ASPs to impact a greater number of veterans and evaluate initiatives on a larger scale. In 2019, with the anticipation of revised vancomycin dosing and monitoring guidelines, our ASPWG began to strategize the transition to AUC-based vancomycin monitoring.⁶ This multisite initiative showcases the strengths of implementing and evaluating practice changes as part of an ASP collaborative.

Vancomycin Dosing

The antibiotic vancomycin is used primarily for the treatment of MRSA infections.⁶ The 2020 consensus guidelines for vancomycin therapeutic monitoring recommend using the AUC to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio as the pharmacodynamic target for serious MRSA infections, with an AUC/MIC goal of 400 to 600 mcg*h/mL.⁶ Prior guidelines recommended using vancomycin trough concentrations of 15 to 20 mcg/mL as a surrogate for this AUC target. However, subsequent studies have shown that trough-based dosing is associated with higher vancomycin exposures, supratherapeutic AUCs, and increased risk of vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury (AKI).^7,8 Therefore, more direct AUC estimation is now recommended.⁶ The preferred approach for AUC calculations is through Bayesian modeling. Due to limited resources and software availability, many facilities use an alternative method involving 2 postdistributive serum vancomycin concentrations and first-order pharmacokinetic equations. This approach can optimize vancomycin dosing but is more mathematically and logistically challenging. Transitioning from troughto AUC-based vancomycin monitoring requires careful planning and comprehensive staff education.

In 2019, the VISN 8 ASPWG created a comprehensive vancomycin AUC toolkit to facilitate implementation. Components included a pharmacokinetic management policy and procedure, a vancomycin dosing guide, a progress note template, educational materials specific to pharmacy, nursing, laboratory, and medical services, a pharmacist competency examination, and a vancomycin AUC calculator (eAppendix). Each component was developed by a subgroup with the understanding that sites could incorporate variations based on local practices and needs.

The vancomycin AUC calculator was developed to be user-friendly and included safety validation protocols to prevent the entry of erroneous data (eg, unrealistic patient weight or laboratory values). The calculator allowed users to copy data into the electronic health record to avoid manual transcription errors and improve operational efficiency. It offered suggested volume of distribution estimates and 2 methods to estimate elimination constant (Ke ) depending on the patient’s weight.^9,10 Creatinine clearance could be estimated using serum creatinine or cystatin C and considered amputation history. The default AUC goal in the calculator was 400 to 550 mcg*h/mL. This range was chosen based on consensus guidelines, data suggesting increased risk of AKI with AUCs > 515 mcg*h/mL, and the preference for conservative empiric dosing in the generally older VA population.¹¹ The calculator suggested loading doses of about 25 mg/kg with a 2500 mg limit. VHA facilities could make limited modifications to the calculator based on local policies and procedures (eg, adjusting default infusion times or a dosing intervals).

The VISN 8 Pharmacy Pharmacokinetic Dosing Manual was developed as a comprehensive document to guide pharmacy staff with dosing vancomycin across diverse patient populations. This document included recommendations for renal function assessment, patient-specific considerations when choosing an empiric vancomycin dose, methods of ordering vancomycin peak, trough, and surveillance levels, dose determination based on 2 levels, and other clinical insights or frequently asked questions.

ASPWG members presented an accredited continuing education webinar for pharmacists, which reviewed the rationale for AUC-targeted dosing, changes to the current pharmacokinetic dosing program, case-based scenarios across various patient populations, and potential challenges associated with vancomycin AUC-based dosing. A recording of the live training was also made available. A vancomycin AUC dosing competency test was developed with 11 basic pharmacokinetic and case-based questions and comprehensive explanations provided for each answer.

VHA facilities implemented AUC dosing in a staggered manner, allowing for lessons learned at earlier adopters to be addressed proactively at later sites. The dosing calculator and education documents were updated iteratively as opportunities for improvement were discovered. ASPWG members held local office hours to address questions or concerns from staff at their facilities. Sharing standardized materials across the VISN reduced individual site workload and complications in rolling out this complex new process.

VISN-WIDE QUALITY ASSURANCE

At the time of project conception, 4 of 7 VISN 8 health systems had transitioned to AUC-based dosing. A quality assurance protocol to compare patient outcomes before and after changing to AUC dosing was developed. Each site followed local protocols for project approval and data were deidentified, collected, and aggregated for analysis.

The primary objectives were to compare the incidence of AKI and persistent bacteremia and assess rates of AUC target attainment (400-600 mcg*h/mL) in the AUC-based and trough-based dosing groups.⁶ Data for both groups included anthropomorphic measurements, serum creatinine, amputation status, vancomycin dosing, and infection characteristics. The X² test was used for categorical data and the t test was used for continuous data. A 2-tailed α of 0.05 was used to determine significance. Each site sequentially reviewed all patients receiving ≥ 48 hours of intravenous vancomycin over a 3-month period and contributed up to 50 patients for each group. Due to staggered implementation, the study periods for sites spanned 2018 to 2023. A minimum 6-month washout period was observed between the trough and AUC groups at each site. Patients were excluded if pregnant, receiving renal replacement therapy, or presenting with AKI at the time of vancomycin initiation.

There were 168 patients in the AUC group and 172 patients in the trough group (Table 1). The rate of AUC target attainment with the initial dosing regimen varied across sites from 18% to 69% (mean, 48%). Total daily vancomycin exposure was lower in the AUC group compared with the trough group (2402 mg vs 2605 mg, respectively), with AUC-dosed patients being less likely to experience troughs level ≥ 15 or 20 mcg/mL (Table 2). There was a statistically significant lower rate of AKI in the AUC group: 2.4% in the AUC group (range, 2%-3%) vs 10.4% (range 7%-12%) in the trough group (P = .002). Rates of AKI were comparable to those observed in previous interventions.⁶ There was no statistical difference in length of stay, time to blood culture clearance, or rate of persistent bacteremia in the 2 groups, but these assessments were limited by sample size.

We did not anticipate such variability in initial target attainment across sites. The multisite quality assurance design allowed for qualitative evaluation of variability in dosing practices, which likely arose from sites and individual pharmacists having some flexibility in adjusting dosing tool parameters. Further analysis revealed that the facility with low initial target attainment was not routinely utilizing vancomycin loading doses. Sites routinely use robust loading doses achieved earlier and more consistent target attainment. Some sites used a narrower AUC target range in certain clinical scenarios (eg, > 500 mcg*h/mL for septic patients and < 500 mcg*h/mL for patients with less severe infections) rather than the 400 to 550 mcg*h/mL range for all patients. Sites targeting broader AUC ranges for all patients had higher rates of target attainment. Reviewing differences among sites allowed the ASPWG to identify best practices to optimize future care.

CONCLUSIONS

VHA ASPs must meet the standards outlined in VHA Directive 1031, including the new requirement for each VISN to develop an ASP collaborative. The VISN 8 ASPWG demonstrates how ASP champions can collaborate to solve common issues, complete tasks, explore new infectious diseases concepts, and impact large veteran populations. Furthermore, ASP collaboratives can harness their collective size to complete robust quality assurance evaluations that might otherwise be underpowered if completed at a single center. A limitation of the collaborative model is that a site with a robust ASP may already have specific practices in place. Expanding the ASP collaborative model further highlights the VHA role as a nationwide leader in ASP best practices.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat and burden to health care, with > 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occurring annually in the United States.¹ To combat this issue and improve patient care, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has implemented antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) across its health care systems. ASPs are multidisciplinary teams that promote evidence-based use of antimicrobials through activities supporting appropriate selection, dosing, route, and duration of antimicrobial therapy. ASP best practices are also included in the Joint Commission and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services accreditation standards.²

The foundational charge for VA facilities to develop and maintain ASPs was outlined in 2014 and updated in 2023 in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1031 on antimicrobial stewardship programs.2 This directive outlines specific requirements for all VA ASPs, including personnel, staffing levels, and the roles and responsibilities of all team members. VHA now requires that Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs) establish robust ASP collaboratives. A VISN ASP collaborative consists of stewardship champions from each VA medical center in the VISN and is designed to support, develop, and enhance ASP programs across all facilities within that VISN.² Some VISNs may lack an ASP collaborative altogether, and others with existing groups may seek ways to expand their collaboratives in line with the updated directive. Prior to VHA Directive 1031, the VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (VISN 8) established an ASP collaborative. This article describes the structure and activities of the VISN 8 ASP collaborative and highlights a recent VISN 8 quality assurance initiative related to vancomycin area under the curve (AUC) dosing that illustrates how ASP collaboratives can enhance stewardship and clinical care across broad geographic areas.

VISN 8 ASP

The VHA, the largest integrated US health care system, is divided into 18 VISNs that provide regional systems of care to enhance access and meet the local health care needs of veterans.³ VISN 8 serves > 1.5 million veterans across 165,759 km² in Florida, South Georgia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.⁴ The network is composed of 7 health systems with 8 medical centers and > 60 outpatient clinics. These facilities provide comprehensive acute, primary, and specialty care, as well as mental health and extended care services in inpatient, outpatient, nursing home, and home care settings.⁴

The 2023 VHA Directive 1031 update recognizes the importance of VISN-level coordination of ASP activities to enhance the standardization of care and build partnerships in stewardship across all levels of care. The VISN 8 ASP collaborative workgroup (ASPWG) was established in 2015. Consistent with Directive 1031, the ASPWG is guided by clinician and pharmacist VISN leads. These leads serve as subject matter experts, facilitate access to resources, establish VISN-level consensus, and enhance communication among local ASP champions at medical centers within the VISN. All 7 health systems include = 1 ASP champion (clinician or pharmacist) in the ASPWG. Ad hoc members, whose routine duties are not solely focused on antimicrobial stewardship, contribute to specific stewardship projects as needed. For example, the ASPWG has included internal medicine, emergency department, community living center pharmacists, representatives from pharmacy administration, and trainees (pharmacy students and residents, and infectious diseases fellows) in antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. The inclusion of non-ASP champions is not discussed in VHA Directive 1031. However, these members have made valuable contributions to the ASPWG.

The ASPWG meets monthly. Agendas and priorities are developed by the VISN pharmacist and health care practitioner (HCP) leads. Monthly discussions may include but are not limited to a review of national formulary decisions, VISN goals and metrics, infectious diseases hot topics, pharmacoeconomic initiatives, strong practice presentations, regulatory and accreditation preparation, preparation of tracking reports, as well as the development of both patient-level and HCPlevel tools, resources, and education materials. This forum facilitates collaborative learning: members process and synthesize information, share and reframe ideas, and listen to other viewpoints to gain a complete understanding as a group.⁵ For example, ASPWG members have leaned on each other to prepare for Joint Commission accreditation surveys and strengthen the VISN 8 COVID-19 program through the rollout of vaccines and treatments. Other collaborative projects completed over the past few years included a penicillin allergy testing initiative and anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and pseudomonal medication use evaluations. This team-centric problem-solving approach is highly effective while also fostering professional and social relationships. However, collaboratives could be perceived to have drawbacks. There may be opportunity costs if ASP time is allocated for issues that have already been addressed locally or concerns that standardization might hinder rapid adoption of practices at individual sites. Therefore, participation in each distinct group initiative is optional. This allows sites to choose projects related to their high priority areas and maintain bandwidth to implement practices not yet adopted by the larger group.

The ASPWG tracks metrics related to antimicrobial use with quarterly data presented by the VISN pharmacist lead. Both inpatient and outpatient metrics are evaluated, such as days of therapy per 1000 days and outpatient antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 unique patients. Facilities are benchmarked against their own historical data and other VISN sites, as well as other VISNs across the country. When outliers are identified, facilities are encouraged to conduct local projects to identify reasons for different antimicrobial use patterns and subsequent initiatives to optimize antimicrobial use. Benchmarking against VISN facilities can be useful since VISN facilities may be more similar than facilities in different geographic regions. Each year, the ASPWG reviews the current metrics, makes adjustments to address VISN priorities, and votes for approval of the metrics that will be tracked in the coming year.

Participation in an ASP collaborative streamlines the rollout of ASP and quality improvement initiatives across multiple sites, allowing ASPs to impact a greater number of veterans and evaluate initiatives on a larger scale. In 2019, with the anticipation of revised vancomycin dosing and monitoring guidelines, our ASPWG began to strategize the transition to AUC-based vancomycin monitoring.⁶ This multisite initiative showcases the strengths of implementing and evaluating practice changes as part of an ASP collaborative.

Vancomycin Dosing

The antibiotic vancomycin is used primarily for the treatment of MRSA infections.⁶ The 2020 consensus guidelines for vancomycin therapeutic monitoring recommend using the AUC to minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio as the pharmacodynamic target for serious MRSA infections, with an AUC/MIC goal of 400 to 600 mcg*h/mL.⁶ Prior guidelines recommended using vancomycin trough concentrations of 15 to 20 mcg/mL as a surrogate for this AUC target. However, subsequent studies have shown that trough-based dosing is associated with higher vancomycin exposures, supratherapeutic AUCs, and increased risk of vancomycin-associated acute kidney injury (AKI).^7,8 Therefore, more direct AUC estimation is now recommended.⁶ The preferred approach for AUC calculations is through Bayesian modeling. Due to limited resources and software availability, many facilities use an alternative method involving 2 postdistributive serum vancomycin concentrations and first-order pharmacokinetic equations. This approach can optimize vancomycin dosing but is more mathematically and logistically challenging. Transitioning from troughto AUC-based vancomycin monitoring requires careful planning and comprehensive staff education.

In 2019, the VISN 8 ASPWG created a comprehensive vancomycin AUC toolkit to facilitate implementation. Components included a pharmacokinetic management policy and procedure, a vancomycin dosing guide, a progress note template, educational materials specific to pharmacy, nursing, laboratory, and medical services, a pharmacist competency examination, and a vancomycin AUC calculator (eAppendix). Each component was developed by a subgroup with the understanding that sites could incorporate variations based on local practices and needs.

The vancomycin AUC calculator was developed to be user-friendly and included safety validation protocols to prevent the entry of erroneous data (eg, unrealistic patient weight or laboratory values). The calculator allowed users to copy data into the electronic health record to avoid manual transcription errors and improve operational efficiency. It offered suggested volume of distribution estimates and 2 methods to estimate elimination constant (Ke ) depending on the patient’s weight.^9,10 Creatinine clearance could be estimated using serum creatinine or cystatin C and considered amputation history. The default AUC goal in the calculator was 400 to 550 mcg*h/mL. This range was chosen based on consensus guidelines, data suggesting increased risk of AKI with AUCs > 515 mcg*h/mL, and the preference for conservative empiric dosing in the generally older VA population.¹¹ The calculator suggested loading doses of about 25 mg/kg with a 2500 mg limit. VHA facilities could make limited modifications to the calculator based on local policies and procedures (eg, adjusting default infusion times or a dosing intervals).

The VISN 8 Pharmacy Pharmacokinetic Dosing Manual was developed as a comprehensive document to guide pharmacy staff with dosing vancomycin across diverse patient populations. This document included recommendations for renal function assessment, patient-specific considerations when choosing an empiric vancomycin dose, methods of ordering vancomycin peak, trough, and surveillance levels, dose determination based on 2 levels, and other clinical insights or frequently asked questions.

ASPWG members presented an accredited continuing education webinar for pharmacists, which reviewed the rationale for AUC-targeted dosing, changes to the current pharmacokinetic dosing program, case-based scenarios across various patient populations, and potential challenges associated with vancomycin AUC-based dosing. A recording of the live training was also made available. A vancomycin AUC dosing competency test was developed with 11 basic pharmacokinetic and case-based questions and comprehensive explanations provided for each answer.

VHA facilities implemented AUC dosing in a staggered manner, allowing for lessons learned at earlier adopters to be addressed proactively at later sites. The dosing calculator and education documents were updated iteratively as opportunities for improvement were discovered. ASPWG members held local office hours to address questions or concerns from staff at their facilities. Sharing standardized materials across the VISN reduced individual site workload and complications in rolling out this complex new process.

VISN-WIDE QUALITY ASSURANCE

At the time of project conception, 4 of 7 VISN 8 health systems had transitioned to AUC-based dosing. A quality assurance protocol to compare patient outcomes before and after changing to AUC dosing was developed. Each site followed local protocols for project approval and data were deidentified, collected, and aggregated for analysis.

The primary objectives were to compare the incidence of AKI and persistent bacteremia and assess rates of AUC target attainment (400-600 mcg*h/mL) in the AUC-based and trough-based dosing groups.⁶ Data for both groups included anthropomorphic measurements, serum creatinine, amputation status, vancomycin dosing, and infection characteristics. The X² test was used for categorical data and the t test was used for continuous data. A 2-tailed α of 0.05 was used to determine significance. Each site sequentially reviewed all patients receiving ≥ 48 hours of intravenous vancomycin over a 3-month period and contributed up to 50 patients for each group. Due to staggered implementation, the study periods for sites spanned 2018 to 2023. A minimum 6-month washout period was observed between the trough and AUC groups at each site. Patients were excluded if pregnant, receiving renal replacement therapy, or presenting with AKI at the time of vancomycin initiation.

There were 168 patients in the AUC group and 172 patients in the trough group (Table 1). The rate of AUC target attainment with the initial dosing regimen varied across sites from 18% to 69% (mean, 48%). Total daily vancomycin exposure was lower in the AUC group compared with the trough group (2402 mg vs 2605 mg, respectively), with AUC-dosed patients being less likely to experience troughs level ≥ 15 or 20 mcg/mL (Table 2). There was a statistically significant lower rate of AKI in the AUC group: 2.4% in the AUC group (range, 2%-3%) vs 10.4% (range 7%-12%) in the trough group (P = .002). Rates of AKI were comparable to those observed in previous interventions.⁶ There was no statistical difference in length of stay, time to blood culture clearance, or rate of persistent bacteremia in the 2 groups, but these assessments were limited by sample size.

We did not anticipate such variability in initial target attainment across sites. The multisite quality assurance design allowed for qualitative evaluation of variability in dosing practices, which likely arose from sites and individual pharmacists having some flexibility in adjusting dosing tool parameters. Further analysis revealed that the facility with low initial target attainment was not routinely utilizing vancomycin loading doses. Sites routinely use robust loading doses achieved earlier and more consistent target attainment. Some sites used a narrower AUC target range in certain clinical scenarios (eg, > 500 mcg*h/mL for septic patients and < 500 mcg*h/mL for patients with less severe infections) rather than the 400 to 550 mcg*h/mL range for all patients. Sites targeting broader AUC ranges for all patients had higher rates of target attainment. Reviewing differences among sites allowed the ASPWG to identify best practices to optimize future care.

CONCLUSIONS

VHA ASPs must meet the standards outlined in VHA Directive 1031, including the new requirement for each VISN to develop an ASP collaborative. The VISN 8 ASPWG demonstrates how ASP champions can collaborate to solve common issues, complete tasks, explore new infectious diseases concepts, and impact large veteran populations. Furthermore, ASP collaboratives can harness their collective size to complete robust quality assurance evaluations that might otherwise be underpowered if completed at a single center. A limitation of the collaborative model is that a site with a robust ASP may already have specific practices in place. Expanding the ASP collaborative model further highlights the VHA role as a nationwide leader in ASP best practices.

The COVID-19 pandemic established a new normal for health care delivery, with leaders rethinking core practices to survive and thrive in a changing environment and improve the health and well-being of patients. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is embracing a shift in focus from “what is the matter” to “what really matters” to address pre- and postpandemic challenges through a whole health approach.¹ Initially conceptualized by the VHA in 2011, whole health “is an approach to health care that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being so that they can live their life to the fullest.”¹ Whole health integrates evidence-based complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies to manage pain; this includes acupuncture, meditation, tai chi, yoga, massage therapy, guided imagery, biofeedback, and clinical hypnosis.¹ The VHA now recognizes well-being as a core value, helping clinicians respond to emerging challenges related to the social determinants of health (eg, access to health care, physical activity, and healthy foods) and guiding health care decision making.^1,2

Well-being through empowerment—elements of whole health and Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS)—encourages health care institutions to work with employees, patients, and other stakeholders to address global challenges, clinician burnout, and social issues faced by their communities. This approach focuses on life’s purpose and meaning for individuals and inspires leaders to engage with patients, staff, and communities in new, impactful ways by focusing on wellbeing and wholeness rather than illness and disease. Having a higher sense of purpose is associated with lower all-cause mortality, reduced risk of specific diseases, better health behaviors, greater use of preventive services, and fewer hospital days of care.³

This article describes how AFHS supports the well-being of older adults and aligns with the whole health model of care. It also outlines the VHA investment to transform health care to be more person-centered by documenting what matters in the electronic health record (EHR).

AGE-FRIENDLY CARE

Given that nearly half of veterans enrolled in the VHA are aged ≥ 65 years, there is an increased need to identify models of care to support this aging population.⁴ This is especially critical because older veterans often have multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs that benefit from a whole person approach. The AFHS movement aims to provide evidence-based care aligned with what matters to older adults and provides a mechanism for transforming care to meet the needs of older veterans. This includes addressing age-related health concerns while promoting optimal health outcomes and quality of life. AFHS follows the 4Ms framework: what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility.⁵ The 4Ms serve as a guide for the health care of older adults in any setting, where each “M” is assessed and acted on to support what matters.⁵ Since 2020, > 390 teams have developed a plan to implement the 4Ms at 156 VHA facilities, demonstrating the VHA commitment to transforming health care for veterans.⁶

When VHA teams join the AFHS movement, they may also engage older veterans in a whole health system (WHS) (Figure). While AFHS is designed to improve care for patients aged ≥ 65 years, it also complements whole health, a person-centered approach available to all veterans enrolled in the VHA. Through the WHS and AFHS, veterans are empowered and equipped to take charge of their health and well-being through conversations about their unique goals, preferences, and health priorities.⁴ Clinicians are challenged to assess what matters by asking questions like, “What brings you joy?” and, “How can we help you meet your health goals?”^1,5 These questions shift the conversation from disease-based treatment and enable clinicians to better understand the veteran as a person.^1,5

For whole health and AFHS, conversations about what matters are anchored in the veteran’s goals and preferences, especially those facing a significant health change (ie, a new diagnosis or treatment decision).^5,7 Together, the veteran’s goals and priorities serve as the foundation for developing person-centered care plans that often go beyond conventional medical treatments to address the physical, mental, emotional, and social aspects of health.

SYSTEM-WIDE DIRECTIVE

The WHS enhances AFHS discussions about what matters to veterans by adding a system-level lens for conceptualizing health care delivery by leveraging the 3 components of WHS: the “pathway,” well-being programs, and whole health clinical care.

The Pathway

Discovering what matters, or the veteran’s “mission, aspiration, and purpose,” begins with the WHS pathway. When stepping into the pathway, veterans begin completing a personal health inventory, or “walking the circle of health,” which encourages self-reflection that focuses on components of their life that can influence health and well-being.^1,8 The circle of health offers a visual representation of the 4 most important aspects of health and well-being: First, “Me” at the center as an individual who is the expert on their life, values, goals, and priorities. Only the individual can know what really matters through mindful awareness and what works for their life. Second, self-care consists of 8 areas that impact health and wellbeing: working your body; surroundings; personal development; food and drink; recharge; family, friends, and coworkers; spirit and soul; and power of the mind. Third, professional care consists of prevention, conventional care, and complementary care. Finally, the community that supports the individual.

Well-Being Programs

VHA provides WHS programs that support veterans in building self-care skills and improving their quality of life, often through integrative care clinics that offer coaching and CIH therapies. For example, a veteran who prioritizes mobility when seeking care at an integrative care clinic will not only receive conventional medical treatment for their physical symptoms but may also be offered CIH therapies depending on their goals. The veteran may set a daily mobility goal with their care team that supports what matters, incorporating CIH approaches, such as yoga and tai chi into the care plan.⁵ These holistic approaches for moving the body can help alleviate physical symptoms, reduce stress, improve mindful awareness, and provide opportunities for self-discovery and growth, thus promote overall well-being

Whole Health Clinical Care

AFHS and the 4Ms embody the clinical care component of the WHS. Because what matters is the driver of the 4Ms, every action taken by the care team supports wellbeing and quality of life by promoting independence, connection, and support, and addressing external factors, such as social determinants of health. At a minimum, well-being includes “functioning well: the experience of positive emotions such as happiness and contentment as well as the development of one’s potential, having some control over one’s life, having a sense of purpose, and experiencing positive relationships.”⁹ From a system perspective, the VHA has begun to normalize focusing on what matters to veterans, using an interprofessional approach, one of the first steps to implementing AFHS.

As the programs expand, AFHS teams can learn from whole health well-being programs and increase the capacity for self-care in older veterans. Learning about the key elements included in the circle of health helps clinicians understand each veteran’s perceived strengths and weaknesses to support their self-care. From there, teams can act on the 4Ms and connect older veterans with the most appropriate programs and services at their facility, ensuring continuum of care.

DOCUMENTATION

The VHA leverages several tools and evidence-based practices to assess and act on what matters for veterans of all ages (Table).^5,10-16 The VHA EHR and associated dashboards contain a wealth of information about whole health and AFHS implementation, scale up, and spread. A national AFHS 4Ms note template contains standardized data elements called health factors, which provide a mechanism for monitoring 4Ms care via its related dashboard. This template was developed by an interprofessional workgroup of VHA staff and underwent a thorough human factors engineering review and testing process prior to its release. Although teams continue to personalize care based on what matters to the veteran, data from the standardized 4Ms note template and dashboard provide a way to establish consistent, equitable care across multiple care settings.¹⁷

Between January 2022 and December 2023, > 612,000 participants aged ≥ 65 years identified what matters to them through 1.35 million assessments. During that period, > 36,000 veterans aged ≥ 65 years participated in AFHS and had what matters conversations documented. A personalized health plan was completed by 585,270 veterans for a total of 1.1 million assessments.11 Whole health coaching has been documented for > 57,000 veterans with > 200,000 assessments completed.¹³ In fiscal year 2023, a total of 1,802,131 veterans participated in whole health.

When teams share information about what matters to the veteran in a clinicianfacing format in the EHR, this helps ensure that the VHA honors veteran preferences throughout transitions of care and across all phases of health care. Although the EHR captures data on what matters, measurement of the overall impact on veteran and health system outcomes is essential. Further evaluation and ongoing education are needed to ensure clinicians are accurately and efficiently capturing the care provided by completing the appropriate EHR. Additional challenges include identifying ways to balance the documentation burden, while ensuring notes include valuable patient-centered information to guide care. EHR tools and templates have helped to unlock important insights on health care delivery in the VHA; however, health systems must consider how these clinical practices support the overall well-being of patients. How leaders empower frontline clinicians in any care setting to use these data to drive meaningful change is also important.

TRANSFORMING VHA CARE DELIVERY

In Achieving Whole Health: A New Approach for Veterans and the Nation, the National Academy of Science proposes a framework for the transformation of health care institutions to provide better whole health to veterans.³ Transformation requires change in entire systems and leaders who mobilize people “for participation in the process of change, encouraging a sense of collective identity and collective efficacy, which in turn brings stronger feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy,” and an enhanced sense of meaningfulness in their work and lives.¹⁸

Shifting health care approaches to equipping and empowering veterans and employees with whole health and AFHS resources is transformational and requires radically different assumptions and approaches that cannot be realized through traditional approaches. This change requires robust and multifaceted cultural transformation spanning all levels of the organization. Whole health and AFHS are facilitating this transformation by supporting documentation and data needs, tracking outcomes across settings, and accelerating spread to new facilities and care settings nationwide to support older veterans in improving their health and well-being.

Whole health and AFHS are complementary approaches to care that can work to empower veterans (as well as caregivers and clinicians) to align services with what matters most to veterans. Lessons such as standardizing person-centered assessments of what matters, creating supportive structures to better align care with veterans’ priorities, and identifying meaningful veteran and system-level outcomes to help sustain transformational change can be applied from whole health to AFHS. Together these programs have the potential to enhance overall health outcomes and quality of life for veterans.

The COVID-19 pandemic established a new normal for health care delivery, with leaders rethinking core practices to survive and thrive in a changing environment and improve the health and well-being of patients. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is embracing a shift in focus from “what is the matter” to “what really matters” to address pre- and postpandemic challenges through a whole health approach.¹ Initially conceptualized by the VHA in 2011, whole health “is an approach to health care that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being so that they can live their life to the fullest.”¹ Whole health integrates evidence-based complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies to manage pain; this includes acupuncture, meditation, tai chi, yoga, massage therapy, guided imagery, biofeedback, and clinical hypnosis.¹ The VHA now recognizes well-being as a core value, helping clinicians respond to emerging challenges related to the social determinants of health (eg, access to health care, physical activity, and healthy foods) and guiding health care decision making.^1,2

Well-being through empowerment—elements of whole health and Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS)—encourages health care institutions to work with employees, patients, and other stakeholders to address global challenges, clinician burnout, and social issues faced by their communities. This approach focuses on life’s purpose and meaning for individuals and inspires leaders to engage with patients, staff, and communities in new, impactful ways by focusing on wellbeing and wholeness rather than illness and disease. Having a higher sense of purpose is associated with lower all-cause mortality, reduced risk of specific diseases, better health behaviors, greater use of preventive services, and fewer hospital days of care.³

This article describes how AFHS supports the well-being of older adults and aligns with the whole health model of care. It also outlines the VHA investment to transform health care to be more person-centered by documenting what matters in the electronic health record (EHR).

AGE-FRIENDLY CARE

Given that nearly half of veterans enrolled in the VHA are aged ≥ 65 years, there is an increased need to identify models of care to support this aging population.⁴ This is especially critical because older veterans often have multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs that benefit from a whole person approach. The AFHS movement aims to provide evidence-based care aligned with what matters to older adults and provides a mechanism for transforming care to meet the needs of older veterans. This includes addressing age-related health concerns while promoting optimal health outcomes and quality of life. AFHS follows the 4Ms framework: what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility.⁵ The 4Ms serve as a guide for the health care of older adults in any setting, where each “M” is assessed and acted on to support what matters.⁵ Since 2020, > 390 teams have developed a plan to implement the 4Ms at 156 VHA facilities, demonstrating the VHA commitment to transforming health care for veterans.⁶

When VHA teams join the AFHS movement, they may also engage older veterans in a whole health system (WHS) (Figure). While AFHS is designed to improve care for patients aged ≥ 65 years, it also complements whole health, a person-centered approach available to all veterans enrolled in the VHA. Through the WHS and AFHS, veterans are empowered and equipped to take charge of their health and well-being through conversations about their unique goals, preferences, and health priorities.⁴ Clinicians are challenged to assess what matters by asking questions like, “What brings you joy?” and, “How can we help you meet your health goals?”^1,5 These questions shift the conversation from disease-based treatment and enable clinicians to better understand the veteran as a person.^1,5

For whole health and AFHS, conversations about what matters are anchored in the veteran’s goals and preferences, especially those facing a significant health change (ie, a new diagnosis or treatment decision).^5,7 Together, the veteran’s goals and priorities serve as the foundation for developing person-centered care plans that often go beyond conventional medical treatments to address the physical, mental, emotional, and social aspects of health.

SYSTEM-WIDE DIRECTIVE

The WHS enhances AFHS discussions about what matters to veterans by adding a system-level lens for conceptualizing health care delivery by leveraging the 3 components of WHS: the “pathway,” well-being programs, and whole health clinical care.

The Pathway

Discovering what matters, or the veteran’s “mission, aspiration, and purpose,” begins with the WHS pathway. When stepping into the pathway, veterans begin completing a personal health inventory, or “walking the circle of health,” which encourages self-reflection that focuses on components of their life that can influence health and well-being.^1,8 The circle of health offers a visual representation of the 4 most important aspects of health and well-being: First, “Me” at the center as an individual who is the expert on their life, values, goals, and priorities. Only the individual can know what really matters through mindful awareness and what works for their life. Second, self-care consists of 8 areas that impact health and wellbeing: working your body; surroundings; personal development; food and drink; recharge; family, friends, and coworkers; spirit and soul; and power of the mind. Third, professional care consists of prevention, conventional care, and complementary care. Finally, the community that supports the individual.

Well-Being Programs

VHA provides WHS programs that support veterans in building self-care skills and improving their quality of life, often through integrative care clinics that offer coaching and CIH therapies. For example, a veteran who prioritizes mobility when seeking care at an integrative care clinic will not only receive conventional medical treatment for their physical symptoms but may also be offered CIH therapies depending on their goals. The veteran may set a daily mobility goal with their care team that supports what matters, incorporating CIH approaches, such as yoga and tai chi into the care plan.⁵ These holistic approaches for moving the body can help alleviate physical symptoms, reduce stress, improve mindful awareness, and provide opportunities for self-discovery and growth, thus promote overall well-being

Whole Health Clinical Care

AFHS and the 4Ms embody the clinical care component of the WHS. Because what matters is the driver of the 4Ms, every action taken by the care team supports wellbeing and quality of life by promoting independence, connection, and support, and addressing external factors, such as social determinants of health. At a minimum, well-being includes “functioning well: the experience of positive emotions such as happiness and contentment as well as the development of one’s potential, having some control over one’s life, having a sense of purpose, and experiencing positive relationships.”⁹ From a system perspective, the VHA has begun to normalize focusing on what matters to veterans, using an interprofessional approach, one of the first steps to implementing AFHS.

As the programs expand, AFHS teams can learn from whole health well-being programs and increase the capacity for self-care in older veterans. Learning about the key elements included in the circle of health helps clinicians understand each veteran’s perceived strengths and weaknesses to support their self-care. From there, teams can act on the 4Ms and connect older veterans with the most appropriate programs and services at their facility, ensuring continuum of care.

DOCUMENTATION

The VHA leverages several tools and evidence-based practices to assess and act on what matters for veterans of all ages (Table).^5,10-16 The VHA EHR and associated dashboards contain a wealth of information about whole health and AFHS implementation, scale up, and spread. A national AFHS 4Ms note template contains standardized data elements called health factors, which provide a mechanism for monitoring 4Ms care via its related dashboard. This template was developed by an interprofessional workgroup of VHA staff and underwent a thorough human factors engineering review and testing process prior to its release. Although teams continue to personalize care based on what matters to the veteran, data from the standardized 4Ms note template and dashboard provide a way to establish consistent, equitable care across multiple care settings.¹⁷

Between January 2022 and December 2023, > 612,000 participants aged ≥ 65 years identified what matters to them through 1.35 million assessments. During that period, > 36,000 veterans aged ≥ 65 years participated in AFHS and had what matters conversations documented. A personalized health plan was completed by 585,270 veterans for a total of 1.1 million assessments.11 Whole health coaching has been documented for > 57,000 veterans with > 200,000 assessments completed.¹³ In fiscal year 2023, a total of 1,802,131 veterans participated in whole health.

When teams share information about what matters to the veteran in a clinicianfacing format in the EHR, this helps ensure that the VHA honors veteran preferences throughout transitions of care and across all phases of health care. Although the EHR captures data on what matters, measurement of the overall impact on veteran and health system outcomes is essential. Further evaluation and ongoing education are needed to ensure clinicians are accurately and efficiently capturing the care provided by completing the appropriate EHR. Additional challenges include identifying ways to balance the documentation burden, while ensuring notes include valuable patient-centered information to guide care. EHR tools and templates have helped to unlock important insights on health care delivery in the VHA; however, health systems must consider how these clinical practices support the overall well-being of patients. How leaders empower frontline clinicians in any care setting to use these data to drive meaningful change is also important.

TRANSFORMING VHA CARE DELIVERY

In Achieving Whole Health: A New Approach for Veterans and the Nation, the National Academy of Science proposes a framework for the transformation of health care institutions to provide better whole health to veterans.³ Transformation requires change in entire systems and leaders who mobilize people “for participation in the process of change, encouraging a sense of collective identity and collective efficacy, which in turn brings stronger feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy,” and an enhanced sense of meaningfulness in their work and lives.¹⁸

Shifting health care approaches to equipping and empowering veterans and employees with whole health and AFHS resources is transformational and requires radically different assumptions and approaches that cannot be realized through traditional approaches. This change requires robust and multifaceted cultural transformation spanning all levels of the organization. Whole health and AFHS are facilitating this transformation by supporting documentation and data needs, tracking outcomes across settings, and accelerating spread to new facilities and care settings nationwide to support older veterans in improving their health and well-being.

Whole health and AFHS are complementary approaches to care that can work to empower veterans (as well as caregivers and clinicians) to align services with what matters most to veterans. Lessons such as standardizing person-centered assessments of what matters, creating supportive structures to better align care with veterans’ priorities, and identifying meaningful veteran and system-level outcomes to help sustain transformational change can be applied from whole health to AFHS. Together these programs have the potential to enhance overall health outcomes and quality of life for veterans.

The COVID-19 pandemic established a new normal for health care delivery, with leaders rethinking core practices to survive and thrive in a changing environment and improve the health and well-being of patients. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is embracing a shift in focus from “what is the matter” to “what really matters” to address pre- and postpandemic challenges through a whole health approach.¹ Initially conceptualized by the VHA in 2011, whole health “is an approach to health care that empowers and equips people to take charge of their health and well-being so that they can live their life to the fullest.”¹ Whole health integrates evidence-based complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies to manage pain; this includes acupuncture, meditation, tai chi, yoga, massage therapy, guided imagery, biofeedback, and clinical hypnosis.¹ The VHA now recognizes well-being as a core value, helping clinicians respond to emerging challenges related to the social determinants of health (eg, access to health care, physical activity, and healthy foods) and guiding health care decision making.^1,2

Well-being through empowerment—elements of whole health and Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS)—encourages health care institutions to work with employees, patients, and other stakeholders to address global challenges, clinician burnout, and social issues faced by their communities. This approach focuses on life’s purpose and meaning for individuals and inspires leaders to engage with patients, staff, and communities in new, impactful ways by focusing on wellbeing and wholeness rather than illness and disease. Having a higher sense of purpose is associated with lower all-cause mortality, reduced risk of specific diseases, better health behaviors, greater use of preventive services, and fewer hospital days of care.³

This article describes how AFHS supports the well-being of older adults and aligns with the whole health model of care. It also outlines the VHA investment to transform health care to be more person-centered by documenting what matters in the electronic health record (EHR).

AGE-FRIENDLY CARE

Given that nearly half of veterans enrolled in the VHA are aged ≥ 65 years, there is an increased need to identify models of care to support this aging population.⁴ This is especially critical because older veterans often have multiple chronic conditions and complex care needs that benefit from a whole person approach. The AFHS movement aims to provide evidence-based care aligned with what matters to older adults and provides a mechanism for transforming care to meet the needs of older veterans. This includes addressing age-related health concerns while promoting optimal health outcomes and quality of life. AFHS follows the 4Ms framework: what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility.⁵ The 4Ms serve as a guide for the health care of older adults in any setting, where each “M” is assessed and acted on to support what matters.⁵ Since 2020, > 390 teams have developed a plan to implement the 4Ms at 156 VHA facilities, demonstrating the VHA commitment to transforming health care for veterans.⁶

When VHA teams join the AFHS movement, they may also engage older veterans in a whole health system (WHS) (Figure). While AFHS is designed to improve care for patients aged ≥ 65 years, it also complements whole health, a person-centered approach available to all veterans enrolled in the VHA. Through the WHS and AFHS, veterans are empowered and equipped to take charge of their health and well-being through conversations about their unique goals, preferences, and health priorities.⁴ Clinicians are challenged to assess what matters by asking questions like, “What brings you joy?” and, “How can we help you meet your health goals?”^1,5 These questions shift the conversation from disease-based treatment and enable clinicians to better understand the veteran as a person.^1,5

For whole health and AFHS, conversations about what matters are anchored in the veteran’s goals and preferences, especially those facing a significant health change (ie, a new diagnosis or treatment decision).^5,7 Together, the veteran’s goals and priorities serve as the foundation for developing person-centered care plans that often go beyond conventional medical treatments to address the physical, mental, emotional, and social aspects of health.

SYSTEM-WIDE DIRECTIVE

The WHS enhances AFHS discussions about what matters to veterans by adding a system-level lens for conceptualizing health care delivery by leveraging the 3 components of WHS: the “pathway,” well-being programs, and whole health clinical care.

The Pathway

Discovering what matters, or the veteran’s “mission, aspiration, and purpose,” begins with the WHS pathway. When stepping into the pathway, veterans begin completing a personal health inventory, or “walking the circle of health,” which encourages self-reflection that focuses on components of their life that can influence health and well-being.^1,8 The circle of health offers a visual representation of the 4 most important aspects of health and well-being: First, “Me” at the center as an individual who is the expert on their life, values, goals, and priorities. Only the individual can know what really matters through mindful awareness and what works for their life. Second, self-care consists of 8 areas that impact health and wellbeing: working your body; surroundings; personal development; food and drink; recharge; family, friends, and coworkers; spirit and soul; and power of the mind. Third, professional care consists of prevention, conventional care, and complementary care. Finally, the community that supports the individual.

Well-Being Programs

VHA provides WHS programs that support veterans in building self-care skills and improving their quality of life, often through integrative care clinics that offer coaching and CIH therapies. For example, a veteran who prioritizes mobility when seeking care at an integrative care clinic will not only receive conventional medical treatment for their physical symptoms but may also be offered CIH therapies depending on their goals. The veteran may set a daily mobility goal with their care team that supports what matters, incorporating CIH approaches, such as yoga and tai chi into the care plan.⁵ These holistic approaches for moving the body can help alleviate physical symptoms, reduce stress, improve mindful awareness, and provide opportunities for self-discovery and growth, thus promote overall well-being

Whole Health Clinical Care

AFHS and the 4Ms embody the clinical care component of the WHS. Because what matters is the driver of the 4Ms, every action taken by the care team supports wellbeing and quality of life by promoting independence, connection, and support, and addressing external factors, such as social determinants of health. At a minimum, well-being includes “functioning well: the experience of positive emotions such as happiness and contentment as well as the development of one’s potential, having some control over one’s life, having a sense of purpose, and experiencing positive relationships.”⁹ From a system perspective, the VHA has begun to normalize focusing on what matters to veterans, using an interprofessional approach, one of the first steps to implementing AFHS.

As the programs expand, AFHS teams can learn from whole health well-being programs and increase the capacity for self-care in older veterans. Learning about the key elements included in the circle of health helps clinicians understand each veteran’s perceived strengths and weaknesses to support their self-care. From there, teams can act on the 4Ms and connect older veterans with the most appropriate programs and services at their facility, ensuring continuum of care.

DOCUMENTATION

The VHA leverages several tools and evidence-based practices to assess and act on what matters for veterans of all ages (Table).^5,10-16 The VHA EHR and associated dashboards contain a wealth of information about whole health and AFHS implementation, scale up, and spread. A national AFHS 4Ms note template contains standardized data elements called health factors, which provide a mechanism for monitoring 4Ms care via its related dashboard. This template was developed by an interprofessional workgroup of VHA staff and underwent a thorough human factors engineering review and testing process prior to its release. Although teams continue to personalize care based on what matters to the veteran, data from the standardized 4Ms note template and dashboard provide a way to establish consistent, equitable care across multiple care settings.¹⁷

Between January 2022 and December 2023, > 612,000 participants aged ≥ 65 years identified what matters to them through 1.35 million assessments. During that period, > 36,000 veterans aged ≥ 65 years participated in AFHS and had what matters conversations documented. A personalized health plan was completed by 585,270 veterans for a total of 1.1 million assessments.11 Whole health coaching has been documented for > 57,000 veterans with > 200,000 assessments completed.¹³ In fiscal year 2023, a total of 1,802,131 veterans participated in whole health.

When teams share information about what matters to the veteran in a clinicianfacing format in the EHR, this helps ensure that the VHA honors veteran preferences throughout transitions of care and across all phases of health care. Although the EHR captures data on what matters, measurement of the overall impact on veteran and health system outcomes is essential. Further evaluation and ongoing education are needed to ensure clinicians are accurately and efficiently capturing the care provided by completing the appropriate EHR. Additional challenges include identifying ways to balance the documentation burden, while ensuring notes include valuable patient-centered information to guide care. EHR tools and templates have helped to unlock important insights on health care delivery in the VHA; however, health systems must consider how these clinical practices support the overall well-being of patients. How leaders empower frontline clinicians in any care setting to use these data to drive meaningful change is also important.

TRANSFORMING VHA CARE DELIVERY

In Achieving Whole Health: A New Approach for Veterans and the Nation, the National Academy of Science proposes a framework for the transformation of health care institutions to provide better whole health to veterans.³ Transformation requires change in entire systems and leaders who mobilize people “for participation in the process of change, encouraging a sense of collective identity and collective efficacy, which in turn brings stronger feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy,” and an enhanced sense of meaningfulness in their work and lives.¹⁸

Shifting health care approaches to equipping and empowering veterans and employees with whole health and AFHS resources is transformational and requires radically different assumptions and approaches that cannot be realized through traditional approaches. This change requires robust and multifaceted cultural transformation spanning all levels of the organization. Whole health and AFHS are facilitating this transformation by supporting documentation and data needs, tracking outcomes across settings, and accelerating spread to new facilities and care settings nationwide to support older veterans in improving their health and well-being.

Whole health and AFHS are complementary approaches to care that can work to empower veterans (as well as caregivers and clinicians) to align services with what matters most to veterans. Lessons such as standardizing person-centered assessments of what matters, creating supportive structures to better align care with veterans’ priorities, and identifying meaningful veteran and system-level outcomes to help sustain transformational change can be applied from whole health to AFHS. Together these programs have the potential to enhance overall health outcomes and quality of life for veterans.

Medical errors are a persistent problem and leading cause of preventable death in the United States. There is considerable momentum behind the idea that implementation of a just culture is foundational to detecting and learning from errors in pursuit of zero patient harm.^1-6 Just culture is a framework that fosters an environment of trust within health care organizations, aiming to achieve fair outcomes for those involved in incidents or near misses. It emphasizes openness, accountability, and learning, prioritizing the repair of harm and systemic improvement over assigning blame.⁷

A just culture mindset reflects a significant shift in thinking that moves from the tendency to blame and punish others toward a focus on organizational learning and continued process improvement.^8,9 This systemic shift in fundamental thinking transforms how leaders approach staff errors and how they are addressed.¹⁰ In essence, just culture reflects an ethos centered on openness, a deep appreciation of human fallibility, and shared accountability at both the individual and organizational levels.

Organizational learning and innovation are stifled in the absence of a just culture, and there is a tendency for employees to avoid disclosing their own errors as well as those of their colleagues.¹¹ The transformation to a just culture is often slowed or disrupted by personal, systemic, and cultural barriers.¹² It is imperative that all executive, service line, and frontline managers recognize and execute their distinct responsibilities while adjudicating the appropriate course of action in the aftermath of adverse events or near misses. This requires a nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to errors at the individual and organizational levels to ensure an appropriate response.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is orchestrating an enterprise transformation to develop into a high reliability organization (HRO). This began with a single-site test in 2016, which demonstrated successful results in patient safety culture, patient safety event reporting, and patient safety outcomes.¹³ In 2019, the VHA formally launched its enterprise-wide HRO journey in 18 hospital facilities, followed by successive waves of 67 and 54 facilities in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The VHA journey to transform into an HRO aligns with 3 pillars, 5 principles, and 7 values. The VHA has emphasized the importance of just culture as a foundational element of the HRO framework, specifically under the pillar of leadership. To promote leadership engagement, the VHA has employed an array of approaches that include education, leader coaching, and change management strategies. Given the diversity among VHA facilities, each with local cultures and histories, some sites have more readily implemented a just culture than others.¹⁴ A deeper exploration into potential obstacles, particularly concerning leadership engagement, could be instrumental for formulating strategies that further establish a just culture across the VHA.¹⁵

There is a paucity of empirical research regarding factors that facilitate and/or impede the implementation of a just culture in health care settings.^16,17 Likert scale surveys, such as the Patient Safety Culture Module for the VHA All Employee Survey and its predecessor, the Patient Safety Culture Survey, have been used to assess culture and climate.¹⁸ However, qualitative evaluations directly assessing the lived experiences of those trying to implement a just culture provide additional depth and context that can help identify specific factors that support or impede becoming an HRO. The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of factors that influence the establishment and sustainment of a just culture and to identify specific methods for improving the implementation of just culture principles and practices aligned with HRO.

METHODS

This qualitative study explored facilitators and barriers to establishing and sustaining a just culture as experienced across a subset of VHA facilities by HRO leads or staff assigned with the primary responsibilities of supporting facility-level HRO transformation. HRO leads are assigned responsibility for supporting executive leadership in planning, coordinating, implementing, and monitoring activities to ensure effective high reliability efforts, including focused efforts to establish a robust patient safety program, a culture of safety, and a culture of continuous process improvement.

Virtual focus group discussions held via Microsoft Teams generated in-depth, diverse perspectives from participants across 16 VHA facilities. Qualitative research and evaluation methods provide an enhanced depth of understanding and allow the emergence of detailed data.¹⁹ A qualitative grounded theory approach elicits complex, multifaceted phenomena that cannot be appreciated solely by numeric data.²⁰ Grounded theory was selected to limit preconceived notions and provide a more systematic analysis, including open, axial, and thematic coding. Such methods afford opportunities to adapt to unplanned follow-up questions and thus provide a flexible approach to generate new ideas and concepts.²¹ Additionally, qualitative methods help overcome the tendencies of respondents to agree rather than disagree when presented with Likert-style scales, which tend to skew responses toward the positive.²²

Participants must have been assigned as an HRO lead for ≥ 6 months at the same facility. Potential participants were identified through purposive sampling, considering their leadership roles in HRO and experience with just culture implementation, the size and complexity of their facility, and geographic distribution. Invitations explaining the study and encouraging voluntary participation to participate were emailed. Of 37 HRO leads invited to participate in the study, 16 agreed to participate and attended 1 of 3 hour-long focus group sessions. One session was rescheduled due to limited attendance. Participants represented a mix of VHA sites in terms of geography, facility size, and complexity.

Focus Group Procedures

Demographic data were collected prior to sessions via an online form to better understand the participant population, including facility complexity level, length of time in HRO lead role, clinical background, and facility level just culture training. Each session was led by an experienced focus group facilitator (CV) who was not directly involved with the overall HRO implementation to establish a neutral perspective. Each session was attended by 4 to 7 participants and 2 observers who took notes. The sessions were recorded and included automated transcriptions, which were edited for accuracy.

Focus group sessions began with a brief introduction and an opportunity for participants to ask questions. Participants were then asked a series of open-ended questions to elicit responses regardingfacilitators, barriers, and leadership support needed for implementing just culture. The questions were part of a facilitator guide that included an introductory script and discussion prompts to ensure consistency across focus groups.

Facilitators were defined as factors that increase the likelihood of establishing or sustaining a just culture. Barriers were defined as factors that decrease or inhibit the likelihood of establishing or sustaining just culture. The focus group facilitator encouraged all participants to share their views and provided clarification if needed, as well as prompts and examples where appropriate, but primarily sought to elicit responses to the questions.

Institutional review board review and approval were not required for this quality improvement initiative. The project adhered to ethical standards of research, including asking participants for verbal consent and preserving their confidentiality. Participation was voluntary, and prior to the focus group sessions, participants were provided information explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights. Participant identities were kept confidential, and all data were anonymized during the analysis phase. Pseudonyms or identifiers were used during data transcription to protect participant identity. All data, including recordings and transcriptions, were stored on password-protected devices accessible only to the research team. Any identifiable information was removed during data analysis to ensure confidentiality.

Analysis

Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, capturing all verbal interactions and nonverbal cues that may contribute to understanding the participants' perspectives. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data from the focus group discussions.²³ The transcribed data were organized, coded, and analyzed using ATLAS.ti 23 qualitative data software to identify key themes and patterns.

Results

The themes identified include the 5 facilitators, barriers, and recommendations most frequently mentioned by HRO leads across focus group sessions. The nature of each theme is described, along with commonly mentioned examples and direct quotes from participants that illustrate our understanding of their perspectives.

Facilitators

Training and coaching (26 responses). The availability of training around the Just Culture Decision Support Tool (DST) was cited as a practical aid in guiding leaders through complex just culture decisions to ensure consistency and fairness. Additionally, an executive leadership team that served as champions for just culture principles played a vital role in promoting and sustaining the approach: “Training them on the roll-out of the decision support tool with supervisors at all levels, and education for just culture and making it part of our safety forum has helped for the last 4 months.” “Having some regular training and share-out cadences embedded within the schedule as well as dynamic directors and well-trained executive leadership team (ELT) for support has been a facilitator.”

Increased transparency (16 responses). Participants consistently highlighted the importance of leadership transparency as a key facilitator for implementing just culture. Open and honest communication from top-level executives fostered an environment of trust and accountability. Approachable and physically present leadership was seen as essential for creating a culture where employees felt comfortable reporting errors and concerns without fear of retaliation: “They’re surprisingly honest with themselves about what we can do, what we cannot do, and they set the expectations exactly at that.”

Approachable leadership (15 responses). Participants frequently mentioned the importance of having dynamic leadership spearheading the implementation of just culture and leading by example. Having a leadership team that accepts accountability and reinforces consistency in the manner that near misses or mistakes are addressed is paramount to promoting the principles of just culture and increasing psychological safety: “We do have very approachable leadership, which I know is hard if you’re trying to implement that nationwide, it’s hard to implement approachability. But I do think that people raise their concerns, and they’ll stop them in the hallway and ask them questions. So, in terms of comfort level with the executive leadership, I do think that’s high, which would promote psychological safety.”

Feedback loops and follow through (13 responses). Participants emphasized the importance of taking concrete actions to address concerns and improve processes. Regular check-ins with supervisors to discuss matters related to just culture provided a structured opportunity for addressing issues and reinforcing the importance of the approach: “One thing that we’ve really focused on is not only identifying mistakes, but [taking] ownership. We continue to track it until … it’s completed and then a process of how to communicate that back and really using closed loop communication with the staff and letting them know.”

Forums and town halls (10 responses). These platforms created feedback loops that were seen as invaluable tools for sharing near misses, celebrating successes, and promoting open dialogue. Forums and town halls cultivated a culture of continuous improvement and trust: “We’ll celebrate catches, a safety story is inside that catch. So, if we celebrate the change, people feel safer to speak up.” “Truthfully, we’ve had a great relationship since establishing our safety forums and just value open lines of communication.”

Barriers

Inadequate training (30 responses). Insufficient engagement during training—limited bandwidth and availability to attend and actively participate in training—was perceived as detrimental to creating awareness and buy-in from staff, supervisors, and leadership, thereby hindering successful integration of just culture principles. Participants also identified too many conflicting priorities from VHA leadership, which contributes to training and information fatigue among staff and supervisors. “Our biggest barrier is just so many different competing priorities going on. We have so much that we’re asking people to do.” “One hundred percent training is feeling more like a ticked box than actually yielding results, I have a very hard time getting staff engaged.”

Inconsistency between executive leaders and middle managers (28 responses). A lack of consistency in the commitment to and enactment of just culture principles among leaders poses a challenge. Participants gave several examples of inconsistencies in messaging and reinforcement of just culture principles, leading to confusion among staff and hindering adoption. Likewise, the absence of standardized procedures for implementing just culture created variability: “The director coming in and trying to change things, it put a lot of resistance, we struggle with getting the other ELT members on board … some of the messages that come out at times can feel more punitive.”

Middle management resistance (22 responses). In some instances, participants reported middle managers exhibiting attitudes and behaviors that undermined the application of just culture principles and effectiveness. Such attitudes and behaviors were attributed to a lack of adequate training, coaching, and awareness. Other perceived contributions included fear of failure and a desire to distance oneself from staff who have made mistakes: “As soon as someone makes an error, they go straight to suspend them, and that’s the disconnect right there.” “There’s almost a level of working in the opposite direction in some of the mid-management.”

Cultural misalignment (18 responses). The existing culture of distancing oneself from mistakes presented a significant barrier to the adoption of just culture because it clashed with the principles of open reporting and accountability. Staff underreported errors or framed them in a way that minimized personal responsibility, thereby making it more essential to put in the necessary and difficult work to learn from mistakes: “One, you’re going to get in trouble. There’s going to be more work added to you or something of that nature."

Lack of accountability for opposition(17 responses). Participants noted a clear lack of accountability for those who opposed or showed resistance to just culture, which allowed resistance to persist without consequences. In many instances, leaders were described as having overlooked repeated instances of unjust attitudes and behaviors (eg, inappropriate blame or punishment), which allowed those practices to continue. “Executive leadership is standing on the hill and saying we’re a just culture and we do everything correctly, and staff has the expectation that they’re going to be treated with just culture and then the middle management is setting that on fire, then we show them that that’s not just culture, and they continue to have those poor behaviors, but there’s a lack of accountability.”

Limited bandwidth and lack of coordination (14 responses). HRO leads often faced role-specific constraints in having adequate time and authority to coordinate efforts to implement or sustain just culture. This includes challenges with coordination across organizational levels (eg, between the hospital and regional Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] management levels) and across departments within the hospital (eg, between human resources and service lines or units). “Our VISN human resources is completely detached. They’ll not cooperate with these efforts, which is hard.” “There’s not enough bandwidth to actually support, I’m just 1 person.” “[There’s] all these mandated trainings of 8 hours when we’re already fatigued, short-staffed, taking 3 other HRO classes.”

Recommendations

Training improvements (24 responses). HRO leads recommended that comprehensive training programs be developed and implemented for staff, supervisors, and leadership to increase awareness and understanding of just culture principles. These training initiatives should focus on fostering a shared understanding of the core tenets of just culture, the importance of error reporting, and the processes involved in fair and consistent decision making (eg, training simulations on use of the Just Culture DST). “We’ve really never had any formal training on the decision support tool. I hope that what’s coming out for next year. We’ll have some more formal training for the tool because I think it would be great to really have our leadership and our supervisors and our managers use that tool.” “We can give a more directed and intentional training to leadership on the 4 foundational practices and what it means to implement those and what it means to utilize that behavioral component of HRO.”

Clear and consistent procedures toincrease accountability (22 responses). To promote a culture of accountability and consistency in the application of just culture principles, organizations should establish clear mechanisms for reporting, investigating, and addressing incidents. Standardized procedures and DSTs can aid in ensuring that responses to errors are equitable and align with just culture principles: “I recommend accountability; if it’s clearly evidenced that you’re not toeing the just culture line, then we need to be able to do something about it and not just finger wag.” “[We need to have] a templated way to approach just culture implementation. The decision support tool is great, I absolutely love having the resources and being able to find a lot of clinical examples and discussion tools like that. But when it comes down to it, not having that kind of official thing to fall back on it can be a little bit rough.”

Additional coaching and consultationsupport (15 responses). To support supervisors in effectively implementing just culture within their teams, participants recommended that organizations provide ongoing coaching and mentorship opportunities. Additionally, third-party consultants with expertise in just culture were described as offering valuable guidance, particularly in cases where internal staff resources or HRO lead bandwidth may be limited. “There are so many consulting agencies with HRO that have been contracted to do different projects, but maybe that can help with an educational program.” “I want to see my executive leadership coach the supervisors up right and then allow them to do one-on-ones and facilitate and empower the frontline staff, and it’s just a good way of transparency and communication.”

Improved leadership sponsorship (15 responses). Participants noted that leadership buy-in is crucial for the successful implementation of just culture. Facilities should actively engage and educate leadership teams on the benefits of just culture and how it aligns with broader patient safety and organizational goals. Leaders should be visible and active champions of its principles, supporting change in their daily engagements with staff. “ELT support is absolutely necessary. Why? Because they will make it important to those in their service lines. They will make it important to those supervisors and managers. If it’s not important to that ELT member, then it’s not going to be important to that manager or that supervisor.”

Improved collaboration with patient safety and human resources (6 responses). Collaborative efforts with patient safety and human resources departments were seen as instrumental in supporting just culture, emphasizing its importance, and effectively addressing issues. Coordinating with these departments specifically contributes to consistent reinforcement and expands the bandwidth of HRO leads. These departments play integral roles in supporting just culture through effective policies, procedures, and communication. “I think it would be really helpful to have common language between what human resources teaches and what is in our decision support tool.”

DISCUSSION

This study sought to collect and synthesize the experiences of leaders across a large, integrated health care system in establishing and sustaining a just culture as part of an enterprise journey to become an HRO.²⁴ The VHA has provided enterprise-wide support (eg, training, leader coaching, and communications) for the implementation of HRO principles and practices with the goal of creating a culture of safety, which includes just culture elements. This support includes enterprise program offices, VISNs, and hospital facilities, though notably, there is variability in how HRO is implemented at the local level. The facilitators, barriers, and recommendations presented in this article are representative of the designated HRO leads at VHA hospital facilities who have direct experience with implementing and sustaining just culture. The themes presented offer specific opportunities for intervention and actionable strategies to enhance just culture initiatives, foster psychological safety and accountability, and ultimately improve the quality of care and patient outcomes.^3,25

Frequently identified facilitators such as providing training and coaching, having leaders who are available and approachable, demonstrating follow-through to address identified issues, and creating venues where errors and successes can be openly discussed.²⁶ These facilitators are aligned with enterprise HRO support strategies orchestrated by the VHA at the enterprise VISN and facility levels to support a culture of safety, continuous process improvement, and leadership commitment.

Frequently identified barriers included inadequate training, inconsistent application of just culture by middle managers vs senior leaders, a lack of accountability or corrective action when unjust corrective actions took place, time and resource constraints, and inadequate coordination across departments (eg, operational departments and human resources) and organizational levels. These factors were identified through focus groups with a limited set of HRO leads. They may reflect challenges to changing culture that may be deeply engrained in individual histories, organizational norms, and systemic practices. Improving upon these just culture initiatives requires multifaceted approaches and working through resistance to change.

VHA HRO leads identified several actionable recommendations that may be used in pursuit of a just culture. First, improvements in training involving how to apply just culture principles and, specifically, the use of the Just Culture DST were identified as an opportunity for improvement. The VHA National Center for Patient Safety developed the DST as an aid for leaders to effectively address errors in line with just culture principles, balancing individual and system accountability.²⁷ The DST specifically addresses human error as well as risky and reckless behavior, and it clarifies the delineation between individual and organizational accountability (Table).³

Limitations

This study employed qualitative methods and sampled a relatively small subset of experienced leaders with specific roles in implementing HRO in the VHA. Thus, it should not be considered representative of the perspectives of all leaders within the VHA or other health care systems. Future studies should assess facilitators and barriers beyond the facility level, including a focus incorporating both the VISN and VHA. More broadly, qualitative methods such as those employed in this study offer great depth and nuance but have limited ability to identify system-wide trends and differences. As such, it may be beneficial to specifically look at sites that are high- or low-performing on measures of patient safety culture to identify differences that may inform implementation strategies based on organizational maturity and readiness for change.

Conclusions

Successful implementation of these recommendations will require ongoing commitment, collaboration, and a sustained effort from all stakeholders involved at multiple levels of the health care system. Monitoring and evaluating progress should be conducted regularly to ensure that recommendations lead to improvements in implementing just culture principles. This quality improvement study adds to the knowledge base on factors that impact the just culture and broader efforts to realize HRO principles and practices in health care systems. The approach of this study may serve as a model for identifying opportunities to improve HRO implementation within the VHA and other settings, especially when paired with ongoing quantitative evaluation of organizational safety culture, just culture behaviors, and patient outcomes.

Medical errors are a persistent problem and leading cause of preventable death in the United States. There is considerable momentum behind the idea that implementation of a just culture is foundational to detecting and learning from errors in pursuit of zero patient harm.^1-6 Just culture is a framework that fosters an environment of trust within health care organizations, aiming to achieve fair outcomes for those involved in incidents or near misses. It emphasizes openness, accountability, and learning, prioritizing the repair of harm and systemic improvement over assigning blame.⁷

A just culture mindset reflects a significant shift in thinking that moves from the tendency to blame and punish others toward a focus on organizational learning and continued process improvement.^8,9 This systemic shift in fundamental thinking transforms how leaders approach staff errors and how they are addressed.¹⁰ In essence, just culture reflects an ethos centered on openness, a deep appreciation of human fallibility, and shared accountability at both the individual and organizational levels.

Organizational learning and innovation are stifled in the absence of a just culture, and there is a tendency for employees to avoid disclosing their own errors as well as those of their colleagues.¹¹ The transformation to a just culture is often slowed or disrupted by personal, systemic, and cultural barriers.¹² It is imperative that all executive, service line, and frontline managers recognize and execute their distinct responsibilities while adjudicating the appropriate course of action in the aftermath of adverse events or near misses. This requires a nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to errors at the individual and organizational levels to ensure an appropriate response.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is orchestrating an enterprise transformation to develop into a high reliability organization (HRO). This began with a single-site test in 2016, which demonstrated successful results in patient safety culture, patient safety event reporting, and patient safety outcomes.¹³ In 2019, the VHA formally launched its enterprise-wide HRO journey in 18 hospital facilities, followed by successive waves of 67 and 54 facilities in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The VHA journey to transform into an HRO aligns with 3 pillars, 5 principles, and 7 values. The VHA has emphasized the importance of just culture as a foundational element of the HRO framework, specifically under the pillar of leadership. To promote leadership engagement, the VHA has employed an array of approaches that include education, leader coaching, and change management strategies. Given the diversity among VHA facilities, each with local cultures and histories, some sites have more readily implemented a just culture than others.¹⁴ A deeper exploration into potential obstacles, particularly concerning leadership engagement, could be instrumental for formulating strategies that further establish a just culture across the VHA.¹⁵

There is a paucity of empirical research regarding factors that facilitate and/or impede the implementation of a just culture in health care settings.^16,17 Likert scale surveys, such as the Patient Safety Culture Module for the VHA All Employee Survey and its predecessor, the Patient Safety Culture Survey, have been used to assess culture and climate.¹⁸ However, qualitative evaluations directly assessing the lived experiences of those trying to implement a just culture provide additional depth and context that can help identify specific factors that support or impede becoming an HRO. The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of factors that influence the establishment and sustainment of a just culture and to identify specific methods for improving the implementation of just culture principles and practices aligned with HRO.

METHODS

This qualitative study explored facilitators and barriers to establishing and sustaining a just culture as experienced across a subset of VHA facilities by HRO leads or staff assigned with the primary responsibilities of supporting facility-level HRO transformation. HRO leads are assigned responsibility for supporting executive leadership in planning, coordinating, implementing, and monitoring activities to ensure effective high reliability efforts, including focused efforts to establish a robust patient safety program, a culture of safety, and a culture of continuous process improvement.

Virtual focus group discussions held via Microsoft Teams generated in-depth, diverse perspectives from participants across 16 VHA facilities. Qualitative research and evaluation methods provide an enhanced depth of understanding and allow the emergence of detailed data.¹⁹ A qualitative grounded theory approach elicits complex, multifaceted phenomena that cannot be appreciated solely by numeric data.²⁰ Grounded theory was selected to limit preconceived notions and provide a more systematic analysis, including open, axial, and thematic coding. Such methods afford opportunities to adapt to unplanned follow-up questions and thus provide a flexible approach to generate new ideas and concepts.²¹ Additionally, qualitative methods help overcome the tendencies of respondents to agree rather than disagree when presented with Likert-style scales, which tend to skew responses toward the positive.²²

Participants must have been assigned as an HRO lead for ≥ 6 months at the same facility. Potential participants were identified through purposive sampling, considering their leadership roles in HRO and experience with just culture implementation, the size and complexity of their facility, and geographic distribution. Invitations explaining the study and encouraging voluntary participation to participate were emailed. Of 37 HRO leads invited to participate in the study, 16 agreed to participate and attended 1 of 3 hour-long focus group sessions. One session was rescheduled due to limited attendance. Participants represented a mix of VHA sites in terms of geography, facility size, and complexity.

Focus Group Procedures

Demographic data were collected prior to sessions via an online form to better understand the participant population, including facility complexity level, length of time in HRO lead role, clinical background, and facility level just culture training. Each session was led by an experienced focus group facilitator (CV) who was not directly involved with the overall HRO implementation to establish a neutral perspective. Each session was attended by 4 to 7 participants and 2 observers who took notes. The sessions were recorded and included automated transcriptions, which were edited for accuracy.

Focus group sessions began with a brief introduction and an opportunity for participants to ask questions. Participants were then asked a series of open-ended questions to elicit responses regardingfacilitators, barriers, and leadership support needed for implementing just culture. The questions were part of a facilitator guide that included an introductory script and discussion prompts to ensure consistency across focus groups.

Facilitators were defined as factors that increase the likelihood of establishing or sustaining a just culture. Barriers were defined as factors that decrease or inhibit the likelihood of establishing or sustaining just culture. The focus group facilitator encouraged all participants to share their views and provided clarification if needed, as well as prompts and examples where appropriate, but primarily sought to elicit responses to the questions.

Institutional review board review and approval were not required for this quality improvement initiative. The project adhered to ethical standards of research, including asking participants for verbal consent and preserving their confidentiality. Participation was voluntary, and prior to the focus group sessions, participants were provided information explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights. Participant identities were kept confidential, and all data were anonymized during the analysis phase. Pseudonyms or identifiers were used during data transcription to protect participant identity. All data, including recordings and transcriptions, were stored on password-protected devices accessible only to the research team. Any identifiable information was removed during data analysis to ensure confidentiality.

Analysis

Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, capturing all verbal interactions and nonverbal cues that may contribute to understanding the participants' perspectives. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data from the focus group discussions.²³ The transcribed data were organized, coded, and analyzed using ATLAS.ti 23 qualitative data software to identify key themes and patterns.

Results

The themes identified include the 5 facilitators, barriers, and recommendations most frequently mentioned by HRO leads across focus group sessions. The nature of each theme is described, along with commonly mentioned examples and direct quotes from participants that illustrate our understanding of their perspectives.

Facilitators

Training and coaching (26 responses). The availability of training around the Just Culture Decision Support Tool (DST) was cited as a practical aid in guiding leaders through complex just culture decisions to ensure consistency and fairness. Additionally, an executive leadership team that served as champions for just culture principles played a vital role in promoting and sustaining the approach: “Training them on the roll-out of the decision support tool with supervisors at all levels, and education for just culture and making it part of our safety forum has helped for the last 4 months.” “Having some regular training and share-out cadences embedded within the schedule as well as dynamic directors and well-trained executive leadership team (ELT) for support has been a facilitator.”

Increased transparency (16 responses). Participants consistently highlighted the importance of leadership transparency as a key facilitator for implementing just culture. Open and honest communication from top-level executives fostered an environment of trust and accountability. Approachable and physically present leadership was seen as essential for creating a culture where employees felt comfortable reporting errors and concerns without fear of retaliation: “They’re surprisingly honest with themselves about what we can do, what we cannot do, and they set the expectations exactly at that.”

Approachable leadership (15 responses). Participants frequently mentioned the importance of having dynamic leadership spearheading the implementation of just culture and leading by example. Having a leadership team that accepts accountability and reinforces consistency in the manner that near misses or mistakes are addressed is paramount to promoting the principles of just culture and increasing psychological safety: “We do have very approachable leadership, which I know is hard if you’re trying to implement that nationwide, it’s hard to implement approachability. But I do think that people raise their concerns, and they’ll stop them in the hallway and ask them questions. So, in terms of comfort level with the executive leadership, I do think that’s high, which would promote psychological safety.”

Feedback loops and follow through (13 responses). Participants emphasized the importance of taking concrete actions to address concerns and improve processes. Regular check-ins with supervisors to discuss matters related to just culture provided a structured opportunity for addressing issues and reinforcing the importance of the approach: “One thing that we’ve really focused on is not only identifying mistakes, but [taking] ownership. We continue to track it until … it’s completed and then a process of how to communicate that back and really using closed loop communication with the staff and letting them know.”

Forums and town halls (10 responses). These platforms created feedback loops that were seen as invaluable tools for sharing near misses, celebrating successes, and promoting open dialogue. Forums and town halls cultivated a culture of continuous improvement and trust: “We’ll celebrate catches, a safety story is inside that catch. So, if we celebrate the change, people feel safer to speak up.” “Truthfully, we’ve had a great relationship since establishing our safety forums and just value open lines of communication.”

Barriers

Inadequate training (30 responses). Insufficient engagement during training—limited bandwidth and availability to attend and actively participate in training—was perceived as detrimental to creating awareness and buy-in from staff, supervisors, and leadership, thereby hindering successful integration of just culture principles. Participants also identified too many conflicting priorities from VHA leadership, which contributes to training and information fatigue among staff and supervisors. “Our biggest barrier is just so many different competing priorities going on. We have so much that we’re asking people to do.” “One hundred percent training is feeling more like a ticked box than actually yielding results, I have a very hard time getting staff engaged.”

Inconsistency between executive leaders and middle managers (28 responses). A lack of consistency in the commitment to and enactment of just culture principles among leaders poses a challenge. Participants gave several examples of inconsistencies in messaging and reinforcement of just culture principles, leading to confusion among staff and hindering adoption. Likewise, the absence of standardized procedures for implementing just culture created variability: “The director coming in and trying to change things, it put a lot of resistance, we struggle with getting the other ELT members on board … some of the messages that come out at times can feel more punitive.”

Middle management resistance (22 responses). In some instances, participants reported middle managers exhibiting attitudes and behaviors that undermined the application of just culture principles and effectiveness. Such attitudes and behaviors were attributed to a lack of adequate training, coaching, and awareness. Other perceived contributions included fear of failure and a desire to distance oneself from staff who have made mistakes: “As soon as someone makes an error, they go straight to suspend them, and that’s the disconnect right there.” “There’s almost a level of working in the opposite direction in some of the mid-management.”

Cultural misalignment (18 responses). The existing culture of distancing oneself from mistakes presented a significant barrier to the adoption of just culture because it clashed with the principles of open reporting and accountability. Staff underreported errors or framed them in a way that minimized personal responsibility, thereby making it more essential to put in the necessary and difficult work to learn from mistakes: “One, you’re going to get in trouble. There’s going to be more work added to you or something of that nature."

Lack of accountability for opposition(17 responses). Participants noted a clear lack of accountability for those who opposed or showed resistance to just culture, which allowed resistance to persist without consequences. In many instances, leaders were described as having overlooked repeated instances of unjust attitudes and behaviors (eg, inappropriate blame or punishment), which allowed those practices to continue. “Executive leadership is standing on the hill and saying we’re a just culture and we do everything correctly, and staff has the expectation that they’re going to be treated with just culture and then the middle management is setting that on fire, then we show them that that’s not just culture, and they continue to have those poor behaviors, but there’s a lack of accountability.”

Limited bandwidth and lack of coordination (14 responses). HRO leads often faced role-specific constraints in having adequate time and authority to coordinate efforts to implement or sustain just culture. This includes challenges with coordination across organizational levels (eg, between the hospital and regional Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] management levels) and across departments within the hospital (eg, between human resources and service lines or units). “Our VISN human resources is completely detached. They’ll not cooperate with these efforts, which is hard.” “There’s not enough bandwidth to actually support, I’m just 1 person.” “[There’s] all these mandated trainings of 8 hours when we’re already fatigued, short-staffed, taking 3 other HRO classes.”

Recommendations

Training improvements (24 responses). HRO leads recommended that comprehensive training programs be developed and implemented for staff, supervisors, and leadership to increase awareness and understanding of just culture principles. These training initiatives should focus on fostering a shared understanding of the core tenets of just culture, the importance of error reporting, and the processes involved in fair and consistent decision making (eg, training simulations on use of the Just Culture DST). “We’ve really never had any formal training on the decision support tool. I hope that what’s coming out for next year. We’ll have some more formal training for the tool because I think it would be great to really have our leadership and our supervisors and our managers use that tool.” “We can give a more directed and intentional training to leadership on the 4 foundational practices and what it means to implement those and what it means to utilize that behavioral component of HRO.”

Clear and consistent procedures toincrease accountability (22 responses). To promote a culture of accountability and consistency in the application of just culture principles, organizations should establish clear mechanisms for reporting, investigating, and addressing incidents. Standardized procedures and DSTs can aid in ensuring that responses to errors are equitable and align with just culture principles: “I recommend accountability; if it’s clearly evidenced that you’re not toeing the just culture line, then we need to be able to do something about it and not just finger wag.” “[We need to have] a templated way to approach just culture implementation. The decision support tool is great, I absolutely love having the resources and being able to find a lot of clinical examples and discussion tools like that. But when it comes down to it, not having that kind of official thing to fall back on it can be a little bit rough.”

Additional coaching and consultationsupport (15 responses). To support supervisors in effectively implementing just culture within their teams, participants recommended that organizations provide ongoing coaching and mentorship opportunities. Additionally, third-party consultants with expertise in just culture were described as offering valuable guidance, particularly in cases where internal staff resources or HRO lead bandwidth may be limited. “There are so many consulting agencies with HRO that have been contracted to do different projects, but maybe that can help with an educational program.” “I want to see my executive leadership coach the supervisors up right and then allow them to do one-on-ones and facilitate and empower the frontline staff, and it’s just a good way of transparency and communication.”

Improved leadership sponsorship (15 responses). Participants noted that leadership buy-in is crucial for the successful implementation of just culture. Facilities should actively engage and educate leadership teams on the benefits of just culture and how it aligns with broader patient safety and organizational goals. Leaders should be visible and active champions of its principles, supporting change in their daily engagements with staff. “ELT support is absolutely necessary. Why? Because they will make it important to those in their service lines. They will make it important to those supervisors and managers. If it’s not important to that ELT member, then it’s not going to be important to that manager or that supervisor.”

Improved collaboration with patient safety and human resources (6 responses). Collaborative efforts with patient safety and human resources departments were seen as instrumental in supporting just culture, emphasizing its importance, and effectively addressing issues. Coordinating with these departments specifically contributes to consistent reinforcement and expands the bandwidth of HRO leads. These departments play integral roles in supporting just culture through effective policies, procedures, and communication. “I think it would be really helpful to have common language between what human resources teaches and what is in our decision support tool.”

DISCUSSION

This study sought to collect and synthesize the experiences of leaders across a large, integrated health care system in establishing and sustaining a just culture as part of an enterprise journey to become an HRO.²⁴ The VHA has provided enterprise-wide support (eg, training, leader coaching, and communications) for the implementation of HRO principles and practices with the goal of creating a culture of safety, which includes just culture elements. This support includes enterprise program offices, VISNs, and hospital facilities, though notably, there is variability in how HRO is implemented at the local level. The facilitators, barriers, and recommendations presented in this article are representative of the designated HRO leads at VHA hospital facilities who have direct experience with implementing and sustaining just culture. The themes presented offer specific opportunities for intervention and actionable strategies to enhance just culture initiatives, foster psychological safety and accountability, and ultimately improve the quality of care and patient outcomes.^3,25

Frequently identified facilitators such as providing training and coaching, having leaders who are available and approachable, demonstrating follow-through to address identified issues, and creating venues where errors and successes can be openly discussed.²⁶ These facilitators are aligned with enterprise HRO support strategies orchestrated by the VHA at the enterprise VISN and facility levels to support a culture of safety, continuous process improvement, and leadership commitment.

Frequently identified barriers included inadequate training, inconsistent application of just culture by middle managers vs senior leaders, a lack of accountability or corrective action when unjust corrective actions took place, time and resource constraints, and inadequate coordination across departments (eg, operational departments and human resources) and organizational levels. These factors were identified through focus groups with a limited set of HRO leads. They may reflect challenges to changing culture that may be deeply engrained in individual histories, organizational norms, and systemic practices. Improving upon these just culture initiatives requires multifaceted approaches and working through resistance to change.

VHA HRO leads identified several actionable recommendations that may be used in pursuit of a just culture. First, improvements in training involving how to apply just culture principles and, specifically, the use of the Just Culture DST were identified as an opportunity for improvement. The VHA National Center for Patient Safety developed the DST as an aid for leaders to effectively address errors in line with just culture principles, balancing individual and system accountability.²⁷ The DST specifically addresses human error as well as risky and reckless behavior, and it clarifies the delineation between individual and organizational accountability (Table).³

Limitations

This study employed qualitative methods and sampled a relatively small subset of experienced leaders with specific roles in implementing HRO in the VHA. Thus, it should not be considered representative of the perspectives of all leaders within the VHA or other health care systems. Future studies should assess facilitators and barriers beyond the facility level, including a focus incorporating both the VISN and VHA. More broadly, qualitative methods such as those employed in this study offer great depth and nuance but have limited ability to identify system-wide trends and differences. As such, it may be beneficial to specifically look at sites that are high- or low-performing on measures of patient safety culture to identify differences that may inform implementation strategies based on organizational maturity and readiness for change.

Conclusions

Successful implementation of these recommendations will require ongoing commitment, collaboration, and a sustained effort from all stakeholders involved at multiple levels of the health care system. Monitoring and evaluating progress should be conducted regularly to ensure that recommendations lead to improvements in implementing just culture principles. This quality improvement study adds to the knowledge base on factors that impact the just culture and broader efforts to realize HRO principles and practices in health care systems. The approach of this study may serve as a model for identifying opportunities to improve HRO implementation within the VHA and other settings, especially when paired with ongoing quantitative evaluation of organizational safety culture, just culture behaviors, and patient outcomes.

Medical errors are a persistent problem and leading cause of preventable death in the United States. There is considerable momentum behind the idea that implementation of a just culture is foundational to detecting and learning from errors in pursuit of zero patient harm.^1-6 Just culture is a framework that fosters an environment of trust within health care organizations, aiming to achieve fair outcomes for those involved in incidents or near misses. It emphasizes openness, accountability, and learning, prioritizing the repair of harm and systemic improvement over assigning blame.⁷

A just culture mindset reflects a significant shift in thinking that moves from the tendency to blame and punish others toward a focus on organizational learning and continued process improvement.^8,9 This systemic shift in fundamental thinking transforms how leaders approach staff errors and how they are addressed.¹⁰ In essence, just culture reflects an ethos centered on openness, a deep appreciation of human fallibility, and shared accountability at both the individual and organizational levels.

Organizational learning and innovation are stifled in the absence of a just culture, and there is a tendency for employees to avoid disclosing their own errors as well as those of their colleagues.¹¹ The transformation to a just culture is often slowed or disrupted by personal, systemic, and cultural barriers.¹² It is imperative that all executive, service line, and frontline managers recognize and execute their distinct responsibilities while adjudicating the appropriate course of action in the aftermath of adverse events or near misses. This requires a nuanced understanding of the factors that contribute to errors at the individual and organizational levels to ensure an appropriate response.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is orchestrating an enterprise transformation to develop into a high reliability organization (HRO). This began with a single-site test in 2016, which demonstrated successful results in patient safety culture, patient safety event reporting, and patient safety outcomes.¹³ In 2019, the VHA formally launched its enterprise-wide HRO journey in 18 hospital facilities, followed by successive waves of 67 and 54 facilities in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The VHA journey to transform into an HRO aligns with 3 pillars, 5 principles, and 7 values. The VHA has emphasized the importance of just culture as a foundational element of the HRO framework, specifically under the pillar of leadership. To promote leadership engagement, the VHA has employed an array of approaches that include education, leader coaching, and change management strategies. Given the diversity among VHA facilities, each with local cultures and histories, some sites have more readily implemented a just culture than others.¹⁴ A deeper exploration into potential obstacles, particularly concerning leadership engagement, could be instrumental for formulating strategies that further establish a just culture across the VHA.¹⁵

There is a paucity of empirical research regarding factors that facilitate and/or impede the implementation of a just culture in health care settings.^16,17 Likert scale surveys, such as the Patient Safety Culture Module for the VHA All Employee Survey and its predecessor, the Patient Safety Culture Survey, have been used to assess culture and climate.¹⁸ However, qualitative evaluations directly assessing the lived experiences of those trying to implement a just culture provide additional depth and context that can help identify specific factors that support or impede becoming an HRO. The purpose of this study was to increase understanding of factors that influence the establishment and sustainment of a just culture and to identify specific methods for improving the implementation of just culture principles and practices aligned with HRO.

METHODS

This qualitative study explored facilitators and barriers to establishing and sustaining a just culture as experienced across a subset of VHA facilities by HRO leads or staff assigned with the primary responsibilities of supporting facility-level HRO transformation. HRO leads are assigned responsibility for supporting executive leadership in planning, coordinating, implementing, and monitoring activities to ensure effective high reliability efforts, including focused efforts to establish a robust patient safety program, a culture of safety, and a culture of continuous process improvement.

Virtual focus group discussions held via Microsoft Teams generated in-depth, diverse perspectives from participants across 16 VHA facilities. Qualitative research and evaluation methods provide an enhanced depth of understanding and allow the emergence of detailed data.¹⁹ A qualitative grounded theory approach elicits complex, multifaceted phenomena that cannot be appreciated solely by numeric data.²⁰ Grounded theory was selected to limit preconceived notions and provide a more systematic analysis, including open, axial, and thematic coding. Such methods afford opportunities to adapt to unplanned follow-up questions and thus provide a flexible approach to generate new ideas and concepts.²¹ Additionally, qualitative methods help overcome the tendencies of respondents to agree rather than disagree when presented with Likert-style scales, which tend to skew responses toward the positive.²²

Participants must have been assigned as an HRO lead for ≥ 6 months at the same facility. Potential participants were identified through purposive sampling, considering their leadership roles in HRO and experience with just culture implementation, the size and complexity of their facility, and geographic distribution. Invitations explaining the study and encouraging voluntary participation to participate were emailed. Of 37 HRO leads invited to participate in the study, 16 agreed to participate and attended 1 of 3 hour-long focus group sessions. One session was rescheduled due to limited attendance. Participants represented a mix of VHA sites in terms of geography, facility size, and complexity.

Focus Group Procedures

Demographic data were collected prior to sessions via an online form to better understand the participant population, including facility complexity level, length of time in HRO lead role, clinical background, and facility level just culture training. Each session was led by an experienced focus group facilitator (CV) who was not directly involved with the overall HRO implementation to establish a neutral perspective. Each session was attended by 4 to 7 participants and 2 observers who took notes. The sessions were recorded and included automated transcriptions, which were edited for accuracy.

Focus group sessions began with a brief introduction and an opportunity for participants to ask questions. Participants were then asked a series of open-ended questions to elicit responses regardingfacilitators, barriers, and leadership support needed for implementing just culture. The questions were part of a facilitator guide that included an introductory script and discussion prompts to ensure consistency across focus groups.

Facilitators were defined as factors that increase the likelihood of establishing or sustaining a just culture. Barriers were defined as factors that decrease or inhibit the likelihood of establishing or sustaining just culture. The focus group facilitator encouraged all participants to share their views and provided clarification if needed, as well as prompts and examples where appropriate, but primarily sought to elicit responses to the questions.

Institutional review board review and approval were not required for this quality improvement initiative. The project adhered to ethical standards of research, including asking participants for verbal consent and preserving their confidentiality. Participation was voluntary, and prior to the focus group sessions, participants were provided information explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights. Participant identities were kept confidential, and all data were anonymized during the analysis phase. Pseudonyms or identifiers were used during data transcription to protect participant identity. All data, including recordings and transcriptions, were stored on password-protected devices accessible only to the research team. Any identifiable information was removed during data analysis to ensure confidentiality.

Analysis

Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, capturing all verbal interactions and nonverbal cues that may contribute to understanding the participants' perspectives. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data from the focus group discussions.²³ The transcribed data were organized, coded, and analyzed using ATLAS.ti 23 qualitative data software to identify key themes and patterns.

Results

The themes identified include the 5 facilitators, barriers, and recommendations most frequently mentioned by HRO leads across focus group sessions. The nature of each theme is described, along with commonly mentioned examples and direct quotes from participants that illustrate our understanding of their perspectives.

Facilitators

Training and coaching (26 responses). The availability of training around the Just Culture Decision Support Tool (DST) was cited as a practical aid in guiding leaders through complex just culture decisions to ensure consistency and fairness. Additionally, an executive leadership team that served as champions for just culture principles played a vital role in promoting and sustaining the approach: “Training them on the roll-out of the decision support tool with supervisors at all levels, and education for just culture and making it part of our safety forum has helped for the last 4 months.” “Having some regular training and share-out cadences embedded within the schedule as well as dynamic directors and well-trained executive leadership team (ELT) for support has been a facilitator.”

Increased transparency (16 responses). Participants consistently highlighted the importance of leadership transparency as a key facilitator for implementing just culture. Open and honest communication from top-level executives fostered an environment of trust and accountability. Approachable and physically present leadership was seen as essential for creating a culture where employees felt comfortable reporting errors and concerns without fear of retaliation: “They’re surprisingly honest with themselves about what we can do, what we cannot do, and they set the expectations exactly at that.”

Approachable leadership (15 responses). Participants frequently mentioned the importance of having dynamic leadership spearheading the implementation of just culture and leading by example. Having a leadership team that accepts accountability and reinforces consistency in the manner that near misses or mistakes are addressed is paramount to promoting the principles of just culture and increasing psychological safety: “We do have very approachable leadership, which I know is hard if you’re trying to implement that nationwide, it’s hard to implement approachability. But I do think that people raise their concerns, and they’ll stop them in the hallway and ask them questions. So, in terms of comfort level with the executive leadership, I do think that’s high, which would promote psychological safety.”

Feedback loops and follow through (13 responses). Participants emphasized the importance of taking concrete actions to address concerns and improve processes. Regular check-ins with supervisors to discuss matters related to just culture provided a structured opportunity for addressing issues and reinforcing the importance of the approach: “One thing that we’ve really focused on is not only identifying mistakes, but [taking] ownership. We continue to track it until … it’s completed and then a process of how to communicate that back and really using closed loop communication with the staff and letting them know.”

Forums and town halls (10 responses). These platforms created feedback loops that were seen as invaluable tools for sharing near misses, celebrating successes, and promoting open dialogue. Forums and town halls cultivated a culture of continuous improvement and trust: “We’ll celebrate catches, a safety story is inside that catch. So, if we celebrate the change, people feel safer to speak up.” “Truthfully, we’ve had a great relationship since establishing our safety forums and just value open lines of communication.”

Barriers

Inadequate training (30 responses). Insufficient engagement during training—limited bandwidth and availability to attend and actively participate in training—was perceived as detrimental to creating awareness and buy-in from staff, supervisors, and leadership, thereby hindering successful integration of just culture principles. Participants also identified too many conflicting priorities from VHA leadership, which contributes to training and information fatigue among staff and supervisors. “Our biggest barrier is just so many different competing priorities going on. We have so much that we’re asking people to do.” “One hundred percent training is feeling more like a ticked box than actually yielding results, I have a very hard time getting staff engaged.”

Inconsistency between executive leaders and middle managers (28 responses). A lack of consistency in the commitment to and enactment of just culture principles among leaders poses a challenge. Participants gave several examples of inconsistencies in messaging and reinforcement of just culture principles, leading to confusion among staff and hindering adoption. Likewise, the absence of standardized procedures for implementing just culture created variability: “The director coming in and trying to change things, it put a lot of resistance, we struggle with getting the other ELT members on board … some of the messages that come out at times can feel more punitive.”

Middle management resistance (22 responses). In some instances, participants reported middle managers exhibiting attitudes and behaviors that undermined the application of just culture principles and effectiveness. Such attitudes and behaviors were attributed to a lack of adequate training, coaching, and awareness. Other perceived contributions included fear of failure and a desire to distance oneself from staff who have made mistakes: “As soon as someone makes an error, they go straight to suspend them, and that’s the disconnect right there.” “There’s almost a level of working in the opposite direction in some of the mid-management.”

Cultural misalignment (18 responses). The existing culture of distancing oneself from mistakes presented a significant barrier to the adoption of just culture because it clashed with the principles of open reporting and accountability. Staff underreported errors or framed them in a way that minimized personal responsibility, thereby making it more essential to put in the necessary and difficult work to learn from mistakes: “One, you’re going to get in trouble. There’s going to be more work added to you or something of that nature."

Lack of accountability for opposition(17 responses). Participants noted a clear lack of accountability for those who opposed or showed resistance to just culture, which allowed resistance to persist without consequences. In many instances, leaders were described as having overlooked repeated instances of unjust attitudes and behaviors (eg, inappropriate blame or punishment), which allowed those practices to continue. “Executive leadership is standing on the hill and saying we’re a just culture and we do everything correctly, and staff has the expectation that they’re going to be treated with just culture and then the middle management is setting that on fire, then we show them that that’s not just culture, and they continue to have those poor behaviors, but there’s a lack of accountability.”

Limited bandwidth and lack of coordination (14 responses). HRO leads often faced role-specific constraints in having adequate time and authority to coordinate efforts to implement or sustain just culture. This includes challenges with coordination across organizational levels (eg, between the hospital and regional Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] management levels) and across departments within the hospital (eg, between human resources and service lines or units). “Our VISN human resources is completely detached. They’ll not cooperate with these efforts, which is hard.” “There’s not enough bandwidth to actually support, I’m just 1 person.” “[There’s] all these mandated trainings of 8 hours when we’re already fatigued, short-staffed, taking 3 other HRO classes.”

Recommendations

Training improvements (24 responses). HRO leads recommended that comprehensive training programs be developed and implemented for staff, supervisors, and leadership to increase awareness and understanding of just culture principles. These training initiatives should focus on fostering a shared understanding of the core tenets of just culture, the importance of error reporting, and the processes involved in fair and consistent decision making (eg, training simulations on use of the Just Culture DST). “We’ve really never had any formal training on the decision support tool. I hope that what’s coming out for next year. We’ll have some more formal training for the tool because I think it would be great to really have our leadership and our supervisors and our managers use that tool.” “We can give a more directed and intentional training to leadership on the 4 foundational practices and what it means to implement those and what it means to utilize that behavioral component of HRO.”

Clear and consistent procedures toincrease accountability (22 responses). To promote a culture of accountability and consistency in the application of just culture principles, organizations should establish clear mechanisms for reporting, investigating, and addressing incidents. Standardized procedures and DSTs can aid in ensuring that responses to errors are equitable and align with just culture principles: “I recommend accountability; if it’s clearly evidenced that you’re not toeing the just culture line, then we need to be able to do something about it and not just finger wag.” “[We need to have] a templated way to approach just culture implementation. The decision support tool is great, I absolutely love having the resources and being able to find a lot of clinical examples and discussion tools like that. But when it comes down to it, not having that kind of official thing to fall back on it can be a little bit rough.”

Additional coaching and consultationsupport (15 responses). To support supervisors in effectively implementing just culture within their teams, participants recommended that organizations provide ongoing coaching and mentorship opportunities. Additionally, third-party consultants with expertise in just culture were described as offering valuable guidance, particularly in cases where internal staff resources or HRO lead bandwidth may be limited. “There are so many consulting agencies with HRO that have been contracted to do different projects, but maybe that can help with an educational program.” “I want to see my executive leadership coach the supervisors up right and then allow them to do one-on-ones and facilitate and empower the frontline staff, and it’s just a good way of transparency and communication.”

Improved leadership sponsorship (15 responses). Participants noted that leadership buy-in is crucial for the successful implementation of just culture. Facilities should actively engage and educate leadership teams on the benefits of just culture and how it aligns with broader patient safety and organizational goals. Leaders should be visible and active champions of its principles, supporting change in their daily engagements with staff. “ELT support is absolutely necessary. Why? Because they will make it important to those in their service lines. They will make it important to those supervisors and managers. If it’s not important to that ELT member, then it’s not going to be important to that manager or that supervisor.”

Improved collaboration with patient safety and human resources (6 responses). Collaborative efforts with patient safety and human resources departments were seen as instrumental in supporting just culture, emphasizing its importance, and effectively addressing issues. Coordinating with these departments specifically contributes to consistent reinforcement and expands the bandwidth of HRO leads. These departments play integral roles in supporting just culture through effective policies, procedures, and communication. “I think it would be really helpful to have common language between what human resources teaches and what is in our decision support tool.”

DISCUSSION

This study sought to collect and synthesize the experiences of leaders across a large, integrated health care system in establishing and sustaining a just culture as part of an enterprise journey to become an HRO.²⁴ The VHA has provided enterprise-wide support (eg, training, leader coaching, and communications) for the implementation of HRO principles and practices with the goal of creating a culture of safety, which includes just culture elements. This support includes enterprise program offices, VISNs, and hospital facilities, though notably, there is variability in how HRO is implemented at the local level. The facilitators, barriers, and recommendations presented in this article are representative of the designated HRO leads at VHA hospital facilities who have direct experience with implementing and sustaining just culture. The themes presented offer specific opportunities for intervention and actionable strategies to enhance just culture initiatives, foster psychological safety and accountability, and ultimately improve the quality of care and patient outcomes.^3,25

Frequently identified facilitators such as providing training and coaching, having leaders who are available and approachable, demonstrating follow-through to address identified issues, and creating venues where errors and successes can be openly discussed.²⁶ These facilitators are aligned with enterprise HRO support strategies orchestrated by the VHA at the enterprise VISN and facility levels to support a culture of safety, continuous process improvement, and leadership commitment.

Frequently identified barriers included inadequate training, inconsistent application of just culture by middle managers vs senior leaders, a lack of accountability or corrective action when unjust corrective actions took place, time and resource constraints, and inadequate coordination across departments (eg, operational departments and human resources) and organizational levels. These factors were identified through focus groups with a limited set of HRO leads. They may reflect challenges to changing culture that may be deeply engrained in individual histories, organizational norms, and systemic practices. Improving upon these just culture initiatives requires multifaceted approaches and working through resistance to change.

VHA HRO leads identified several actionable recommendations that may be used in pursuit of a just culture. First, improvements in training involving how to apply just culture principles and, specifically, the use of the Just Culture DST were identified as an opportunity for improvement. The VHA National Center for Patient Safety developed the DST as an aid for leaders to effectively address errors in line with just culture principles, balancing individual and system accountability.²⁷ The DST specifically addresses human error as well as risky and reckless behavior, and it clarifies the delineation between individual and organizational accountability (Table).³

Limitations

This study employed qualitative methods and sampled a relatively small subset of experienced leaders with specific roles in implementing HRO in the VHA. Thus, it should not be considered representative of the perspectives of all leaders within the VHA or other health care systems. Future studies should assess facilitators and barriers beyond the facility level, including a focus incorporating both the VISN and VHA. More broadly, qualitative methods such as those employed in this study offer great depth and nuance but have limited ability to identify system-wide trends and differences. As such, it may be beneficial to specifically look at sites that are high- or low-performing on measures of patient safety culture to identify differences that may inform implementation strategies based on organizational maturity and readiness for change.

Conclusions

Successful implementation of these recommendations will require ongoing commitment, collaboration, and a sustained effort from all stakeholders involved at multiple levels of the health care system. Monitoring and evaluating progress should be conducted regularly to ensure that recommendations lead to improvements in implementing just culture principles. This quality improvement study adds to the knowledge base on factors that impact the just culture and broader efforts to realize HRO principles and practices in health care systems. The approach of this study may serve as a model for identifying opportunities to improve HRO implementation within the VHA and other settings, especially when paired with ongoing quantitative evaluation of organizational safety culture, just culture behaviors, and patient outcomes.

In April 2022, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revised its behavioral health care eligibility policies to provide comprehensive mental and behavioral health care to former service members who received an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge characterization upon separation from military service.¹ This policy shift represents a marked expansion in eligibility practices (Table 1 includes amended eligibility criteria).

Since June 2017, eligibility policies allowed veterans with OTH discharges to receive “emergent mental health services” needed to stabilize acute mental health crises related to military service (eg, acute escalations in suicide risk).^2,3 Previously, veterans with OTH discharges were largely ineligible for VA-based health care; these individuals were only able to access Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental and behavioral health care through limited channels of eligibility (eg, for treatment of military sexual trauma or psychosis or other mental illness within 2 years of discharge).^4,5 The impetus for expansions in eligibility stemmed from VA efforts to reduce the suicide rate among veterans.^6-8 Implications of such expansion extend beyond suicide prevention efforts, with notable promised effects on the care of veterans with criminal-legal involvement. This article highlights potential effects of recent eligibility expansions on veterans with criminal-legal involvement and makes specific recommendations for agencies and organizations serving these veterans.

OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE

The US Department of Defense delineates 6 discharge characterizations provided to service members upon separation from military service: honorable, general under honorable conditions, OTH, bad conduct, dishonorable, and uncharacterized. Honorable discharge characterizations are considered to reflect general concordance between service member behavior and military standards; general discharge characterizations reflect some disparity between the service member’s behavior and military standards; OTH, bad conduct, and dishonorable discharge characterizations reflect serious disparities between the service member’s behavior and military standards; and uncharacterized discharge characterizations are given when other discharge characterizations are deemed inappropriate.^9,10 OTH discharge characterizations are typically issued under instances of misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial.^9,10

Recent research suggests that about 85% of service members receive an honorable discharge characterization upon separation from military service, 8% receive general, 6% receive OTH, and 1% receive bad conduct or dishonorable discharges.11 In 2017, the VA estimated there were > 500,000 prior service members with OTH discharge characterizations, which has grown over time (1.9% during the Korean Conflict, 2.5% during the Vietnam War Era, 3.9% during the Cold War, 4.8% in the Persian Gulf War, and 5.8% in the post-9/11 era).^7,11

The OTH discharge characterization is 1 of 3 less than honorable discharges informally referred to as bad papers (ie, OTH, bad conduct, or dishonorable). Former service members receiving these discharge characterizations face significant social stigma and structural discrimination upon military discharge, including significant hurdles to employment and educational pursuits as well as notable social alienation.¹² Due to their discharge characterization, some are viewed as less deserving of the veteran title, and until recently, many did not qualify for the complex legal definition of veteran as established by the Congress.^11,13 Veterans with OTH discharge characterizations have also historically been excluded from services (eg, VHA care),³ benefits (eg, disability compensation),¹⁴ and protections (eg, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act)¹⁵ offered to veterans with honorable or general discharge characterizations. However, eligibility policies have gradually expanded, providing veterans with OTH discharges with access to VHA-based mental and behavioral health services and VA supportive housing assistance.^1,3,16

Perhaps due to their historical exclusion from VA services, there is limited research available on the behavioral health and associated needs of veterans with OTH discharges. Some scholars argue that historical exclusions have exacerbated underlying difficulties faced by this population, thereby contributing to stark health and social disparities across discharge types.^14,15,17 Studies with large veteran samples, for example, reflect notable demographic and behavioral health differences across discharge types. Compared to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are significantly more likely to be younger, have lower income, use substances, have a history of criminal-legal involvement, and have mental and physical health difficulties.^18,19

Substantial evidence also suggests a historical racial bias, with service members of color being disproportionately more likely to receive an OTH discharge.¹² Similarly, across all branches of military service, Black service members are significantly more likely to face general or special court martial in military justice proceedings when compared with White service members.²⁰ Service members from gender and sexual minorities are also disproportionately impacted by the OTH designation. Historically, many have been discharged with bad papers due to discriminatory policies, such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation between December 1993 and September 2011, and Directive-type Memorandum-19-004, which banned transgender persons from military service between April 2019 and January 2021.^21,22

There is also significant mental health bias in the provision of OTH discharges, such that OTH characterizations are disproportionately represented among individuals with mental health disorders.^18-20 Veterans discharged from military service due to behavioral misconduct are significantly more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for various behavioral health conditions and to experience homelessness, criminal-legal involvement, and suicidal ideation and behavior compared with routinely-discharged veterans.^23-28

Consistent with their comparatively higher rates of criminal-legal involvement relative to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are disproportionately represented in criminal justice settings. While veterans with OTH discharges represent only 6% of discharging service members and 2.5% of community-based veterans, they represent 10% of incarcerated veterans.^11,18,23,29 Preliminary research suggests veterans with OTH discharges may be at higher risk for lifetime incarceration, though the association between OTH discharge and frequency of lifetime arrests remains unclear.^18,30

VETERANS TREATMENT COURTS

Given the overrepresentation of veterans with OTH discharges in criminal-legal settings, consideration for this subset of the veteran population and its unique needs is commonplace among problem-solving courts that service veterans. First conceptualized in 2004, Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) are specialized problem-solving courts that divert veterans away from traditional judicial court and penal systems and into community-based supervision and treatment (most commonly behavioral health services).^31-34 Although each VTC program is unique in structure, policies, and procedures, most VTCs can be characterized by certain key elements, including voluntary participation, plea requirements, delayed sentencing (often including reduced or dismissed charges), integration of military culture into court proceedings, a rehabilitative vs adversarial approach to decreasing risk of future criminal behavior, mandated treatment and supervision during participation, and use of veteran mentors to provide peer support.^32-35 Eligibility requirements vary; however, many restrict participation to veterans with honorable discharge types and charges for nonviolent offenses.^32,33,35-37

VTCs connect veterans within the criminal-legal system to needed behavioral health, community, and social services.^31-33,37 VTC participants are commonly connected to case management, behavioral health care, therapeutic journaling programs, and vocational rehabilitation.^38,39 Accordingly, the most common difficulties faced by veterans participating in these courts include substance use, mental health, family issues, anger management and/or aggressive behavior, and homelessness.^36,39 There is limited research on the effectiveness of VTCs. Evidence on their overall effectiveness is largely mixed, though some studies suggest VTC graduates tend to have lower recidivism rates than offenders more broadly or persons who terminate VTC programs prior to completion.^40,41 Other studies suggest that VTC participants are more likely to have jail sanctions, new arrests, and new incarcerations relative to nontreatment court participants.⁴² Notably, experimental designs (considered the gold standard in assessing effectiveness) to date have not been applied to evaluate the effectiveness of VTCs; as such, the effectiveness of these programs remains an area in need of continued empirical investigation.

Like all problem-solving courts, VTCs occasionally struggle to connect participating defendants with appropriate care, particularly when encountering structural barriers (eg, insurance, transportation) and/or complex behavioral health needs (eg, personality disorders).^34,43 As suicide rates among veterans experiencing criminal-legal involvement surge (about 150 per 100,000 in 2021, a 10% increase from 2020 to 2021 compared to about 40 per 100,000 and a 1.8% increase among other veterans), efficiency of adequate care coordination is vital.⁴⁴ Many VTCs rely on VTC-VA partnerships and collaborations to navigate these difficulties and facilitate connection of participating veterans to needed services.^32-34,45 For example, within the VHA, Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) and Health Care for Re-Entry Veterans (HCRV) specialists assist and bridge the gap between the criminal-legal system (including, but not limited to VTCs) and VA services by engaging veterans involved in the criminal-legal system and connecting them to needed VA-based services (Table 2). Generally, VJO specialists support veterans involved with the front end of the criminallegal system (eg, arrest, pretrial incarceration, or participation in VTCs), while HCRV specialists tend to support veterans transitioning back into the community after a period of incarceration.^46,47 Specific to VTCs, VJO specialists typically serve as liaisons between the courts and VA, coordinating VA services for defendants to fulfill their terms of VTC participation.⁴⁶

The historical exclusion of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations from VA-based services has restricted many from accessing VTC programs.³² Of 17 VTC programs active in Pennsylvania in 2014, only 5 accepted veterans with OTstayH discharges, and 3 required application to and eligibility for VA benefits.³³ Similarly, in national surveys of VTC programs, about 1 in 3 report excluding veterans deemed ineligible for VA services.^35,36 When veterans with OTH discharges have accessed VTC programs, they have historically relied on non-VA, community-based programming to fulfill treatment mandates, which may be less suited to addressing the unique needs of veterans.⁴⁸

Veterans who utilize VTCs receive several benefits, namely peer support and mentorship, acceptance into a veteran-centric space, and connection with specially trained staff capable of supporting the veteran through applications for a range of VA benefits (eg, service connection, housing support).^31-33,37 Given the disparate prevalence of OTH discharge characterizations among service members from racial, sexual, and gender minorities and among service members with mental health disorders, exclusion of veterans with OTH discharges from VTCs solely based on the type of discharge likely contributes to structural inequities among these already underserved groups by restricting access to these potential benefits. Such structural inequity stands in direct conflict with VTC best practice standards, which admonish programs to adjust eligibility requirements to facilitate access to treatment court programs for historically marginalized groups.⁴⁹

ELIGIBILITY EXPANSIONS

Given the overrepresentation of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations within the criminal-legal system and historical barriers of these veterans to access needed mental and behavioral health care, expansions in VA eligibility policies could have immense implications for VTCs. First, these expansions could mitigate common barriers to connecting VTC-participating veterans with OTH discharges with needed behavioral health care by allowing these veterans to access established, VA-based services and programming. Expansion may also allow VTCs to serve as a key intercept point for identifying and engaging veterans with OTH discharges who may be unaware of their eligibility for VA-based behavioral health care.

Access to VA health care services is a major resource for VTC participants and a common requirement.³² Eligibility expansion should ease access barriers veterans with OTH discharges commonly face. By providing a potential source of treatment, expansions may also support OTH eligibility practices within VTCs, particularly practices that require participants to be eligible for VA health care.^33,35,36 Some VTCs may continue to determine eligibility on the basis of discharge status and remain inaccessible to veterans with OTH discharge characterizations without program-level policy changes.^32,36,37

Communicating changes in eligibility policies relevant to veterans with OTH discharges may be a challenge, because many of these individuals have no established channels of communication with the VA. Because veterans with OTH discharges are at increased risk for legal system involvement, VTCs may serve as a unique point of contact to help facilitate communication.¹⁸ For example, upon referral to a VTC, veterans with OTH discharges can be identified, VA health care eligibility can be verified, and veterans can connect to VA staff to facilitate enrollment in VA services and care.

VJO specialists are in a favorable position to serve a critical role in utilizing VTCs as a potential intercept point for engaging veterans with OTH discharge characterizations. As outlined in the STRONG Veterans Act of 2022, VJOs are mandated to “spread awareness and understanding of veteran eligibility for the [VJO] Program, including the eligibility of veterans who were discharged from service in the Armed Forces under conditions other than honorable.”50 The Act further requires VJOs to be annually trained in communicating eligibility changes as they arise. Accordingly, VJOs receive ongoing training in a wide variety of critical outreach topics, including changes in eligibility; while VJOs cannot make eligibility determinations, they are tasked with enrolling all veterans involved in the criminal-legal system with whom they interact into VHA services, whether through typical or special eligibility criteria (M. Stimmel, PhD, National Training Director for Veteran Justice Programming, oral communication, July 14, 2023). VJOs therefore routinely serve in this capacity of facilitating VA enrollment of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations.

Recommendations to Veteran-Servicing Judicial Programs

Considering these potential implications, professionals routinely interacting with veterans involved in the criminal-legal system should become familiarized with recent changes in VA eligibility policies. Such familiarization would support the identification of veterans previously considered ineligible for care; provision of education to these veterans regarding their new eligibility; and referral to appropriate VA-based behavioral health care options. Although conceptually simple, executing such an educational campaign may prove logistically difficult. Given their historical exclusion from VA services, veterans with OTH discharge characterizations are unlikely to seek VA-based services in times of need, instead relying on a broad swath of civilian community-based organizations and resources. Usual approaches to advertising VHA health care policy changes (eg, by notifying VA employees and/or departments providing corresponding services or by circulating information to veteran-focused mailing lists and organizations) likely would prove insufficient. Educational campaigns to disseminate information about recent OTH eligibility changes should instead consider partnering with traditionally civilian, communitybased organizations and institutions, such as state bar associations, legal aid networks, case management services, nonveteran treatment court programs (eg, drug courts, or domestic violence courts), or probation/ parole programs. Because national surveys suggest generally low military cultural competence among civilian populations, providing concurrent support in developing foundational veteran cultural competencies (eg, how to phrase questions about military service history, or understanding discharge characterizations) may be necessary to ensure effective identification and engagement of veteran clients.⁴⁸

Programs that serve veterans with criminal-legal involvement should also consider potential relevance of recent OTH eligibility changes to program operations. VTC program staff and key partners (eg, judges, case managers, district attorneys, or defense attorneys), should revisit policies and procedures surrounding the engagement of veterans with OTH discharges within VTC programs and strategies for connecting these veterans with needed services. VTC programs that have historically excluded veterans with OTH discharges due to associated difficulties in locating and connecting with needed services should consider expanding eligibility policies considering recent shifts in VA behavioral health care eligibility.^33,35,36 Within the VHA, VJO specialists can play a critical role in supporting these VTC eligibility and cultural shifts. Some evidence suggests a large proportion of VTC referrals are facilitated by VJO specialists and that many such referrals are identified when veterans involved with the criminal-legal system seek VA support and/or services.³³ Given the historical exclusion of veterans with OTH discharges from VA care, strategies used by VJO specialists to identify, connect, and engage veterans with OTH discharges with VTCs and other services may be beneficial.

Even with knowledge of VA eligibility changes and considerations of these changes on local operations, many forensic settings and programs struggle to identify veterans. These difficulties are likely amplified among veterans with OTH discharge characterizations, who may be hesitant to self-disclose their military service history due to fear of stigma and/or views of OTH discharge characterizations as undeserving of the veteran title.¹² The VA offers 2 tools to aid in identification of veterans for these settings: the Veterans Re-Entry Search Service (VRSS) and Status Query and Response Exchange System (SQUARES). For VRSS, correctional facilities, courts, and other criminal justice entities upload a simple spreadsheet that contains basic identifying information of inmates or defendants in their system. VRSS returns information about which inmates or defendants have a history of military service and alerts VA Veterans Justice Programs staff so they can conduct outreach. A pilot study conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that 2.7% of its inmate population self-identified as veterans, while VRSS identified 7.7% of inmates with a history of military service. This difference represented about 5000 previously unidentified veterans.⁵¹ Similarly, community entities that partner with the VA, such as law enforcement or homeless service programs, can be approved to become a SQUARES user and submit identifying information of individuals with whom they interact directly into the SQUARES search engine. SQUARES then directly returns information about the individual’s veteran status and eligibility for VA health care and homeless programs.

Other Eligibility Limitations

VTCs and other professionals looking to refer veterans with OTH discharge characterizations to VA-based behavioral health care should be aware of potential limitations in eligibility and access. Specifically, although veterans with OTH discharges are now broadly eligible for VA-based behavioral health care and homeless programs, they remain ineligible for other forms of health care, including primary care and nonbehavioral specialty care.1 Research has found a strong comorbidity between behavioral and nonbehavioral health concerns, particularly within historically marginalized demographic groups.^52-55 Because these historically marginalized groups are often overrepresented among persons with criminal-legal involvement, veterans with OTH discharges, and VTC participants, such comorbidities require consideration by services or programming designed to support veterans with criminal-legal involvement.^12,56-58 Connection with VA-based health care will therefore continue to fall short of addressing all health care needs of veterans with OTH discharges and effective case management will require considerable treatment coordination between VA behavioral health care practitioners (HCPs) and community-based HCPs (eg, primary care professionals or nonbehavioral HCPs).

Implications for VA Mental Health Care

Recent eligibility expansions will also have inevitable consequences for VA mental health care systems. For many years, these systems have been overburdened by high caseloads and clinician burnout.^59,60 Given the generally elevated rates of mental health and substance use concerns among veterans with OTH discharge characterizations, expansions hold the potential to further burden caseloads with clinically complex, high-risk, high-need clients. Nevertheless, these expansions are also structured in a way that forces existing systems to absorb the responsibilities of providing necessary care to these veterans. To mitigate detrimental effects of eligibility expansions on the broader VA mental health system, clinicians should be explicitly trained in identifying veterans with OTH discharge characterizations and the implications of discharge status on broader health care eligibility. Treatment of veterans with OTH discharges may also benefit from close coordination between mental health professionals and behavioral health care coordinators to ensure appropriate coordination of care between VA- and non–VA-based HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent changes to VA eligibility policies now allow comprehensive mental and behavioral health care services to be provided to veterans with OTH discharges.1 Compared to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are more likely to be persons of color, sexual or gender minorities, and experiencing mental health-related difficulties. Given the disproportionate mental health burden often faced by veterans with OTH discharges and relative overrepresentation of these veterans in judicial and correctional systems, these changes have considerable implications for programs and services designed to support veterans with criminallegal involvement. Professionals within these systems, particularly VTC programs, are therefore encouraged to familiarize themselves with recent changes in VA eligibility policies and to revisit strategies, policies, and procedures surrounding the engagement and enrollment of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations. Doing so may ensure veterans with OTH discharges are effectively connected to needed behavioral health care services.

In April 2022, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revised its behavioral health care eligibility policies to provide comprehensive mental and behavioral health care to former service members who received an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge characterization upon separation from military service.¹ This policy shift represents a marked expansion in eligibility practices (Table 1 includes amended eligibility criteria).

Since June 2017, eligibility policies allowed veterans with OTH discharges to receive “emergent mental health services” needed to stabilize acute mental health crises related to military service (eg, acute escalations in suicide risk).^2,3 Previously, veterans with OTH discharges were largely ineligible for VA-based health care; these individuals were only able to access Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental and behavioral health care through limited channels of eligibility (eg, for treatment of military sexual trauma or psychosis or other mental illness within 2 years of discharge).^4,5 The impetus for expansions in eligibility stemmed from VA efforts to reduce the suicide rate among veterans.^6-8 Implications of such expansion extend beyond suicide prevention efforts, with notable promised effects on the care of veterans with criminal-legal involvement. This article highlights potential effects of recent eligibility expansions on veterans with criminal-legal involvement and makes specific recommendations for agencies and organizations serving these veterans.

OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE

The US Department of Defense delineates 6 discharge characterizations provided to service members upon separation from military service: honorable, general under honorable conditions, OTH, bad conduct, dishonorable, and uncharacterized. Honorable discharge characterizations are considered to reflect general concordance between service member behavior and military standards; general discharge characterizations reflect some disparity between the service member’s behavior and military standards; OTH, bad conduct, and dishonorable discharge characterizations reflect serious disparities between the service member’s behavior and military standards; and uncharacterized discharge characterizations are given when other discharge characterizations are deemed inappropriate.^9,10 OTH discharge characterizations are typically issued under instances of misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial.^9,10

Recent research suggests that about 85% of service members receive an honorable discharge characterization upon separation from military service, 8% receive general, 6% receive OTH, and 1% receive bad conduct or dishonorable discharges.11 In 2017, the VA estimated there were > 500,000 prior service members with OTH discharge characterizations, which has grown over time (1.9% during the Korean Conflict, 2.5% during the Vietnam War Era, 3.9% during the Cold War, 4.8% in the Persian Gulf War, and 5.8% in the post-9/11 era).^7,11

The OTH discharge characterization is 1 of 3 less than honorable discharges informally referred to as bad papers (ie, OTH, bad conduct, or dishonorable). Former service members receiving these discharge characterizations face significant social stigma and structural discrimination upon military discharge, including significant hurdles to employment and educational pursuits as well as notable social alienation.¹² Due to their discharge characterization, some are viewed as less deserving of the veteran title, and until recently, many did not qualify for the complex legal definition of veteran as established by the Congress.^11,13 Veterans with OTH discharge characterizations have also historically been excluded from services (eg, VHA care),³ benefits (eg, disability compensation),¹⁴ and protections (eg, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act)¹⁵ offered to veterans with honorable or general discharge characterizations. However, eligibility policies have gradually expanded, providing veterans with OTH discharges with access to VHA-based mental and behavioral health services and VA supportive housing assistance.^1,3,16

Perhaps due to their historical exclusion from VA services, there is limited research available on the behavioral health and associated needs of veterans with OTH discharges. Some scholars argue that historical exclusions have exacerbated underlying difficulties faced by this population, thereby contributing to stark health and social disparities across discharge types.^14,15,17 Studies with large veteran samples, for example, reflect notable demographic and behavioral health differences across discharge types. Compared to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are significantly more likely to be younger, have lower income, use substances, have a history of criminal-legal involvement, and have mental and physical health difficulties.^18,19

Substantial evidence also suggests a historical racial bias, with service members of color being disproportionately more likely to receive an OTH discharge.¹² Similarly, across all branches of military service, Black service members are significantly more likely to face general or special court martial in military justice proceedings when compared with White service members.²⁰ Service members from gender and sexual minorities are also disproportionately impacted by the OTH designation. Historically, many have been discharged with bad papers due to discriminatory policies, such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation between December 1993 and September 2011, and Directive-type Memorandum-19-004, which banned transgender persons from military service between April 2019 and January 2021.^21,22

There is also significant mental health bias in the provision of OTH discharges, such that OTH characterizations are disproportionately represented among individuals with mental health disorders.^18-20 Veterans discharged from military service due to behavioral misconduct are significantly more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for various behavioral health conditions and to experience homelessness, criminal-legal involvement, and suicidal ideation and behavior compared with routinely-discharged veterans.^23-28

Consistent with their comparatively higher rates of criminal-legal involvement relative to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are disproportionately represented in criminal justice settings. While veterans with OTH discharges represent only 6% of discharging service members and 2.5% of community-based veterans, they represent 10% of incarcerated veterans.^11,18,23,29 Preliminary research suggests veterans with OTH discharges may be at higher risk for lifetime incarceration, though the association between OTH discharge and frequency of lifetime arrests remains unclear.^18,30

VETERANS TREATMENT COURTS

Given the overrepresentation of veterans with OTH discharges in criminal-legal settings, consideration for this subset of the veteran population and its unique needs is commonplace among problem-solving courts that service veterans. First conceptualized in 2004, Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) are specialized problem-solving courts that divert veterans away from traditional judicial court and penal systems and into community-based supervision and treatment (most commonly behavioral health services).^31-34 Although each VTC program is unique in structure, policies, and procedures, most VTCs can be characterized by certain key elements, including voluntary participation, plea requirements, delayed sentencing (often including reduced or dismissed charges), integration of military culture into court proceedings, a rehabilitative vs adversarial approach to decreasing risk of future criminal behavior, mandated treatment and supervision during participation, and use of veteran mentors to provide peer support.^32-35 Eligibility requirements vary; however, many restrict participation to veterans with honorable discharge types and charges for nonviolent offenses.^32,33,35-37

VTCs connect veterans within the criminal-legal system to needed behavioral health, community, and social services.^31-33,37 VTC participants are commonly connected to case management, behavioral health care, therapeutic journaling programs, and vocational rehabilitation.^38,39 Accordingly, the most common difficulties faced by veterans participating in these courts include substance use, mental health, family issues, anger management and/or aggressive behavior, and homelessness.^36,39 There is limited research on the effectiveness of VTCs. Evidence on their overall effectiveness is largely mixed, though some studies suggest VTC graduates tend to have lower recidivism rates than offenders more broadly or persons who terminate VTC programs prior to completion.^40,41 Other studies suggest that VTC participants are more likely to have jail sanctions, new arrests, and new incarcerations relative to nontreatment court participants.⁴² Notably, experimental designs (considered the gold standard in assessing effectiveness) to date have not been applied to evaluate the effectiveness of VTCs; as such, the effectiveness of these programs remains an area in need of continued empirical investigation.

Like all problem-solving courts, VTCs occasionally struggle to connect participating defendants with appropriate care, particularly when encountering structural barriers (eg, insurance, transportation) and/or complex behavioral health needs (eg, personality disorders).^34,43 As suicide rates among veterans experiencing criminal-legal involvement surge (about 150 per 100,000 in 2021, a 10% increase from 2020 to 2021 compared to about 40 per 100,000 and a 1.8% increase among other veterans), efficiency of adequate care coordination is vital.⁴⁴ Many VTCs rely on VTC-VA partnerships and collaborations to navigate these difficulties and facilitate connection of participating veterans to needed services.^32-34,45 For example, within the VHA, Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) and Health Care for Re-Entry Veterans (HCRV) specialists assist and bridge the gap between the criminal-legal system (including, but not limited to VTCs) and VA services by engaging veterans involved in the criminal-legal system and connecting them to needed VA-based services (Table 2). Generally, VJO specialists support veterans involved with the front end of the criminallegal system (eg, arrest, pretrial incarceration, or participation in VTCs), while HCRV specialists tend to support veterans transitioning back into the community after a period of incarceration.^46,47 Specific to VTCs, VJO specialists typically serve as liaisons between the courts and VA, coordinating VA services for defendants to fulfill their terms of VTC participation.⁴⁶

The historical exclusion of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations from VA-based services has restricted many from accessing VTC programs.³² Of 17 VTC programs active in Pennsylvania in 2014, only 5 accepted veterans with OTstayH discharges, and 3 required application to and eligibility for VA benefits.³³ Similarly, in national surveys of VTC programs, about 1 in 3 report excluding veterans deemed ineligible for VA services.^35,36 When veterans with OTH discharges have accessed VTC programs, they have historically relied on non-VA, community-based programming to fulfill treatment mandates, which may be less suited to addressing the unique needs of veterans.⁴⁸

Veterans who utilize VTCs receive several benefits, namely peer support and mentorship, acceptance into a veteran-centric space, and connection with specially trained staff capable of supporting the veteran through applications for a range of VA benefits (eg, service connection, housing support).^31-33,37 Given the disparate prevalence of OTH discharge characterizations among service members from racial, sexual, and gender minorities and among service members with mental health disorders, exclusion of veterans with OTH discharges from VTCs solely based on the type of discharge likely contributes to structural inequities among these already underserved groups by restricting access to these potential benefits. Such structural inequity stands in direct conflict with VTC best practice standards, which admonish programs to adjust eligibility requirements to facilitate access to treatment court programs for historically marginalized groups.⁴⁹

ELIGIBILITY EXPANSIONS

Given the overrepresentation of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations within the criminal-legal system and historical barriers of these veterans to access needed mental and behavioral health care, expansions in VA eligibility policies could have immense implications for VTCs. First, these expansions could mitigate common barriers to connecting VTC-participating veterans with OTH discharges with needed behavioral health care by allowing these veterans to access established, VA-based services and programming. Expansion may also allow VTCs to serve as a key intercept point for identifying and engaging veterans with OTH discharges who may be unaware of their eligibility for VA-based behavioral health care.

Access to VA health care services is a major resource for VTC participants and a common requirement.³² Eligibility expansion should ease access barriers veterans with OTH discharges commonly face. By providing a potential source of treatment, expansions may also support OTH eligibility practices within VTCs, particularly practices that require participants to be eligible for VA health care.^33,35,36 Some VTCs may continue to determine eligibility on the basis of discharge status and remain inaccessible to veterans with OTH discharge characterizations without program-level policy changes.^32,36,37

Communicating changes in eligibility policies relevant to veterans with OTH discharges may be a challenge, because many of these individuals have no established channels of communication with the VA. Because veterans with OTH discharges are at increased risk for legal system involvement, VTCs may serve as a unique point of contact to help facilitate communication.¹⁸ For example, upon referral to a VTC, veterans with OTH discharges can be identified, VA health care eligibility can be verified, and veterans can connect to VA staff to facilitate enrollment in VA services and care.

VJO specialists are in a favorable position to serve a critical role in utilizing VTCs as a potential intercept point for engaging veterans with OTH discharge characterizations. As outlined in the STRONG Veterans Act of 2022, VJOs are mandated to “spread awareness and understanding of veteran eligibility for the [VJO] Program, including the eligibility of veterans who were discharged from service in the Armed Forces under conditions other than honorable.”50 The Act further requires VJOs to be annually trained in communicating eligibility changes as they arise. Accordingly, VJOs receive ongoing training in a wide variety of critical outreach topics, including changes in eligibility; while VJOs cannot make eligibility determinations, they are tasked with enrolling all veterans involved in the criminal-legal system with whom they interact into VHA services, whether through typical or special eligibility criteria (M. Stimmel, PhD, National Training Director for Veteran Justice Programming, oral communication, July 14, 2023). VJOs therefore routinely serve in this capacity of facilitating VA enrollment of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations.

Recommendations to Veteran-Servicing Judicial Programs

Considering these potential implications, professionals routinely interacting with veterans involved in the criminal-legal system should become familiarized with recent changes in VA eligibility policies. Such familiarization would support the identification of veterans previously considered ineligible for care; provision of education to these veterans regarding their new eligibility; and referral to appropriate VA-based behavioral health care options. Although conceptually simple, executing such an educational campaign may prove logistically difficult. Given their historical exclusion from VA services, veterans with OTH discharge characterizations are unlikely to seek VA-based services in times of need, instead relying on a broad swath of civilian community-based organizations and resources. Usual approaches to advertising VHA health care policy changes (eg, by notifying VA employees and/or departments providing corresponding services or by circulating information to veteran-focused mailing lists and organizations) likely would prove insufficient. Educational campaigns to disseminate information about recent OTH eligibility changes should instead consider partnering with traditionally civilian, communitybased organizations and institutions, such as state bar associations, legal aid networks, case management services, nonveteran treatment court programs (eg, drug courts, or domestic violence courts), or probation/ parole programs. Because national surveys suggest generally low military cultural competence among civilian populations, providing concurrent support in developing foundational veteran cultural competencies (eg, how to phrase questions about military service history, or understanding discharge characterizations) may be necessary to ensure effective identification and engagement of veteran clients.⁴⁸

Programs that serve veterans with criminal-legal involvement should also consider potential relevance of recent OTH eligibility changes to program operations. VTC program staff and key partners (eg, judges, case managers, district attorneys, or defense attorneys), should revisit policies and procedures surrounding the engagement of veterans with OTH discharges within VTC programs and strategies for connecting these veterans with needed services. VTC programs that have historically excluded veterans with OTH discharges due to associated difficulties in locating and connecting with needed services should consider expanding eligibility policies considering recent shifts in VA behavioral health care eligibility.^33,35,36 Within the VHA, VJO specialists can play a critical role in supporting these VTC eligibility and cultural shifts. Some evidence suggests a large proportion of VTC referrals are facilitated by VJO specialists and that many such referrals are identified when veterans involved with the criminal-legal system seek VA support and/or services.³³ Given the historical exclusion of veterans with OTH discharges from VA care, strategies used by VJO specialists to identify, connect, and engage veterans with OTH discharges with VTCs and other services may be beneficial.

Even with knowledge of VA eligibility changes and considerations of these changes on local operations, many forensic settings and programs struggle to identify veterans. These difficulties are likely amplified among veterans with OTH discharge characterizations, who may be hesitant to self-disclose their military service history due to fear of stigma and/or views of OTH discharge characterizations as undeserving of the veteran title.¹² The VA offers 2 tools to aid in identification of veterans for these settings: the Veterans Re-Entry Search Service (VRSS) and Status Query and Response Exchange System (SQUARES). For VRSS, correctional facilities, courts, and other criminal justice entities upload a simple spreadsheet that contains basic identifying information of inmates or defendants in their system. VRSS returns information about which inmates or defendants have a history of military service and alerts VA Veterans Justice Programs staff so they can conduct outreach. A pilot study conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that 2.7% of its inmate population self-identified as veterans, while VRSS identified 7.7% of inmates with a history of military service. This difference represented about 5000 previously unidentified veterans.⁵¹ Similarly, community entities that partner with the VA, such as law enforcement or homeless service programs, can be approved to become a SQUARES user and submit identifying information of individuals with whom they interact directly into the SQUARES search engine. SQUARES then directly returns information about the individual’s veteran status and eligibility for VA health care and homeless programs.

Other Eligibility Limitations

VTCs and other professionals looking to refer veterans with OTH discharge characterizations to VA-based behavioral health care should be aware of potential limitations in eligibility and access. Specifically, although veterans with OTH discharges are now broadly eligible for VA-based behavioral health care and homeless programs, they remain ineligible for other forms of health care, including primary care and nonbehavioral specialty care.1 Research has found a strong comorbidity between behavioral and nonbehavioral health concerns, particularly within historically marginalized demographic groups.^52-55 Because these historically marginalized groups are often overrepresented among persons with criminal-legal involvement, veterans with OTH discharges, and VTC participants, such comorbidities require consideration by services or programming designed to support veterans with criminal-legal involvement.^12,56-58 Connection with VA-based health care will therefore continue to fall short of addressing all health care needs of veterans with OTH discharges and effective case management will require considerable treatment coordination between VA behavioral health care practitioners (HCPs) and community-based HCPs (eg, primary care professionals or nonbehavioral HCPs).

Implications for VA Mental Health Care

Recent eligibility expansions will also have inevitable consequences for VA mental health care systems. For many years, these systems have been overburdened by high caseloads and clinician burnout.^59,60 Given the generally elevated rates of mental health and substance use concerns among veterans with OTH discharge characterizations, expansions hold the potential to further burden caseloads with clinically complex, high-risk, high-need clients. Nevertheless, these expansions are also structured in a way that forces existing systems to absorb the responsibilities of providing necessary care to these veterans. To mitigate detrimental effects of eligibility expansions on the broader VA mental health system, clinicians should be explicitly trained in identifying veterans with OTH discharge characterizations and the implications of discharge status on broader health care eligibility. Treatment of veterans with OTH discharges may also benefit from close coordination between mental health professionals and behavioral health care coordinators to ensure appropriate coordination of care between VA- and non–VA-based HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent changes to VA eligibility policies now allow comprehensive mental and behavioral health care services to be provided to veterans with OTH discharges.1 Compared to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are more likely to be persons of color, sexual or gender minorities, and experiencing mental health-related difficulties. Given the disproportionate mental health burden often faced by veterans with OTH discharges and relative overrepresentation of these veterans in judicial and correctional systems, these changes have considerable implications for programs and services designed to support veterans with criminallegal involvement. Professionals within these systems, particularly VTC programs, are therefore encouraged to familiarize themselves with recent changes in VA eligibility policies and to revisit strategies, policies, and procedures surrounding the engagement and enrollment of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations. Doing so may ensure veterans with OTH discharges are effectively connected to needed behavioral health care services.

In April 2022, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revised its behavioral health care eligibility policies to provide comprehensive mental and behavioral health care to former service members who received an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge characterization upon separation from military service.¹ This policy shift represents a marked expansion in eligibility practices (Table 1 includes amended eligibility criteria).

Since June 2017, eligibility policies allowed veterans with OTH discharges to receive “emergent mental health services” needed to stabilize acute mental health crises related to military service (eg, acute escalations in suicide risk).^2,3 Previously, veterans with OTH discharges were largely ineligible for VA-based health care; these individuals were only able to access Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental and behavioral health care through limited channels of eligibility (eg, for treatment of military sexual trauma or psychosis or other mental illness within 2 years of discharge).^4,5 The impetus for expansions in eligibility stemmed from VA efforts to reduce the suicide rate among veterans.^6-8 Implications of such expansion extend beyond suicide prevention efforts, with notable promised effects on the care of veterans with criminal-legal involvement. This article highlights potential effects of recent eligibility expansions on veterans with criminal-legal involvement and makes specific recommendations for agencies and organizations serving these veterans.

OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGE

The US Department of Defense delineates 6 discharge characterizations provided to service members upon separation from military service: honorable, general under honorable conditions, OTH, bad conduct, dishonorable, and uncharacterized. Honorable discharge characterizations are considered to reflect general concordance between service member behavior and military standards; general discharge characterizations reflect some disparity between the service member’s behavior and military standards; OTH, bad conduct, and dishonorable discharge characterizations reflect serious disparities between the service member’s behavior and military standards; and uncharacterized discharge characterizations are given when other discharge characterizations are deemed inappropriate.^9,10 OTH discharge characterizations are typically issued under instances of misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial.^9,10

Recent research suggests that about 85% of service members receive an honorable discharge characterization upon separation from military service, 8% receive general, 6% receive OTH, and 1% receive bad conduct or dishonorable discharges.11 In 2017, the VA estimated there were > 500,000 prior service members with OTH discharge characterizations, which has grown over time (1.9% during the Korean Conflict, 2.5% during the Vietnam War Era, 3.9% during the Cold War, 4.8% in the Persian Gulf War, and 5.8% in the post-9/11 era).^7,11

The OTH discharge characterization is 1 of 3 less than honorable discharges informally referred to as bad papers (ie, OTH, bad conduct, or dishonorable). Former service members receiving these discharge characterizations face significant social stigma and structural discrimination upon military discharge, including significant hurdles to employment and educational pursuits as well as notable social alienation.¹² Due to their discharge characterization, some are viewed as less deserving of the veteran title, and until recently, many did not qualify for the complex legal definition of veteran as established by the Congress.^11,13 Veterans with OTH discharge characterizations have also historically been excluded from services (eg, VHA care),³ benefits (eg, disability compensation),¹⁴ and protections (eg, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act)¹⁵ offered to veterans with honorable or general discharge characterizations. However, eligibility policies have gradually expanded, providing veterans with OTH discharges with access to VHA-based mental and behavioral health services and VA supportive housing assistance.^1,3,16

Perhaps due to their historical exclusion from VA services, there is limited research available on the behavioral health and associated needs of veterans with OTH discharges. Some scholars argue that historical exclusions have exacerbated underlying difficulties faced by this population, thereby contributing to stark health and social disparities across discharge types.^14,15,17 Studies with large veteran samples, for example, reflect notable demographic and behavioral health differences across discharge types. Compared to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are significantly more likely to be younger, have lower income, use substances, have a history of criminal-legal involvement, and have mental and physical health difficulties.^18,19

Substantial evidence also suggests a historical racial bias, with service members of color being disproportionately more likely to receive an OTH discharge.¹² Similarly, across all branches of military service, Black service members are significantly more likely to face general or special court martial in military justice proceedings when compared with White service members.²⁰ Service members from gender and sexual minorities are also disproportionately impacted by the OTH designation. Historically, many have been discharged with bad papers due to discriminatory policies, such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation between December 1993 and September 2011, and Directive-type Memorandum-19-004, which banned transgender persons from military service between April 2019 and January 2021.^21,22

There is also significant mental health bias in the provision of OTH discharges, such that OTH characterizations are disproportionately represented among individuals with mental health disorders.^18-20 Veterans discharged from military service due to behavioral misconduct are significantly more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for various behavioral health conditions and to experience homelessness, criminal-legal involvement, and suicidal ideation and behavior compared with routinely-discharged veterans.^23-28

Consistent with their comparatively higher rates of criminal-legal involvement relative to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are disproportionately represented in criminal justice settings. While veterans with OTH discharges represent only 6% of discharging service members and 2.5% of community-based veterans, they represent 10% of incarcerated veterans.^11,18,23,29 Preliminary research suggests veterans with OTH discharges may be at higher risk for lifetime incarceration, though the association between OTH discharge and frequency of lifetime arrests remains unclear.^18,30

VETERANS TREATMENT COURTS

Given the overrepresentation of veterans with OTH discharges in criminal-legal settings, consideration for this subset of the veteran population and its unique needs is commonplace among problem-solving courts that service veterans. First conceptualized in 2004, Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) are specialized problem-solving courts that divert veterans away from traditional judicial court and penal systems and into community-based supervision and treatment (most commonly behavioral health services).^31-34 Although each VTC program is unique in structure, policies, and procedures, most VTCs can be characterized by certain key elements, including voluntary participation, plea requirements, delayed sentencing (often including reduced or dismissed charges), integration of military culture into court proceedings, a rehabilitative vs adversarial approach to decreasing risk of future criminal behavior, mandated treatment and supervision during participation, and use of veteran mentors to provide peer support.^32-35 Eligibility requirements vary; however, many restrict participation to veterans with honorable discharge types and charges for nonviolent offenses.^32,33,35-37

VTCs connect veterans within the criminal-legal system to needed behavioral health, community, and social services.^31-33,37 VTC participants are commonly connected to case management, behavioral health care, therapeutic journaling programs, and vocational rehabilitation.^38,39 Accordingly, the most common difficulties faced by veterans participating in these courts include substance use, mental health, family issues, anger management and/or aggressive behavior, and homelessness.^36,39 There is limited research on the effectiveness of VTCs. Evidence on their overall effectiveness is largely mixed, though some studies suggest VTC graduates tend to have lower recidivism rates than offenders more broadly or persons who terminate VTC programs prior to completion.^40,41 Other studies suggest that VTC participants are more likely to have jail sanctions, new arrests, and new incarcerations relative to nontreatment court participants.⁴² Notably, experimental designs (considered the gold standard in assessing effectiveness) to date have not been applied to evaluate the effectiveness of VTCs; as such, the effectiveness of these programs remains an area in need of continued empirical investigation.

Like all problem-solving courts, VTCs occasionally struggle to connect participating defendants with appropriate care, particularly when encountering structural barriers (eg, insurance, transportation) and/or complex behavioral health needs (eg, personality disorders).^34,43 As suicide rates among veterans experiencing criminal-legal involvement surge (about 150 per 100,000 in 2021, a 10% increase from 2020 to 2021 compared to about 40 per 100,000 and a 1.8% increase among other veterans), efficiency of adequate care coordination is vital.⁴⁴ Many VTCs rely on VTC-VA partnerships and collaborations to navigate these difficulties and facilitate connection of participating veterans to needed services.^32-34,45 For example, within the VHA, Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) and Health Care for Re-Entry Veterans (HCRV) specialists assist and bridge the gap between the criminal-legal system (including, but not limited to VTCs) and VA services by engaging veterans involved in the criminal-legal system and connecting them to needed VA-based services (Table 2). Generally, VJO specialists support veterans involved with the front end of the criminallegal system (eg, arrest, pretrial incarceration, or participation in VTCs), while HCRV specialists tend to support veterans transitioning back into the community after a period of incarceration.^46,47 Specific to VTCs, VJO specialists typically serve as liaisons between the courts and VA, coordinating VA services for defendants to fulfill their terms of VTC participation.⁴⁶

The historical exclusion of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations from VA-based services has restricted many from accessing VTC programs.³² Of 17 VTC programs active in Pennsylvania in 2014, only 5 accepted veterans with OTstayH discharges, and 3 required application to and eligibility for VA benefits.³³ Similarly, in national surveys of VTC programs, about 1 in 3 report excluding veterans deemed ineligible for VA services.^35,36 When veterans with OTH discharges have accessed VTC programs, they have historically relied on non-VA, community-based programming to fulfill treatment mandates, which may be less suited to addressing the unique needs of veterans.⁴⁸

Veterans who utilize VTCs receive several benefits, namely peer support and mentorship, acceptance into a veteran-centric space, and connection with specially trained staff capable of supporting the veteran through applications for a range of VA benefits (eg, service connection, housing support).^31-33,37 Given the disparate prevalence of OTH discharge characterizations among service members from racial, sexual, and gender minorities and among service members with mental health disorders, exclusion of veterans with OTH discharges from VTCs solely based on the type of discharge likely contributes to structural inequities among these already underserved groups by restricting access to these potential benefits. Such structural inequity stands in direct conflict with VTC best practice standards, which admonish programs to adjust eligibility requirements to facilitate access to treatment court programs for historically marginalized groups.⁴⁹

ELIGIBILITY EXPANSIONS

Given the overrepresentation of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations within the criminal-legal system and historical barriers of these veterans to access needed mental and behavioral health care, expansions in VA eligibility policies could have immense implications for VTCs. First, these expansions could mitigate common barriers to connecting VTC-participating veterans with OTH discharges with needed behavioral health care by allowing these veterans to access established, VA-based services and programming. Expansion may also allow VTCs to serve as a key intercept point for identifying and engaging veterans with OTH discharges who may be unaware of their eligibility for VA-based behavioral health care.

Access to VA health care services is a major resource for VTC participants and a common requirement.³² Eligibility expansion should ease access barriers veterans with OTH discharges commonly face. By providing a potential source of treatment, expansions may also support OTH eligibility practices within VTCs, particularly practices that require participants to be eligible for VA health care.^33,35,36 Some VTCs may continue to determine eligibility on the basis of discharge status and remain inaccessible to veterans with OTH discharge characterizations without program-level policy changes.^32,36,37

Communicating changes in eligibility policies relevant to veterans with OTH discharges may be a challenge, because many of these individuals have no established channels of communication with the VA. Because veterans with OTH discharges are at increased risk for legal system involvement, VTCs may serve as a unique point of contact to help facilitate communication.¹⁸ For example, upon referral to a VTC, veterans with OTH discharges can be identified, VA health care eligibility can be verified, and veterans can connect to VA staff to facilitate enrollment in VA services and care.

VJO specialists are in a favorable position to serve a critical role in utilizing VTCs as a potential intercept point for engaging veterans with OTH discharge characterizations. As outlined in the STRONG Veterans Act of 2022, VJOs are mandated to “spread awareness and understanding of veteran eligibility for the [VJO] Program, including the eligibility of veterans who were discharged from service in the Armed Forces under conditions other than honorable.”50 The Act further requires VJOs to be annually trained in communicating eligibility changes as they arise. Accordingly, VJOs receive ongoing training in a wide variety of critical outreach topics, including changes in eligibility; while VJOs cannot make eligibility determinations, they are tasked with enrolling all veterans involved in the criminal-legal system with whom they interact into VHA services, whether through typical or special eligibility criteria (M. Stimmel, PhD, National Training Director for Veteran Justice Programming, oral communication, July 14, 2023). VJOs therefore routinely serve in this capacity of facilitating VA enrollment of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations.

Recommendations to Veteran-Servicing Judicial Programs

Considering these potential implications, professionals routinely interacting with veterans involved in the criminal-legal system should become familiarized with recent changes in VA eligibility policies. Such familiarization would support the identification of veterans previously considered ineligible for care; provision of education to these veterans regarding their new eligibility; and referral to appropriate VA-based behavioral health care options. Although conceptually simple, executing such an educational campaign may prove logistically difficult. Given their historical exclusion from VA services, veterans with OTH discharge characterizations are unlikely to seek VA-based services in times of need, instead relying on a broad swath of civilian community-based organizations and resources. Usual approaches to advertising VHA health care policy changes (eg, by notifying VA employees and/or departments providing corresponding services or by circulating information to veteran-focused mailing lists and organizations) likely would prove insufficient. Educational campaigns to disseminate information about recent OTH eligibility changes should instead consider partnering with traditionally civilian, communitybased organizations and institutions, such as state bar associations, legal aid networks, case management services, nonveteran treatment court programs (eg, drug courts, or domestic violence courts), or probation/ parole programs. Because national surveys suggest generally low military cultural competence among civilian populations, providing concurrent support in developing foundational veteran cultural competencies (eg, how to phrase questions about military service history, or understanding discharge characterizations) may be necessary to ensure effective identification and engagement of veteran clients.⁴⁸

Programs that serve veterans with criminal-legal involvement should also consider potential relevance of recent OTH eligibility changes to program operations. VTC program staff and key partners (eg, judges, case managers, district attorneys, or defense attorneys), should revisit policies and procedures surrounding the engagement of veterans with OTH discharges within VTC programs and strategies for connecting these veterans with needed services. VTC programs that have historically excluded veterans with OTH discharges due to associated difficulties in locating and connecting with needed services should consider expanding eligibility policies considering recent shifts in VA behavioral health care eligibility.^33,35,36 Within the VHA, VJO specialists can play a critical role in supporting these VTC eligibility and cultural shifts. Some evidence suggests a large proportion of VTC referrals are facilitated by VJO specialists and that many such referrals are identified when veterans involved with the criminal-legal system seek VA support and/or services.³³ Given the historical exclusion of veterans with OTH discharges from VA care, strategies used by VJO specialists to identify, connect, and engage veterans with OTH discharges with VTCs and other services may be beneficial.

Even with knowledge of VA eligibility changes and considerations of these changes on local operations, many forensic settings and programs struggle to identify veterans. These difficulties are likely amplified among veterans with OTH discharge characterizations, who may be hesitant to self-disclose their military service history due to fear of stigma and/or views of OTH discharge characterizations as undeserving of the veteran title.¹² The VA offers 2 tools to aid in identification of veterans for these settings: the Veterans Re-Entry Search Service (VRSS) and Status Query and Response Exchange System (SQUARES). For VRSS, correctional facilities, courts, and other criminal justice entities upload a simple spreadsheet that contains basic identifying information of inmates or defendants in their system. VRSS returns information about which inmates or defendants have a history of military service and alerts VA Veterans Justice Programs staff so they can conduct outreach. A pilot study conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that 2.7% of its inmate population self-identified as veterans, while VRSS identified 7.7% of inmates with a history of military service. This difference represented about 5000 previously unidentified veterans.⁵¹ Similarly, community entities that partner with the VA, such as law enforcement or homeless service programs, can be approved to become a SQUARES user and submit identifying information of individuals with whom they interact directly into the SQUARES search engine. SQUARES then directly returns information about the individual’s veteran status and eligibility for VA health care and homeless programs.

Other Eligibility Limitations

VTCs and other professionals looking to refer veterans with OTH discharge characterizations to VA-based behavioral health care should be aware of potential limitations in eligibility and access. Specifically, although veterans with OTH discharges are now broadly eligible for VA-based behavioral health care and homeless programs, they remain ineligible for other forms of health care, including primary care and nonbehavioral specialty care.1 Research has found a strong comorbidity between behavioral and nonbehavioral health concerns, particularly within historically marginalized demographic groups.^52-55 Because these historically marginalized groups are often overrepresented among persons with criminal-legal involvement, veterans with OTH discharges, and VTC participants, such comorbidities require consideration by services or programming designed to support veterans with criminal-legal involvement.^12,56-58 Connection with VA-based health care will therefore continue to fall short of addressing all health care needs of veterans with OTH discharges and effective case management will require considerable treatment coordination between VA behavioral health care practitioners (HCPs) and community-based HCPs (eg, primary care professionals or nonbehavioral HCPs).

Implications for VA Mental Health Care

Recent eligibility expansions will also have inevitable consequences for VA mental health care systems. For many years, these systems have been overburdened by high caseloads and clinician burnout.^59,60 Given the generally elevated rates of mental health and substance use concerns among veterans with OTH discharge characterizations, expansions hold the potential to further burden caseloads with clinically complex, high-risk, high-need clients. Nevertheless, these expansions are also structured in a way that forces existing systems to absorb the responsibilities of providing necessary care to these veterans. To mitigate detrimental effects of eligibility expansions on the broader VA mental health system, clinicians should be explicitly trained in identifying veterans with OTH discharge characterizations and the implications of discharge status on broader health care eligibility. Treatment of veterans with OTH discharges may also benefit from close coordination between mental health professionals and behavioral health care coordinators to ensure appropriate coordination of care between VA- and non–VA-based HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent changes to VA eligibility policies now allow comprehensive mental and behavioral health care services to be provided to veterans with OTH discharges.1 Compared to routinely discharged veterans, veterans with OTH discharges are more likely to be persons of color, sexual or gender minorities, and experiencing mental health-related difficulties. Given the disproportionate mental health burden often faced by veterans with OTH discharges and relative overrepresentation of these veterans in judicial and correctional systems, these changes have considerable implications for programs and services designed to support veterans with criminallegal involvement. Professionals within these systems, particularly VTC programs, are therefore encouraged to familiarize themselves with recent changes in VA eligibility policies and to revisit strategies, policies, and procedures surrounding the engagement and enrollment of veterans with OTH discharge characterizations. Doing so may ensure veterans with OTH discharges are effectively connected to needed behavioral health care services.