Patient Care

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but many trials are now recruiting patients from those populations. Some trials explicitly recruit patients seeking care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System, and Indian Health Service. The VA Office of Research and Development alone supported > 7260 research projects in 2022, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 20, 2023; have at least 1 VA or DoD location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for lymphoma, leukemia, and esophageal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lymphoma

Study of a Triple Combination Therapy, DTRM-555, in Patients With R/R CLL or R/R Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas

Targeted drug therapies have greatly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, single drug therapies have limitations, therefore, the current study is evaluating a novel oral combination of targeted drugs as a way of overcoming these limitations. This study will determine the efficacy of the triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, in patients with R/R CLL or R/R non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

ID: NCT04305444

Sponsor: Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma

Locations: 8 locations, including Memphis VA Medical Center

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Oral Azacytidine Plus Romidepsin Versus Investigator’s Choice in PTCL (PTCL)

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a rare and heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) originating from mature (or post-thymic or ‘peripheral’) T-lymphocytes and NK cells. They are considered very aggressive and are often resistant to conventional chemotherapy.

This study employs a stratified randomization with equal allocation within strata of patients to receive oral 5-azacytidine (AZA) plus romidepsin (ROMI) versus prespecified investigator choice (ROMI, belinostat, pralatrexate or gemcitabine), for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTCL. The dose and schedule of AZA/ROMI has been determined from a phase I clinical trial of the combination. The primary objective of this study is to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) among patients receiving the combination compared to single agent of choice.

ID: NCT04747236

Sponsor: Collaborator: University of Virginia; Celgene

Locations: 4 locations, including VA Long Beach Health Care System

Connect® Lymphoma Disease Registry: A US-Based Prospective Observational Cohort Study

This Disease Registry is designed to capture the patient characteristics, practice patterns, and therapeutic strategies evaluated in community and academic centers when treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and R/R follicular lymphoma (FL). The data collected in this Registry will facilitate the evaluation of the current treatment landscape for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including the clinical effectiveness, safety. No investigational product or drug will be administered as part of this study. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including any previous lymphoma treatments. Clinical outcomes will be documented as part of an objective clinical assessment. In addition, patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes data will be collected from patients using various validated instruments. Social support data will also be collected.

ID: NCT04982471

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 60 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital, and Brooke Army Medical Center

Obinutuzumab With or Without Umbralisib,Lenalidomide, or Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Grade I-IIIa Follicular Lymphoma

This phase II trial studies how well obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy work in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma that has come back (relapsed) or does not respond to treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with obinutuzumab, may induce changes in the body’s immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Umbralisib may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Biological therapies, such as lenalidomide, use substances made from living organisms that may stimulate or suppress the immune system in different ways and stop cancer cells from growing. Chemotherapy drugs, such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and bendamustine, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether giving obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy will work better in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma.

ID: NCT03269669

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 427 locations, including VA Palo Alto Health Care System

Brentuximab Vedotin and Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

This phase I/II trial studies the side effects and best dose of ipilimumab and nivolumab when given together with brentuximab vedotin, and how well they work in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma that has returned after a period of improvement (recurrent) or has not responded to previous treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer and may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. Brentuximab vedotin is a monoclonal antibody, brentuximab, linked to a toxic agent called vedotin. Brentuximab attaches to CD30-positive cancer cells in a targeted way and delivers vedotin to kill them. It is not known whether giving brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab may kill more cancer cells.

ID: NCT01896999

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 486 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Testing Early Treatment for Patients With High-Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) or Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL), EVOLVE CLL/SLL Study

This phase III trial compares early treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab versus delayed treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Venetoclax is in a class of medications called B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) inhibitors. It may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking BCL-2, a protein needed for cancer cell survival. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as obinutuzumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab early (before patients have symptoms) may have better outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma compared to starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab after patients show symptoms.

ID: NCT04269902

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 545 locations, Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, and Durham VA Medical Center

Testing the Use of Steroids and TyrosineKinase Inhibitors With Blinatumomab or Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed BCR-ABL-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults

This phase III trial compares the effect of usual treatment of chemotherapy and steroids and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to the same treatment plus blinatumomab. Blinatumomab is a Bi-specific T-cell Engager (‘BiTE’) that may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. The information gained from this study may help researchers determine if combination therapy with steroids, TKIs, and blinatumomab work better than the standard of care.

ID: NCT04530565

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 180 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Asciminib Monotherapy, With Dose Escalation, for 2nd and 1st Line Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (ASC2ESCALATE)

This will be a multicenter Phase II open-label study of asciminib in CML-CP patients who have been previously treated with one prior ATP-binding site TKI with discontinuation due to treatment failure, warning or intolerance. (2L patient cohort). In addition, newly diagnosed CML-CP patients who may have received up to 4 weeks of prior TKI are included in a separate 1L patient cohort.

ID: NCT05384587

Sponsor: Novartis

Locations: 26 locations, including VA Puget Sound Health Care System

Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry

This Disease Registry will collect data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. The objective is to describe how patients with myeloid diseases are treated; and to build a knowledge base regarding the effectiveness and safety of first-line and subsequent treatment regimens in both community and academic settings. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including initial treatment and any subsequent therapy. Data on treatment outcomes, including response rates as measured by the treating physician, evidence of progression, survival, and patient-reported outcomes will be collected quarterly on the electronic CRF.

ID: NCT01688011

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 240 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Manchester VA Medical Center, Dallas VA Medical Center, White River Junction VA Medical Center, and VA Caribbean Healthcare System

Esophageal Cancer

Non-endoscopic Esophageal Sampling to Detect Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer in Veterans

This study seeks to incorporate non-endoscopic detection method (Esocheck/Esoguard) in primary care practice and test whether this screening modality increases the positive predictive value of upper endoscopy and increases the detection of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer.

Currently, BE is diagnosed only when patients undergo endoscopy with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). However, due to the high cost of EGD and the lack of a randomized controlled trials supporting its efficacy, endoscopy to screen for BE is not routinely recommended. Current guidelines do recommend sedated EGD in patients with multiple BE risk factors, refractory GERD, or alarm symptoms. This strategy fails to detect BE in patients whose symptoms are well controlled with either over the counter medications or physician prescribed therapies. It also fails to detect BE in asymptomatic subjects who comprise 40% of those that develop EAC. Thus, < 10% of EACs are diagnosed as early stage lesions caught by surveillance of patients with previously detected BE. Ablative nonsurgical therapies that have been developed for preventing cancer in patients with BE with high-grade dysplasia over the past decade will have little impact and the 5-year survival for EACs will remain a dismal 18% unless more effective programs for identifying BE and early EAC are developed.

Esocheck/Esoguard is a FDA approved device designed to sample the distal esophagus and analyze the collected material for presence of two methylated DNA markers. The Specific Aims of this study are:

To determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of Esocheck/Esoguard performed in routine practice for detecting BE in an at risk Veteran population

To compare the yield of detected BE using EGD alone vs. stepwise molecular diagnostics(Esocheck/Esoguard) and endoscopic screening strategy (EGD) in at risk Veteran population.

ID: NCT05210049

Sponsor: Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation

Location: Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center

Progression of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett’s Esophagus and the Creation of a Barrett’s Registry

The purpose of this study is to determine or evaluate the risk factors such as smoking, family history etc. that cause esophageal cancer and to determine the genetic changes that lead to esophageal cancer. The investigators hypothesis is that systematic collection of data on the natural history of GERD and BE patients and risk factors for development of BE in patients with chronic GERD and progression of BE to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma will provide useful information to develop a decision model for risk stratification and risk reduction strategies in these patients.

ID: NCT00574327

Sponsor: Midwest Biomedical Research Foundation

Location: Kansas City VA Medical Center

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but many trials are now recruiting patients from those populations. Some trials explicitly recruit patients seeking care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System, and Indian Health Service. The VA Office of Research and Development alone supported > 7260 research projects in 2022, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 20, 2023; have at least 1 VA or DoD location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for lymphoma, leukemia, and esophageal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lymphoma

Study of a Triple Combination Therapy, DTRM-555, in Patients With R/R CLL or R/R Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas

Targeted drug therapies have greatly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, single drug therapies have limitations, therefore, the current study is evaluating a novel oral combination of targeted drugs as a way of overcoming these limitations. This study will determine the efficacy of the triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, in patients with R/R CLL or R/R non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

ID: NCT04305444

Sponsor: Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma

Locations: 8 locations, including Memphis VA Medical Center

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Oral Azacytidine Plus Romidepsin Versus Investigator’s Choice in PTCL (PTCL)

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a rare and heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) originating from mature (or post-thymic or ‘peripheral’) T-lymphocytes and NK cells. They are considered very aggressive and are often resistant to conventional chemotherapy.

This study employs a stratified randomization with equal allocation within strata of patients to receive oral 5-azacytidine (AZA) plus romidepsin (ROMI) versus prespecified investigator choice (ROMI, belinostat, pralatrexate or gemcitabine), for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTCL. The dose and schedule of AZA/ROMI has been determined from a phase I clinical trial of the combination. The primary objective of this study is to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) among patients receiving the combination compared to single agent of choice.

ID: NCT04747236

Sponsor: Collaborator: University of Virginia; Celgene

Locations: 4 locations, including VA Long Beach Health Care System

Connect® Lymphoma Disease Registry: A US-Based Prospective Observational Cohort Study

This Disease Registry is designed to capture the patient characteristics, practice patterns, and therapeutic strategies evaluated in community and academic centers when treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and R/R follicular lymphoma (FL). The data collected in this Registry will facilitate the evaluation of the current treatment landscape for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including the clinical effectiveness, safety. No investigational product or drug will be administered as part of this study. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including any previous lymphoma treatments. Clinical outcomes will be documented as part of an objective clinical assessment. In addition, patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes data will be collected from patients using various validated instruments. Social support data will also be collected.

ID: NCT04982471

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 60 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital, and Brooke Army Medical Center

Obinutuzumab With or Without Umbralisib,Lenalidomide, or Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Grade I-IIIa Follicular Lymphoma

This phase II trial studies how well obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy work in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma that has come back (relapsed) or does not respond to treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with obinutuzumab, may induce changes in the body’s immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Umbralisib may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Biological therapies, such as lenalidomide, use substances made from living organisms that may stimulate or suppress the immune system in different ways and stop cancer cells from growing. Chemotherapy drugs, such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and bendamustine, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether giving obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy will work better in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma.

ID: NCT03269669

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 427 locations, including VA Palo Alto Health Care System

Brentuximab Vedotin and Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

This phase I/II trial studies the side effects and best dose of ipilimumab and nivolumab when given together with brentuximab vedotin, and how well they work in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma that has returned after a period of improvement (recurrent) or has not responded to previous treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer and may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. Brentuximab vedotin is a monoclonal antibody, brentuximab, linked to a toxic agent called vedotin. Brentuximab attaches to CD30-positive cancer cells in a targeted way and delivers vedotin to kill them. It is not known whether giving brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab may kill more cancer cells.

ID: NCT01896999

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 486 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Testing Early Treatment for Patients With High-Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) or Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL), EVOLVE CLL/SLL Study

This phase III trial compares early treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab versus delayed treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Venetoclax is in a class of medications called B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) inhibitors. It may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking BCL-2, a protein needed for cancer cell survival. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as obinutuzumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab early (before patients have symptoms) may have better outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma compared to starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab after patients show symptoms.

ID: NCT04269902

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 545 locations, Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, and Durham VA Medical Center

Testing the Use of Steroids and TyrosineKinase Inhibitors With Blinatumomab or Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed BCR-ABL-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults

This phase III trial compares the effect of usual treatment of chemotherapy and steroids and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to the same treatment plus blinatumomab. Blinatumomab is a Bi-specific T-cell Engager (‘BiTE’) that may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. The information gained from this study may help researchers determine if combination therapy with steroids, TKIs, and blinatumomab work better than the standard of care.

ID: NCT04530565

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 180 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Asciminib Monotherapy, With Dose Escalation, for 2nd and 1st Line Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (ASC2ESCALATE)

This will be a multicenter Phase II open-label study of asciminib in CML-CP patients who have been previously treated with one prior ATP-binding site TKI with discontinuation due to treatment failure, warning or intolerance. (2L patient cohort). In addition, newly diagnosed CML-CP patients who may have received up to 4 weeks of prior TKI are included in a separate 1L patient cohort.

ID: NCT05384587

Sponsor: Novartis

Locations: 26 locations, including VA Puget Sound Health Care System

Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry

This Disease Registry will collect data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. The objective is to describe how patients with myeloid diseases are treated; and to build a knowledge base regarding the effectiveness and safety of first-line and subsequent treatment regimens in both community and academic settings. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including initial treatment and any subsequent therapy. Data on treatment outcomes, including response rates as measured by the treating physician, evidence of progression, survival, and patient-reported outcomes will be collected quarterly on the electronic CRF.

ID: NCT01688011

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 240 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Manchester VA Medical Center, Dallas VA Medical Center, White River Junction VA Medical Center, and VA Caribbean Healthcare System

Esophageal Cancer

Non-endoscopic Esophageal Sampling to Detect Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer in Veterans

This study seeks to incorporate non-endoscopic detection method (Esocheck/Esoguard) in primary care practice and test whether this screening modality increases the positive predictive value of upper endoscopy and increases the detection of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer.

Currently, BE is diagnosed only when patients undergo endoscopy with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). However, due to the high cost of EGD and the lack of a randomized controlled trials supporting its efficacy, endoscopy to screen for BE is not routinely recommended. Current guidelines do recommend sedated EGD in patients with multiple BE risk factors, refractory GERD, or alarm symptoms. This strategy fails to detect BE in patients whose symptoms are well controlled with either over the counter medications or physician prescribed therapies. It also fails to detect BE in asymptomatic subjects who comprise 40% of those that develop EAC. Thus, < 10% of EACs are diagnosed as early stage lesions caught by surveillance of patients with previously detected BE. Ablative nonsurgical therapies that have been developed for preventing cancer in patients with BE with high-grade dysplasia over the past decade will have little impact and the 5-year survival for EACs will remain a dismal 18% unless more effective programs for identifying BE and early EAC are developed.

Esocheck/Esoguard is a FDA approved device designed to sample the distal esophagus and analyze the collected material for presence of two methylated DNA markers. The Specific Aims of this study are:

To determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of Esocheck/Esoguard performed in routine practice for detecting BE in an at risk Veteran population

To compare the yield of detected BE using EGD alone vs. stepwise molecular diagnostics(Esocheck/Esoguard) and endoscopic screening strategy (EGD) in at risk Veteran population.

ID: NCT05210049

Sponsor: Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation

Location: Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center

Progression of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett’s Esophagus and the Creation of a Barrett’s Registry

The purpose of this study is to determine or evaluate the risk factors such as smoking, family history etc. that cause esophageal cancer and to determine the genetic changes that lead to esophageal cancer. The investigators hypothesis is that systematic collection of data on the natural history of GERD and BE patients and risk factors for development of BE in patients with chronic GERD and progression of BE to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma will provide useful information to develop a decision model for risk stratification and risk reduction strategies in these patients.

ID: NCT00574327

Sponsor: Midwest Biomedical Research Foundation

Location: Kansas City VA Medical Center

Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but many trials are now recruiting patients from those populations. Some trials explicitly recruit patients seeking care at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System, and Indian Health Service. The VA Office of Research and Development alone supported > 7260 research projects in 2022, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of July 20, 2023; have at least 1 VA or DoD location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatments for lymphoma, leukemia, and esophageal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Lymphoma

Study of a Triple Combination Therapy, DTRM-555, in Patients With R/R CLL or R/R Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas

Targeted drug therapies have greatly improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, single drug therapies have limitations, therefore, the current study is evaluating a novel oral combination of targeted drugs as a way of overcoming these limitations. This study will determine the efficacy of the triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, in patients with R/R CLL or R/R non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

ID: NCT04305444

Sponsor: Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma

Locations: 8 locations, including Memphis VA Medical Center

Randomized Phase IIB Trial of Oral Azacytidine Plus Romidepsin Versus Investigator’s Choice in PTCL (PTCL)

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a rare and heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) originating from mature (or post-thymic or ‘peripheral’) T-lymphocytes and NK cells. They are considered very aggressive and are often resistant to conventional chemotherapy.

This study employs a stratified randomization with equal allocation within strata of patients to receive oral 5-azacytidine (AZA) plus romidepsin (ROMI) versus prespecified investigator choice (ROMI, belinostat, pralatrexate or gemcitabine), for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) PTCL. The dose and schedule of AZA/ROMI has been determined from a phase I clinical trial of the combination. The primary objective of this study is to estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) among patients receiving the combination compared to single agent of choice.

ID: NCT04747236

Sponsor: Collaborator: University of Virginia; Celgene

Locations: 4 locations, including VA Long Beach Health Care System

Connect® Lymphoma Disease Registry: A US-Based Prospective Observational Cohort Study

This Disease Registry is designed to capture the patient characteristics, practice patterns, and therapeutic strategies evaluated in community and academic centers when treating relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and R/R follicular lymphoma (FL). The data collected in this Registry will facilitate the evaluation of the current treatment landscape for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), including the clinical effectiveness, safety. No investigational product or drug will be administered as part of this study. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including any previous lymphoma treatments. Clinical outcomes will be documented as part of an objective clinical assessment. In addition, patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes data will be collected from patients using various validated instruments. Social support data will also be collected.

ID: NCT04982471

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 60 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital, and Brooke Army Medical Center

Obinutuzumab With or Without Umbralisib,Lenalidomide, or Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Grade I-IIIa Follicular Lymphoma

This phase II trial studies how well obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy work in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma that has come back (relapsed) or does not respond to treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with obinutuzumab, may induce changes in the body’s immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Umbralisib may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Biological therapies, such as lenalidomide, use substances made from living organisms that may stimulate or suppress the immune system in different ways and stop cancer cells from growing. Chemotherapy drugs, such as cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and bendamustine, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether giving obinutuzumab with or without umbralisib, lenalidomide, or combination chemotherapy will work better in treating patients with grade I-IIIa follicular lymphoma.

ID: NCT03269669

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 427 locations, including VA Palo Alto Health Care System

Brentuximab Vedotin and Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma

This phase I/II trial studies the side effects and best dose of ipilimumab and nivolumab when given together with brentuximab vedotin, and how well they work in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma that has returned after a period of improvement (recurrent) or has not responded to previous treatment (refractory). Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as ipilimumab and nivolumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer and may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. Brentuximab vedotin is a monoclonal antibody, brentuximab, linked to a toxic agent called vedotin. Brentuximab attaches to CD30-positive cancer cells in a targeted way and delivers vedotin to kill them. It is not known whether giving brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab with or without ipilimumab may kill more cancer cells.

ID: NCT01896999

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 486 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Testing Early Treatment for Patients With High-Risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) or Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL), EVOLVE CLL/SLL Study

This phase III trial compares early treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab versus delayed treatment with venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Venetoclax is in a class of medications called B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL-2) inhibitors. It may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking BCL-2, a protein needed for cancer cell survival. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as obinutuzumab, may help the body’s immune system attack the cancer, and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab early (before patients have symptoms) may have better outcomes for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma compared to starting treatment with the venetoclax and obinutuzumab after patients show symptoms.

ID: NCT04269902

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 545 locations, Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, and Durham VA Medical Center

Testing the Use of Steroids and TyrosineKinase Inhibitors With Blinatumomab or Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed BCR-ABL-Positive Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Adults

This phase III trial compares the effect of usual treatment of chemotherapy and steroids and a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) to the same treatment plus blinatumomab. Blinatumomab is a Bi-specific T-cell Engager (‘BiTE’) that may interfere with the ability of cancer cells to grow and spread. The information gained from this study may help researchers determine if combination therapy with steroids, TKIs, and blinatumomab work better than the standard of care.

ID: NCT04530565

Sponsor: National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 180 locations, including Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Asciminib Monotherapy, With Dose Escalation, for 2nd and 1st Line Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (ASC2ESCALATE)

This will be a multicenter Phase II open-label study of asciminib in CML-CP patients who have been previously treated with one prior ATP-binding site TKI with discontinuation due to treatment failure, warning or intolerance. (2L patient cohort). In addition, newly diagnosed CML-CP patients who may have received up to 4 weeks of prior TKI are included in a separate 1L patient cohort.

ID: NCT05384587

Sponsor: Novartis

Locations: 26 locations, including VA Puget Sound Health Care System

Connect® Myeloid Disease Registry

This Disease Registry will collect data on patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes. The objective is to describe how patients with myeloid diseases are treated; and to build a knowledge base regarding the effectiveness and safety of first-line and subsequent treatment regimens in both community and academic settings. Enrolled patients will receive treatment and evaluations for their disease according to the standard of care and routine clinical practice at each study site. All treatments that patients receive for their disease will be recorded, including initial treatment and any subsequent therapy. Data on treatment outcomes, including response rates as measured by the treating physician, evidence of progression, survival, and patient-reported outcomes will be collected quarterly on the electronic CRF.

ID: NCT01688011

Sponsor: Celgene

Locations: 240 locations, including VA Central California Health Care System, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, Manchester VA Medical Center, Dallas VA Medical Center, White River Junction VA Medical Center, and VA Caribbean Healthcare System

Esophageal Cancer

Non-endoscopic Esophageal Sampling to Detect Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer in Veterans

This study seeks to incorporate non-endoscopic detection method (Esocheck/Esoguard) in primary care practice and test whether this screening modality increases the positive predictive value of upper endoscopy and increases the detection of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer.

Currently, BE is diagnosed only when patients undergo endoscopy with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). However, due to the high cost of EGD and the lack of a randomized controlled trials supporting its efficacy, endoscopy to screen for BE is not routinely recommended. Current guidelines do recommend sedated EGD in patients with multiple BE risk factors, refractory GERD, or alarm symptoms. This strategy fails to detect BE in patients whose symptoms are well controlled with either over the counter medications or physician prescribed therapies. It also fails to detect BE in asymptomatic subjects who comprise 40% of those that develop EAC. Thus, < 10% of EACs are diagnosed as early stage lesions caught by surveillance of patients with previously detected BE. Ablative nonsurgical therapies that have been developed for preventing cancer in patients with BE with high-grade dysplasia over the past decade will have little impact and the 5-year survival for EACs will remain a dismal 18% unless more effective programs for identifying BE and early EAC are developed.

Esocheck/Esoguard is a FDA approved device designed to sample the distal esophagus and analyze the collected material for presence of two methylated DNA markers. The Specific Aims of this study are:

To determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of Esocheck/Esoguard performed in routine practice for detecting BE in an at risk Veteran population

To compare the yield of detected BE using EGD alone vs. stepwise molecular diagnostics(Esocheck/Esoguard) and endoscopic screening strategy (EGD) in at risk Veteran population.

ID: NCT05210049

Sponsor: Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation

Location: Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center

Progression of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett’s Esophagus and the Creation of a Barrett’s Registry

The purpose of this study is to determine or evaluate the risk factors such as smoking, family history etc. that cause esophageal cancer and to determine the genetic changes that lead to esophageal cancer. The investigators hypothesis is that systematic collection of data on the natural history of GERD and BE patients and risk factors for development of BE in patients with chronic GERD and progression of BE to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma will provide useful information to develop a decision model for risk stratification and risk reduction strategies in these patients.

ID: NCT00574327

Sponsor: Midwest Biomedical Research Foundation

Location: Kansas City VA Medical Center

Prostate Cancer

18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Impact on Treatment Strategies for Patients With Prostate Cancer (PROSPYL)

The main purpose of this phase II trial study is to determine whether a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan using 18F-DCFPyL affects the clinical management plan in veterans. In this study, the management plan prior to and after 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT will be recorded by specific questionnaires and corresponding changes in management will be analyzed. The scan will be used to see how the disease has spread. Both the treatment strategies and probable disease outcomes as relevant to clinical endpoints will be assessed. This study is open to veterans only.

ID: NCT04390880

Sponsor: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Patient Decision-Making About Precision Oncology in Veterans With Advanced Prostate Cancer

This project proposes to understand and improve veterans’ decision-making in precision oncology (germline testing, somatic tumor testing, and targeted therapy) for advanced prostate cancer. As precision oncology expands, a comprehensive strategy to support patient informed decision-making has not been developed.

ID: NCT05396872

Sponsor; Collaborator: University of California, San Francisco; US Department of Defense

Location: San Francisco VA Medical Center

Intramuscular Mechanisms of Androgen Deprivation-Related Sarcopenia

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and is even more common in the military and veteran population. For patients with advanced prostate cancer, the most common treatment includes lowering the levels of the hormone testosterone as much as possible, which is called androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Unfortunately, ADT also causes patients to be fatigued, weak, and to lose muscle. This is often referred to as sarcopenia, and it leads to falls, poor quality of life, and higher risk of death. Currently, there is no treatment for sarcopenia because investigators do not understand the mechanisms that cause it. The mitochondria is the part of the cells responsible for providing energy to muscles but to date the investigators do not know if it is affected in prostate cancer patients with sarcopenia due to ADT. The overall goal of this proposal is to establish if the mitochondria is responsible for sarcopenia in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT. The investigators will measure mitochondrial function, muscle mass and strength, and feelings of fatigue and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer before starting and after 6 months of ADT.

ID: NCT03867357

Sponsor; Collaborator: Seattle Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Research; US Department of Defense

Location: VA Puget Sound Health Care System

VA Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without PET-Directed Local Therapy for OligoRecurrent Prostate Cancer (VA STARPORT)

The primary goal of this study is to determine if adding PET-directed local therapy improves disease control compared to standard systemic therapy alone (SST) in veterans with oligorecurrent prostate cancer on PET/CT. The investigators will conduct a multi-institutional phase II/III randomized trial comparing SST with or without PET-directed local therapy using radiation or surgery to all metastases and if a local recurrence is present.

ID: NCT04787744

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

Locations: VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Kansas City VA Medical Center, St. Louis VA Medical Center John Cochran Division, East Orange Campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System, Durham VA Medical Center, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center

Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without Definitive Treatment in Treating Participants With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

This phase III trial studies how well standard systemic therapy with or without definitive treatment (prostate removal surgery or radiation therapy) works in treating participants with prostate cancer that has spread to other places in the body. The addition of prostate removal surgery or radiation therapy to standard systemic therapy for prostate cancer may lower the chance of the cancer growing or spreading.

ID: NCT03678025

Sponsor; Collaborator: Southwest Oncology Group; National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 328 sites, including Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Atlanta VA Medical Center, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, and Audie L. Murphy VA Hospital

A Clinical Study Evaluating the Benefit of Adding Rucaparib to Enzalutamide for Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer That Has Become Resistant to Testosterone-Deprivation Therapy (CASPAR)

This randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial is evaluating the benefit of rucaparib and enzalutamide combination therapy vs enzalutamide alone for the treatment of men with prostate cancer that has spread to other places in the body (metastatic) and has become resistant to testosterone-deprivation therapy (castration-resistant). Enzalutamide helps fight prostate cancer by blocking the use of testosterone by the tumor cells for growth. Poly adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as rucaparib, fight prostate cancer by prevent tumor cells from repairing their DNA. Giving enzalutamide and rucaparib may make patients live longer or prevent their cancer from growing or spreading for a longer time, or both. It may also help doctors learn if a mutation in any of the homologous recombination DNA repair genes is helpful to decide which treatment is best for the patient.

ID: NCT04455750

Sponsor; Collaborator: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 413 sites

Digitally Captured Activity Data and PROs to Monitor Physical Function in Prostate Cancer Patients (DigiPRO)

Physical function is a known predictor of quality of life in advanced prostate cancer patients and key measure of treatment tolerability. While treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival, it is associated with significant toxicities that lead to physical function (PF) decline. The average age of incident prostate cancer is 66 years, and in this older group of men, chronic comorbid conditions often co-occur with diagnosis, further adding to the risk for PF decline. With over 2.9 million prostate cancer survivors in the US, there is an increasing demand for adequate symptom monitoring and PF assessment throughout cancer care. However, there are currently no validated methods to systematically evaluate and predict PF decline. Thus, the overarching objective of this proposal is to determine whether the use of wearable technology to monitor objective daily activity combined with routine symptom reporting can predict PF decline. To accomplish this, we propose a mixed-methods approach that will provide quantitative information to help identify PC survivors at higher risk for PF decline as well as a qualitative aim gain a deeper understanding of the perceived relationships that PC survivors have with their physical activity levels and treatment symptoms.

ID: NCT04575402

Sponsor; Collaborator: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; US Department of Defense

Location: Cedars Sinai Medical Center

The BurnAlong Pilot Study for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors

The purpose of this prospective, interventional, single-arm pilot study is to evaluate whether virtually delivered group-based physical activity is feasible for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer and have completed cancer treatment will be recruited for this study. This study will enroll 20 participants in total and will last approximately 3 months.

ID: NCT05131815

Sponsor; Collaborator: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Location: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Lung Cancer

DECAMP 1 PLUS: Prediction of Lung Cancer Using Noninvasive Biomarkers

The Detection of Early lung Cancer Among Military Personnel (DECAMP) consortium is a multidisciplinary and translational research program for lung cancer early detection. DECAMP 1 PLUS aims to improve the efficiency of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules (8-25 mm). Molecular biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis measured in minimally invasive and noninvasive biospecimens may be able to distinguish between malignant or benign indeterminate pulmonary nodules in high-risk smokers. Ultimately, this study aims to validate molecular as well as clinical and imaging biomarkers of lung cancer in individuals with indeterminate lung nodules.

ID: NCT04165564

Sponsor: Boston University

Locations: 3 VA medical centers (VA Greater LA Healthcare System, VA Boston Healthcare System, and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System), 3 military treatment facilities (Naval Medical Center San Diego, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth) and 12 academic hospitals

DECAMP-2: Screening of Patients With Early Stage Lung Cancer or at High Risk for Developing Lung Cancer (DECAMP-2)

The goal of this project is to improve lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals by identifying biomarkers of preclinical disease and disease risk that are measured in minimally invasive and noninvasive biospecimens. Existing biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis as well as new biomarkers discovered specifically in this clinical setting will be examined. Biomarkers that identify individuals at highest risk for being diagnosed with lung cancer prior to the appearance of concerning symptoms could increase the utility of lung cancer surveillance and the efficiency of lung cancer chemoprevention clinical trials. Achieving these goals would improve the detection and treatment of early-stage and incipient lung cancer, while restricting the risk of these procedures to those individuals who currently exhibit the early molecular warning signs of impending disease.

ID: NCT02504697

Sponsor: Boston University

Locations: VA medical centers (including Los Angeles VA Healthcare System, Boston VA Research Institute, Inc, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Veterans Research Foundation of Pittsburgh, and VA North Texas Health Care System), 4 military treatment facilities (Naval Medical Center San Diego, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, San Antonio Military Medical Center, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth), and 4 academic hospitals

Improving Decision-Making Encounters in Lung Cancer Using a Low-Literacy Conversation Tool (iDECIDE)

This clinical trial evaluates the effectiveness of a conversation tool on patient-centered health and decision-making outcomes in patients with lung cancer making treatment decisions. This research is being conducted to help doctors understand the information patients need to participate in shared decision-making about their lung cancer treatment options. The focus of this research is to study how patients choose lung cancer treatment options and the information needed to make that choice, with a focus on patients with lower health literacy.

ID: NCT05407168

Sponsor: Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute

Locations: Portland VA Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute

VA Lung Cancer Surgery or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)

The standard of care for stage I non–small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggest that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of 2 incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these 2 treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.

This study is designed to open at VA medical centers with expertise in both treatments. The recruitment process includes shared decision making and multidisciplinary evaluations with lung cancer specialists. Mandatory evaluations before randomization include tissue confirmation of NSCLC, staging with FDG-PET/CT, and biopsies of all hilar and/or mediastinal lymph nodes > 10 mm that have a SUV > 2.5. Prerandomization elective lymph node sampling is strongly encouraged, but not required. Following treatment, patients will be followed for a minimum of 5 years.

ID: NCT02984761

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

Locations: 17 VA medical centers, including VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Miami VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Baltimore VA Medical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Durham VA Medical Center, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Corporal Micheal J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System University Drive Division, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, and Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center

Utility of CAML as Diagnostic for Early Stage Lung Cancer

The primary objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of cancer associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLS) in patients with pulmonary nodules. Secondary objectives include the following: determine the positive and negative predictive value of CAMLS in patients with pulmonary nodules who undergo biopsy; model combinations of clinical factors with the presence/absence of CAMLS to refine strategies for assessment of patients with pulmonary nodules; and evaluate whether these measures result in enhanced T-cell activity and/or natural killer cell function and number.

ID: NCT03992183

Sponsor; Collaborators: Fox Chase Cancer Center; US Department of Defense

Locations: Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Fox Chase Cancer Center

PROSPECT - Profiling of Resistance Patterns & Oncogenic Signaling Pathways in Evaluation of Cancers of the Thorax and Therapeutic Target Identification

This study will use therapeutic target-focused (TTF) profiling, genome-wide mRNA profiling, and assessments of tumor phosphopeptides and DNA that are shed into the bloodstream to define how various molecular factors alone and in combination relate to resistance to therapy, to prognosis, and to metastatic patterns at relapse. This study will examine how the presence of factors that drive cell growth, antagonize apoptosis, or confer resistance in other ways may counter the effect of systemic therapies and/or promote rapid tumor recurrence. In this way, the investigators will identify new, previously unappreciated potential therapeutic targets while also identifying which targets are most likely to increase resistance to therapy and worsen prognosis.

ID: NCT05049837

Sponsor; Collaborators: MD Anderson Cancer Center; US Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Location: MD Anderson Cancer Center

Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality among American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN), and AI/AN have worse lung cancer incidence rates, survival, and death compared to the general population. Because lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by roughly 20%, the US Preventive Services Task Force now recommends LCS for persons aged 55 to 80 years who meet specific eligibility criteria (grade-B evidence), and subsequently the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opted to cover this test. However, the uptake of LCS implementation has been slow in most health care systems, and LCS implementation among AI/AN has never been studied.

To address this knowledge, the Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS) study, a collaborative effort between the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Stephenson Cancer Center, and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, will address the following over the course of 5 years: conduct focus groups and semistructured interviews with Choctaw Nation Health Services Authority (CNHSA) patients, clinicians, and health administrators to elucidate individual- and system-level barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of LCS; develop an LCS care coordination intervention that will identify eligible persons for LCS, help these patients navigate the screening process, and link them with smoking cessation services, when applicable; measure the impact of the TEALS intervention on the receipt of screening and a set of patient- and practice-level outcomes by conducting a cluster-randomized clinical trial of LCS implementation; and disseminate the TEALS program to other researchers and healthcare systems that serve AI/AN patients. TEALS will bridge the gap between evidence and clinical practice for LCS in a high-need, low-resource setting by intervening at the level of the healthcare system.

System-level interventions for guideline implementation tend to be understudied compared to those evaluating individual-level, behavioral interventions. However, the careful development and evaluation of an LCS screening program at the level of the healthcare system would be critical to ensure that more patients can receive LCS. Our research will create a critically needed platform from which future studies could be launched that will examine how to tailor the application of the LCS guideline to the individual preferences of AI/AN patients. TEALS will establish an effective LCS program in a tribal system and thus provide a direct benefit to the Choctaw Nation by increasing LCS participation. TEALS will serve as a blueprint for establishing a sustainable and accessible infrastructure for LCS in AI/AN and other community health systems. By increasing screening for early stage lung cancer, TEALS could ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality in AI/AN communities.

ID: NCT04948060

Sponsor; Collaborator: University of Oklahoma; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Location: University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Prostate Cancer

18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Impact on Treatment Strategies for Patients With Prostate Cancer (PROSPYL)

The main purpose of this phase II trial study is to determine whether a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan using 18F-DCFPyL affects the clinical management plan in veterans. In this study, the management plan prior to and after 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT will be recorded by specific questionnaires and corresponding changes in management will be analyzed. The scan will be used to see how the disease has spread. Both the treatment strategies and probable disease outcomes as relevant to clinical endpoints will be assessed. This study is open to veterans only.

ID: NCT04390880

Sponsor: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Patient Decision-Making About Precision Oncology in Veterans With Advanced Prostate Cancer

This project proposes to understand and improve veterans’ decision-making in precision oncology (germline testing, somatic tumor testing, and targeted therapy) for advanced prostate cancer. As precision oncology expands, a comprehensive strategy to support patient informed decision-making has not been developed.

ID: NCT05396872

Sponsor; Collaborator: University of California, San Francisco; US Department of Defense

Location: San Francisco VA Medical Center

Intramuscular Mechanisms of Androgen Deprivation-Related Sarcopenia

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and is even more common in the military and veteran population. For patients with advanced prostate cancer, the most common treatment includes lowering the levels of the hormone testosterone as much as possible, which is called androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Unfortunately, ADT also causes patients to be fatigued, weak, and to lose muscle. This is often referred to as sarcopenia, and it leads to falls, poor quality of life, and higher risk of death. Currently, there is no treatment for sarcopenia because investigators do not understand the mechanisms that cause it. The mitochondria is the part of the cells responsible for providing energy to muscles but to date the investigators do not know if it is affected in prostate cancer patients with sarcopenia due to ADT. The overall goal of this proposal is to establish if the mitochondria is responsible for sarcopenia in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT. The investigators will measure mitochondrial function, muscle mass and strength, and feelings of fatigue and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer before starting and after 6 months of ADT.

ID: NCT03867357

Sponsor; Collaborator: Seattle Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Research; US Department of Defense

Location: VA Puget Sound Health Care System

VA Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without PET-Directed Local Therapy for OligoRecurrent Prostate Cancer (VA STARPORT)

The primary goal of this study is to determine if adding PET-directed local therapy improves disease control compared to standard systemic therapy alone (SST) in veterans with oligorecurrent prostate cancer on PET/CT. The investigators will conduct a multi-institutional phase II/III randomized trial comparing SST with or without PET-directed local therapy using radiation or surgery to all metastases and if a local recurrence is present.

ID: NCT04787744

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

Locations: VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Kansas City VA Medical Center, St. Louis VA Medical Center John Cochran Division, East Orange Campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System, Durham VA Medical Center, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center

Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without Definitive Treatment in Treating Participants With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

This phase III trial studies how well standard systemic therapy with or without definitive treatment (prostate removal surgery or radiation therapy) works in treating participants with prostate cancer that has spread to other places in the body. The addition of prostate removal surgery or radiation therapy to standard systemic therapy for prostate cancer may lower the chance of the cancer growing or spreading.

ID: NCT03678025

Sponsor; Collaborator: Southwest Oncology Group; National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 328 sites, including Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Atlanta VA Medical Center, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, and Audie L. Murphy VA Hospital

A Clinical Study Evaluating the Benefit of Adding Rucaparib to Enzalutamide for Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer That Has Become Resistant to Testosterone-Deprivation Therapy (CASPAR)

This randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial is evaluating the benefit of rucaparib and enzalutamide combination therapy vs enzalutamide alone for the treatment of men with prostate cancer that has spread to other places in the body (metastatic) and has become resistant to testosterone-deprivation therapy (castration-resistant). Enzalutamide helps fight prostate cancer by blocking the use of testosterone by the tumor cells for growth. Poly adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as rucaparib, fight prostate cancer by prevent tumor cells from repairing their DNA. Giving enzalutamide and rucaparib may make patients live longer or prevent their cancer from growing or spreading for a longer time, or both. It may also help doctors learn if a mutation in any of the homologous recombination DNA repair genes is helpful to decide which treatment is best for the patient.

ID: NCT04455750

Sponsor; Collaborator: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 413 sites

Digitally Captured Activity Data and PROs to Monitor Physical Function in Prostate Cancer Patients (DigiPRO)

Physical function is a known predictor of quality of life in advanced prostate cancer patients and key measure of treatment tolerability. While treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival, it is associated with significant toxicities that lead to physical function (PF) decline. The average age of incident prostate cancer is 66 years, and in this older group of men, chronic comorbid conditions often co-occur with diagnosis, further adding to the risk for PF decline. With over 2.9 million prostate cancer survivors in the US, there is an increasing demand for adequate symptom monitoring and PF assessment throughout cancer care. However, there are currently no validated methods to systematically evaluate and predict PF decline. Thus, the overarching objective of this proposal is to determine whether the use of wearable technology to monitor objective daily activity combined with routine symptom reporting can predict PF decline. To accomplish this, we propose a mixed-methods approach that will provide quantitative information to help identify PC survivors at higher risk for PF decline as well as a qualitative aim gain a deeper understanding of the perceived relationships that PC survivors have with their physical activity levels and treatment symptoms.

ID: NCT04575402

Sponsor; Collaborator: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; US Department of Defense

Location: Cedars Sinai Medical Center

The BurnAlong Pilot Study for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors

The purpose of this prospective, interventional, single-arm pilot study is to evaluate whether virtually delivered group-based physical activity is feasible for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer and have completed cancer treatment will be recruited for this study. This study will enroll 20 participants in total and will last approximately 3 months.

ID: NCT05131815

Sponsor; Collaborator: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Location: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Lung Cancer

DECAMP 1 PLUS: Prediction of Lung Cancer Using Noninvasive Biomarkers

The Detection of Early lung Cancer Among Military Personnel (DECAMP) consortium is a multidisciplinary and translational research program for lung cancer early detection. DECAMP 1 PLUS aims to improve the efficiency of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules (8-25 mm). Molecular biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis measured in minimally invasive and noninvasive biospecimens may be able to distinguish between malignant or benign indeterminate pulmonary nodules in high-risk smokers. Ultimately, this study aims to validate molecular as well as clinical and imaging biomarkers of lung cancer in individuals with indeterminate lung nodules.

ID: NCT04165564

Sponsor: Boston University

Locations: 3 VA medical centers (VA Greater LA Healthcare System, VA Boston Healthcare System, and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System), 3 military treatment facilities (Naval Medical Center San Diego, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth) and 12 academic hospitals

DECAMP-2: Screening of Patients With Early Stage Lung Cancer or at High Risk for Developing Lung Cancer (DECAMP-2)

The goal of this project is to improve lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals by identifying biomarkers of preclinical disease and disease risk that are measured in minimally invasive and noninvasive biospecimens. Existing biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis as well as new biomarkers discovered specifically in this clinical setting will be examined. Biomarkers that identify individuals at highest risk for being diagnosed with lung cancer prior to the appearance of concerning symptoms could increase the utility of lung cancer surveillance and the efficiency of lung cancer chemoprevention clinical trials. Achieving these goals would improve the detection and treatment of early-stage and incipient lung cancer, while restricting the risk of these procedures to those individuals who currently exhibit the early molecular warning signs of impending disease.

ID: NCT02504697

Sponsor: Boston University

Locations: VA medical centers (including Los Angeles VA Healthcare System, Boston VA Research Institute, Inc, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Veterans Research Foundation of Pittsburgh, and VA North Texas Health Care System), 4 military treatment facilities (Naval Medical Center San Diego, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, San Antonio Military Medical Center, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth), and 4 academic hospitals

Improving Decision-Making Encounters in Lung Cancer Using a Low-Literacy Conversation Tool (iDECIDE)

This clinical trial evaluates the effectiveness of a conversation tool on patient-centered health and decision-making outcomes in patients with lung cancer making treatment decisions. This research is being conducted to help doctors understand the information patients need to participate in shared decision-making about their lung cancer treatment options. The focus of this research is to study how patients choose lung cancer treatment options and the information needed to make that choice, with a focus on patients with lower health literacy.

ID: NCT05407168

Sponsor: Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute

Locations: Portland VA Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute

VA Lung Cancer Surgery or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)

The standard of care for stage I non–small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggest that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of 2 incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these 2 treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.

This study is designed to open at VA medical centers with expertise in both treatments. The recruitment process includes shared decision making and multidisciplinary evaluations with lung cancer specialists. Mandatory evaluations before randomization include tissue confirmation of NSCLC, staging with FDG-PET/CT, and biopsies of all hilar and/or mediastinal lymph nodes > 10 mm that have a SUV > 2.5. Prerandomization elective lymph node sampling is strongly encouraged, but not required. Following treatment, patients will be followed for a minimum of 5 years.

ID: NCT02984761

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

Locations: 17 VA medical centers, including VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Miami VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Baltimore VA Medical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Durham VA Medical Center, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Corporal Micheal J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System University Drive Division, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, and Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center

Utility of CAML as Diagnostic for Early Stage Lung Cancer

The primary objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of cancer associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLS) in patients with pulmonary nodules. Secondary objectives include the following: determine the positive and negative predictive value of CAMLS in patients with pulmonary nodules who undergo biopsy; model combinations of clinical factors with the presence/absence of CAMLS to refine strategies for assessment of patients with pulmonary nodules; and evaluate whether these measures result in enhanced T-cell activity and/or natural killer cell function and number.

ID: NCT03992183

Sponsor; Collaborators: Fox Chase Cancer Center; US Department of Defense

Locations: Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Fox Chase Cancer Center

PROSPECT - Profiling of Resistance Patterns & Oncogenic Signaling Pathways in Evaluation of Cancers of the Thorax and Therapeutic Target Identification

This study will use therapeutic target-focused (TTF) profiling, genome-wide mRNA profiling, and assessments of tumor phosphopeptides and DNA that are shed into the bloodstream to define how various molecular factors alone and in combination relate to resistance to therapy, to prognosis, and to metastatic patterns at relapse. This study will examine how the presence of factors that drive cell growth, antagonize apoptosis, or confer resistance in other ways may counter the effect of systemic therapies and/or promote rapid tumor recurrence. In this way, the investigators will identify new, previously unappreciated potential therapeutic targets while also identifying which targets are most likely to increase resistance to therapy and worsen prognosis.

ID: NCT05049837

Sponsor; Collaborators: MD Anderson Cancer Center; US Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Location: MD Anderson Cancer Center

Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality among American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN), and AI/AN have worse lung cancer incidence rates, survival, and death compared to the general population. Because lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by roughly 20%, the US Preventive Services Task Force now recommends LCS for persons aged 55 to 80 years who meet specific eligibility criteria (grade-B evidence), and subsequently the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opted to cover this test. However, the uptake of LCS implementation has been slow in most health care systems, and LCS implementation among AI/AN has never been studied.

To address this knowledge, the Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS) study, a collaborative effort between the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Stephenson Cancer Center, and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, will address the following over the course of 5 years: conduct focus groups and semistructured interviews with Choctaw Nation Health Services Authority (CNHSA) patients, clinicians, and health administrators to elucidate individual- and system-level barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of LCS; develop an LCS care coordination intervention that will identify eligible persons for LCS, help these patients navigate the screening process, and link them with smoking cessation services, when applicable; measure the impact of the TEALS intervention on the receipt of screening and a set of patient- and practice-level outcomes by conducting a cluster-randomized clinical trial of LCS implementation; and disseminate the TEALS program to other researchers and healthcare systems that serve AI/AN patients. TEALS will bridge the gap between evidence and clinical practice for LCS in a high-need, low-resource setting by intervening at the level of the healthcare system.

System-level interventions for guideline implementation tend to be understudied compared to those evaluating individual-level, behavioral interventions. However, the careful development and evaluation of an LCS screening program at the level of the healthcare system would be critical to ensure that more patients can receive LCS. Our research will create a critically needed platform from which future studies could be launched that will examine how to tailor the application of the LCS guideline to the individual preferences of AI/AN patients. TEALS will establish an effective LCS program in a tribal system and thus provide a direct benefit to the Choctaw Nation by increasing LCS participation. TEALS will serve as a blueprint for establishing a sustainable and accessible infrastructure for LCS in AI/AN and other community health systems. By increasing screening for early stage lung cancer, TEALS could ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality in AI/AN communities.

ID: NCT04948060

Sponsor; Collaborator: University of Oklahoma; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Location: University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Prostate Cancer

18F-DCFPyL PET/CT Impact on Treatment Strategies for Patients With Prostate Cancer (PROSPYL)

The main purpose of this phase II trial study is to determine whether a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan using 18F-DCFPyL affects the clinical management plan in veterans. In this study, the management plan prior to and after 18F-DCFPyL PET/CT will be recorded by specific questionnaires and corresponding changes in management will be analyzed. The scan will be used to see how the disease has spread. Both the treatment strategies and probable disease outcomes as relevant to clinical endpoints will be assessed. This study is open to veterans only.

ID: NCT04390880

Sponsor: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Location: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System

Patient Decision-Making About Precision Oncology in Veterans With Advanced Prostate Cancer

This project proposes to understand and improve veterans’ decision-making in precision oncology (germline testing, somatic tumor testing, and targeted therapy) for advanced prostate cancer. As precision oncology expands, a comprehensive strategy to support patient informed decision-making has not been developed.

ID: NCT05396872

Sponsor; Collaborator: University of California, San Francisco; US Department of Defense

Location: San Francisco VA Medical Center

Intramuscular Mechanisms of Androgen Deprivation-Related Sarcopenia

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and is even more common in the military and veteran population. For patients with advanced prostate cancer, the most common treatment includes lowering the levels of the hormone testosterone as much as possible, which is called androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Unfortunately, ADT also causes patients to be fatigued, weak, and to lose muscle. This is often referred to as sarcopenia, and it leads to falls, poor quality of life, and higher risk of death. Currently, there is no treatment for sarcopenia because investigators do not understand the mechanisms that cause it. The mitochondria is the part of the cells responsible for providing energy to muscles but to date the investigators do not know if it is affected in prostate cancer patients with sarcopenia due to ADT. The overall goal of this proposal is to establish if the mitochondria is responsible for sarcopenia in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT. The investigators will measure mitochondrial function, muscle mass and strength, and feelings of fatigue and quality of life in patients with prostate cancer before starting and after 6 months of ADT.

ID: NCT03867357

Sponsor; Collaborator: Seattle Institute for Biomedical and Clinical Research; US Department of Defense

Location: VA Puget Sound Health Care System

VA Seamless Phase II/III Randomized Trial of Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without PET-Directed Local Therapy for OligoRecurrent Prostate Cancer (VA STARPORT)

The primary goal of this study is to determine if adding PET-directed local therapy improves disease control compared to standard systemic therapy alone (SST) in veterans with oligorecurrent prostate cancer on PET/CT. The investigators will conduct a multi-institutional phase II/III randomized trial comparing SST with or without PET-directed local therapy using radiation or surgery to all metastases and if a local recurrence is present.

ID: NCT04787744

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

Locations: VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Kansas City VA Medical Center, St. Louis VA Medical Center John Cochran Division, East Orange Campus of the VA New Jersey Health Care System, Durham VA Medical Center, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center

Standard Systemic Therapy With or Without Definitive Treatment in Treating Participants With Metastatic Prostate Cancer

This phase III trial studies how well standard systemic therapy with or without definitive treatment (prostate removal surgery or radiation therapy) works in treating participants with prostate cancer that has spread to other places in the body. The addition of prostate removal surgery or radiation therapy to standard systemic therapy for prostate cancer may lower the chance of the cancer growing or spreading.

ID: NCT03678025

Sponsor; Collaborator: Southwest Oncology Group; National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 328 sites, including Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center, Atlanta VA Medical Center, James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, and Audie L. Murphy VA Hospital

A Clinical Study Evaluating the Benefit of Adding Rucaparib to Enzalutamide for Men With Metastatic Prostate Cancer That Has Become Resistant to Testosterone-Deprivation Therapy (CASPAR)

This randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial is evaluating the benefit of rucaparib and enzalutamide combination therapy vs enzalutamide alone for the treatment of men with prostate cancer that has spread to other places in the body (metastatic) and has become resistant to testosterone-deprivation therapy (castration-resistant). Enzalutamide helps fight prostate cancer by blocking the use of testosterone by the tumor cells for growth. Poly adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as rucaparib, fight prostate cancer by prevent tumor cells from repairing their DNA. Giving enzalutamide and rucaparib may make patients live longer or prevent their cancer from growing or spreading for a longer time, or both. It may also help doctors learn if a mutation in any of the homologous recombination DNA repair genes is helpful to decide which treatment is best for the patient.

ID: NCT04455750

Sponsor; Collaborator: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Locations: 413 sites

Digitally Captured Activity Data and PROs to Monitor Physical Function in Prostate Cancer Patients (DigiPRO)

Physical function is a known predictor of quality of life in advanced prostate cancer patients and key measure of treatment tolerability. While treatment with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival, it is associated with significant toxicities that lead to physical function (PF) decline. The average age of incident prostate cancer is 66 years, and in this older group of men, chronic comorbid conditions often co-occur with diagnosis, further adding to the risk for PF decline. With over 2.9 million prostate cancer survivors in the US, there is an increasing demand for adequate symptom monitoring and PF assessment throughout cancer care. However, there are currently no validated methods to systematically evaluate and predict PF decline. Thus, the overarching objective of this proposal is to determine whether the use of wearable technology to monitor objective daily activity combined with routine symptom reporting can predict PF decline. To accomplish this, we propose a mixed-methods approach that will provide quantitative information to help identify PC survivors at higher risk for PF decline as well as a qualitative aim gain a deeper understanding of the perceived relationships that PC survivors have with their physical activity levels and treatment symptoms.

ID: NCT04575402

Sponsor; Collaborator: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; US Department of Defense

Location: Cedars Sinai Medical Center

The BurnAlong Pilot Study for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors

The purpose of this prospective, interventional, single-arm pilot study is to evaluate whether virtually delivered group-based physical activity is feasible for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors. AYAs who were diagnosed with cancer and have completed cancer treatment will be recruited for this study. This study will enroll 20 participants in total and will last approximately 3 months.

ID: NCT05131815

Sponsor; Collaborator: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Location: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Lung Cancer

DECAMP 1 PLUS: Prediction of Lung Cancer Using Noninvasive Biomarkers

The Detection of Early lung Cancer Among Military Personnel (DECAMP) consortium is a multidisciplinary and translational research program for lung cancer early detection. DECAMP 1 PLUS aims to improve the efficiency of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules (8-25 mm). Molecular biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis measured in minimally invasive and noninvasive biospecimens may be able to distinguish between malignant or benign indeterminate pulmonary nodules in high-risk smokers. Ultimately, this study aims to validate molecular as well as clinical and imaging biomarkers of lung cancer in individuals with indeterminate lung nodules.

ID: NCT04165564

Sponsor: Boston University

Locations: 3 VA medical centers (VA Greater LA Healthcare System, VA Boston Healthcare System, and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System), 3 military treatment facilities (Naval Medical Center San Diego, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth) and 12 academic hospitals

DECAMP-2: Screening of Patients With Early Stage Lung Cancer or at High Risk for Developing Lung Cancer (DECAMP-2)

The goal of this project is to improve lung cancer screening in high-risk individuals by identifying biomarkers of preclinical disease and disease risk that are measured in minimally invasive and noninvasive biospecimens. Existing biomarkers for lung cancer diagnosis as well as new biomarkers discovered specifically in this clinical setting will be examined. Biomarkers that identify individuals at highest risk for being diagnosed with lung cancer prior to the appearance of concerning symptoms could increase the utility of lung cancer surveillance and the efficiency of lung cancer chemoprevention clinical trials. Achieving these goals would improve the detection and treatment of early-stage and incipient lung cancer, while restricting the risk of these procedures to those individuals who currently exhibit the early molecular warning signs of impending disease.

ID: NCT02504697

Sponsor: Boston University

Locations: VA medical centers (including Los Angeles VA Healthcare System, Boston VA Research Institute, Inc, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Veterans Research Foundation of Pittsburgh, and VA North Texas Health Care System), 4 military treatment facilities (Naval Medical Center San Diego, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, San Antonio Military Medical Center, and Naval Medical Center Portsmouth), and 4 academic hospitals

Improving Decision-Making Encounters in Lung Cancer Using a Low-Literacy Conversation Tool (iDECIDE)

This clinical trial evaluates the effectiveness of a conversation tool on patient-centered health and decision-making outcomes in patients with lung cancer making treatment decisions. This research is being conducted to help doctors understand the information patients need to participate in shared decision-making about their lung cancer treatment options. The focus of this research is to study how patients choose lung cancer treatment options and the information needed to make that choice, with a focus on patients with lower health literacy.

ID: NCT05407168

Sponsor: Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute

Locations: Portland VA Medical Center and Oregon Health & Science University Knight Cancer Institute

VA Lung Cancer Surgery or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)

The standard of care for stage I non–small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggest that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of 2 incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these 2 treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life expectancy and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.

This study is designed to open at VA medical centers with expertise in both treatments. The recruitment process includes shared decision making and multidisciplinary evaluations with lung cancer specialists. Mandatory evaluations before randomization include tissue confirmation of NSCLC, staging with FDG-PET/CT, and biopsies of all hilar and/or mediastinal lymph nodes > 10 mm that have a SUV > 2.5. Prerandomization elective lymph node sampling is strongly encouraged, but not required. Following treatment, patients will be followed for a minimum of 5 years.

ID: NCT02984761

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development

Locations: 17 VA medical centers, including VA Long Beach Healthcare System, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Bay Pines VA Healthcare System, Miami VA Healthcare System, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Baltimore VA Medical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System Jamaica Plain Campus, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Durham VA Medical Center, Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, Corporal Micheal J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System University Drive Division, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, and Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center

Utility of CAML as Diagnostic for Early Stage Lung Cancer

The primary objective of this study is to determine the prevalence of cancer associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLS) in patients with pulmonary nodules. Secondary objectives include the following: determine the positive and negative predictive value of CAMLS in patients with pulmonary nodules who undergo biopsy; model combinations of clinical factors with the presence/absence of CAMLS to refine strategies for assessment of patients with pulmonary nodules; and evaluate whether these measures result in enhanced T-cell activity and/or natural killer cell function and number.

ID: NCT03992183

Sponsor; Collaborators: Fox Chase Cancer Center; US Department of Defense

Locations: Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Fox Chase Cancer Center

PROSPECT - Profiling of Resistance Patterns & Oncogenic Signaling Pathways in Evaluation of Cancers of the Thorax and Therapeutic Target Identification

This study will use therapeutic target-focused (TTF) profiling, genome-wide mRNA profiling, and assessments of tumor phosphopeptides and DNA that are shed into the bloodstream to define how various molecular factors alone and in combination relate to resistance to therapy, to prognosis, and to metastatic patterns at relapse. This study will examine how the presence of factors that drive cell growth, antagonize apoptosis, or confer resistance in other ways may counter the effect of systemic therapies and/or promote rapid tumor recurrence. In this way, the investigators will identify new, previously unappreciated potential therapeutic targets while also identifying which targets are most likely to increase resistance to therapy and worsen prognosis.

ID: NCT05049837

Sponsor; Collaborators: MD Anderson Cancer Center; US Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Location: MD Anderson Cancer Center

Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality among American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN), and AI/AN have worse lung cancer incidence rates, survival, and death compared to the general population. Because lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality by roughly 20%, the US Preventive Services Task Force now recommends LCS for persons aged 55 to 80 years who meet specific eligibility criteria (grade-B evidence), and subsequently the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) opted to cover this test. However, the uptake of LCS implementation has been slow in most health care systems, and LCS implementation among AI/AN has never been studied.

To address this knowledge, the Tribally Engaged Approaches to Lung Screening (TEALS) study, a collaborative effort between the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Stephenson Cancer Center, and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, will address the following over the course of 5 years: conduct focus groups and semistructured interviews with Choctaw Nation Health Services Authority (CNHSA) patients, clinicians, and health administrators to elucidate individual- and system-level barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of LCS; develop an LCS care coordination intervention that will identify eligible persons for LCS, help these patients navigate the screening process, and link them with smoking cessation services, when applicable; measure the impact of the TEALS intervention on the receipt of screening and a set of patient- and practice-level outcomes by conducting a cluster-randomized clinical trial of LCS implementation; and disseminate the TEALS program to other researchers and healthcare systems that serve AI/AN patients. TEALS will bridge the gap between evidence and clinical practice for LCS in a high-need, low-resource setting by intervening at the level of the healthcare system.

System-level interventions for guideline implementation tend to be understudied compared to those evaluating individual-level, behavioral interventions. However, the careful development and evaluation of an LCS screening program at the level of the healthcare system would be critical to ensure that more patients can receive LCS. Our research will create a critically needed platform from which future studies could be launched that will examine how to tailor the application of the LCS guideline to the individual preferences of AI/AN patients. TEALS will establish an effective LCS program in a tribal system and thus provide a direct benefit to the Choctaw Nation by increasing LCS participation. TEALS will serve as a blueprint for establishing a sustainable and accessible infrastructure for LCS in AI/AN and other community health systems. By increasing screening for early stage lung cancer, TEALS could ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality in AI/AN communities.

ID: NCT04948060

Sponsor; Collaborator: University of Oklahoma; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Location: University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in both men and women.¹ Colonoscopy is the current gold standard for screening due to the ability to remove precancerous lesions but remains highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation.² Poor bowel preparation has been associated with impaired adenoma detection as well as increased health care utilization due to the need for a repeat colonoscopy.³

Multiple patient factors are associated with increased risk of poor bowel preparation, including age > 60 years, male sex, diabetes mellitus, and presence of a mental health diagnosis, factors that are prevalent among the veteran population.^3-5 Text messages have been shown to improve the quality of bowel preparation by increasing patients' understanding and adherence with the preparation process. Improved adherence with bowel preparation directions is associated with a cleaner colon prior to colonoscopy, leading to a thorough examination. Studies using text messaging instructions prior to colonoscopies have also shown measurable improvement in adenoma detection rate, patient preparation-associated discomfort, and completion of colonoscopy.^6-10

In 2016, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) introduced Annie, one of the first automated text messaging services, named after Army Lieutenant Annie Fox, the first woman to receive the Purple Heart for combat. The Annie platform allows for notifications, instructions, and simple data collection. The development of this platform allows VHA practitioners to engage and educate veterans in a similar way to other health care systems using text messaging protocols. Annie text messages have been piloted for the use of hepatitis C treatment, demonstrating promise of improved medication adherence and patient satisfaction.¹¹ We aimed to develop and pilot the Annie bowel preparation protocol to improve the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation for outpatients at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MVAMC) in Minnesota. A secondary goal included measuring patient satisfaction with the text messaging instructions for outpatient colonoscopy preparation.

Methods

We conducted a single center, prospective, endoscopist-blinded, study with two 3-month long Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to improve the text messaging bowel preparation protocol at MVAMC between January 2019 and April 2020. The MVAMC Institutional Review Board determined the quality improvement project was exempt. Veterans who had outpatient colonoscopies scheduled were included. Veterans undergoing inpatient colonoscopies or outpatients who could not be reached to obtain informed consent, lacked text message capability, declined participation, or required extended colonoscopy preparation were excluded. Per MVAMC procedures, extended colonoscopy preparation was provided to patients receiving general or monitored anesthesia care, with a history of poor bowel preparation, or with risk factors for poor preparation as determined by the ordering health care professional (HCP). Standard bowel preparation involves ingestion of 4 L of polyethylene glycol 3350 with electrolytes; extended bowel preparation requires ingestion of an additional 2 L to total 6 L and uses a different set of instructions. Additionally, the patient population requiring extended bowel preparation also includes patients with spinal cord injuries, who often are admitted for assistance with extended preparation. Patients who consented to receiving text messages were placed in the Annie intervention group, and all others were placed in the control group.

The control group received standardized patient education, including a mailed copy of bowel preparation instructions and a phone call from a gastroenterology service nurse about 1 to 2 weeks before the procedure. Current MVAMC standard of care involves a phone call from a nurse to confirm that patients have received the polyethylene glycol preparation solution, the mailed instructions, have an escort and transportation, and to answer any questions. Both the usual care and intervention group received the phone call. During this call, the Annie text messaging bowel preparation protocol was introduced; if the veteran chose to participate, consent and enrollment were completed.

On the day of the colonoscopy, veterans in the intervention group were surveyed in the waiting room about their experience receiving the text messages and soliciting feedback for improvement or surveyed via telephone call within 3 days of their procedure. Patient satisfaction was quantified with a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high), including questions about how helpful the texts were in relation to total number, timing, and content of messages as well as whether veterans would like to receive the text messages again for future procedures.

We reviewed individual charts and collected Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores to determine adequate preparation. BBPS assigns a score of 0 to 3 for the right, transverse, and left colon applied upon withdrawal after flushing and suctioning have been completed.¹² Adequate preparation is considered a total score of ≥ 6 with no segment scoring < 2. This method of preparation assessment is preferred due to its ability to account for difference in preparation quality among colonic segments, well-defined scoring characteristics, and several studies validating its use showing inter- and intraobserver reliability.¹² Follow-up studies have shown validity of the BBPS when compared with relevant outcomes such as polyp detection rate and recommended timing for repeat procedure.¹³ Variables associated with poor bowel preparation (ie, gender, prior abdominal surgery, impaired mobility, high body mass index, diabetes mellitus, stroke, dementia, any neurologic diagnosis, cirrhosis, smoking, polypharmacy [> 8 active medications], and narcotic or tricyclic antidepressant medication use) were also collected through chart review.^3-5 We note that immobility was defined by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes and prescriptions for assistive devices (ie, canes, wheelchairs, 4-wheeled walkers).

Veterans assent to be enrolled in Annie. After enrollment, veterans must text back a specific word response to an initial text message to receive the protocolized messages from the Annie program. A contact phone number to the gastrointestinal nurse line was provided for questions during business hours. The start date for the text message protocol is 6 days prior to the procedure date. If a patient rescheduled their colonoscopy, the Annie database was updated manually.

Statistical Analysis

We used both Pearson χ² test and 2-sample t test analyses to compare demographic information and patient satisfaction scores between the control and intervention groups. We compared continuous BBPS scores between Annie intervention vs control group using parametric and nonparametric independent t tests using the Mann-Whitney U test. We repeated this analysis controlling for both mental health diagnoses and age using linear regression. We were unable to survey 61 of the 187 veterans who received Annie text messages. 

RESULTS

During PDSA cycles 1 and 2, 640 veterans were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy: 453 veterans were in the control group; 187 veterans were in the intervention group, of which 126 were surveyed. A significant percentage of veterans declined participation because they felt like they did not need reinforced education; others were not eligible for Annie due to requirement for extended bowel preparation, cancelled colonoscopy, inability to physically read text messages, or lack of cell phone.

The mean (SD) age was 65 (8) years; 184 (28.8%) had a diabetes mellitus diagnosis, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 31.6 (6.4). The Annie group was slightly more likely to have mental health diagnoses and lower age compared with the control group (Table 1).

Patient Feedback

We collected feedback from veterans after each PDSA cycle to identify areas for improvement by both in-person and telephone surveys. Based on feedback from PDSA cycle 1, we decreased the total number of text messages to create a more succinct set of instructions. The most frequently requested change involved timing the text messages to align with the exact morning a specific instruction should take place.

Patient satisfaction with the Annie text messaging service was high.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first report of using Annie at a VAMC for colonoscopy bowel preparation improvement. We found a statistically significant improvement in the average BBPS in those receiving Annie text messages compared with the routine care control group. We also found high levels of patient satisfaction with most patients requesting to receive them again for future procedures.

The clinical significance of a BBPS of 7.8 vs 8.2 is unclear, although any score > 6 is considered to be adequate. However, subjectively speaking, the higher the BBPS the cleaner the colon, and theoretically the easier it is to see small or flat polyps. Future steps could include calculating adenoma detection rates for those enrolled in the Annie program vs the control group.

We have received inquiries regarding potential program implementation at other facilities. Success and sustainability of the program will require long-term commitment and ideally protected time for staff. It is helpful to remember that for each person who chooses to enroll in the intervention, the program currently requires that a brief consent note is placed in the patient’s chart. Thus, depending on the facilities’ resources, it is ideal for one staff member to be the designated lead to help oversee, troubleshoot, and train additional personnel. Surveys can be intermittently used to obtain feedback for improvement but are not required for sustainability. Automated text messaging is a promising addition to medicine for clinical education and communication. Future studies should examine the clinical significance (ie, adenoma detection rates) of text messaging bowel preparation protocols.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, this was a single center study, thus generalizability is limited. MVAMC represents a predominantly White, male, and rural population. Second, data are likely an underestimation of the true impact of intervention, because results do not account for patients who were turned away on day of procedure (typically still reporting brown stools at time of check-in for procedure) due to poor preparation or aborted procedures secondary to poor preparation. Only about one-third of the 640 veterans opted to receive Annie text messages.

Studies have shown veterans are willing to use technology for health care; however, access to technology and lack of training remain barriers to use.¹⁴ This has been most robustly studied at the VA in veterans experiencing mental illness and homelessness. Targeted strategies to improve veteran adoption of technology within their health care include supplying veterans with cell phones and paid data plans and providing training on specific technology-based resources.^15-17 Future improvement for the Annie platform should include improved integration with CPRS. Integration will facilitate automatic import of key information such as mobile phone number or colonoscopy procedure date. Unfortunately, this is not currently an automated process, and the manual workload of staff limits sustainability. Since our study ended, the Annie database now allows an “event date” to be programmed in to center the text message series around. This will be entered at the time of Annie enrollment and eliminate manual activation of the protocol. The issue of updating information for rescheduled procedures remains.

Conclusions

There is increasing evidence that automated text messaging is a promising addition to medicine for clinical education and communication. It continues to gain traction as a readily available and acceptable option, and many patients are willing to incorporate the technology platform into their care plan. We found high patient satisfaction with our protocol, and Annie patients had cleaner bowel preparations compared with control patients. Our study supports the use of text message reminders as an effective intervention for improving patient adherence with bowel preparation instructions. We suspect that creation of a text messaging protocol designed for patients requiring outpatient extended bowel preparation will yield great benefit. As technology continues to improve, future implementation of Annie text messaging will become increasingly seamless within the field of gastroenterology and beyond.

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in both men and women.¹ Colonoscopy is the current gold standard for screening due to the ability to remove precancerous lesions but remains highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation.² Poor bowel preparation has been associated with impaired adenoma detection as well as increased health care utilization due to the need for a repeat colonoscopy.³

Multiple patient factors are associated with increased risk of poor bowel preparation, including age > 60 years, male sex, diabetes mellitus, and presence of a mental health diagnosis, factors that are prevalent among the veteran population.^3-5 Text messages have been shown to improve the quality of bowel preparation by increasing patients' understanding and adherence with the preparation process. Improved adherence with bowel preparation directions is associated with a cleaner colon prior to colonoscopy, leading to a thorough examination. Studies using text messaging instructions prior to colonoscopies have also shown measurable improvement in adenoma detection rate, patient preparation-associated discomfort, and completion of colonoscopy.^6-10

In 2016, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) introduced Annie, one of the first automated text messaging services, named after Army Lieutenant Annie Fox, the first woman to receive the Purple Heart for combat. The Annie platform allows for notifications, instructions, and simple data collection. The development of this platform allows VHA practitioners to engage and educate veterans in a similar way to other health care systems using text messaging protocols. Annie text messages have been piloted for the use of hepatitis C treatment, demonstrating promise of improved medication adherence and patient satisfaction.¹¹ We aimed to develop and pilot the Annie bowel preparation protocol to improve the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation for outpatients at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MVAMC) in Minnesota. A secondary goal included measuring patient satisfaction with the text messaging instructions for outpatient colonoscopy preparation.

Methods

We conducted a single center, prospective, endoscopist-blinded, study with two 3-month long Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to improve the text messaging bowel preparation protocol at MVAMC between January 2019 and April 2020. The MVAMC Institutional Review Board determined the quality improvement project was exempt. Veterans who had outpatient colonoscopies scheduled were included. Veterans undergoing inpatient colonoscopies or outpatients who could not be reached to obtain informed consent, lacked text message capability, declined participation, or required extended colonoscopy preparation were excluded. Per MVAMC procedures, extended colonoscopy preparation was provided to patients receiving general or monitored anesthesia care, with a history of poor bowel preparation, or with risk factors for poor preparation as determined by the ordering health care professional (HCP). Standard bowel preparation involves ingestion of 4 L of polyethylene glycol 3350 with electrolytes; extended bowel preparation requires ingestion of an additional 2 L to total 6 L and uses a different set of instructions. Additionally, the patient population requiring extended bowel preparation also includes patients with spinal cord injuries, who often are admitted for assistance with extended preparation. Patients who consented to receiving text messages were placed in the Annie intervention group, and all others were placed in the control group.

The control group received standardized patient education, including a mailed copy of bowel preparation instructions and a phone call from a gastroenterology service nurse about 1 to 2 weeks before the procedure. Current MVAMC standard of care involves a phone call from a nurse to confirm that patients have received the polyethylene glycol preparation solution, the mailed instructions, have an escort and transportation, and to answer any questions. Both the usual care and intervention group received the phone call. During this call, the Annie text messaging bowel preparation protocol was introduced; if the veteran chose to participate, consent and enrollment were completed.

On the day of the colonoscopy, veterans in the intervention group were surveyed in the waiting room about their experience receiving the text messages and soliciting feedback for improvement or surveyed via telephone call within 3 days of their procedure. Patient satisfaction was quantified with a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high), including questions about how helpful the texts were in relation to total number, timing, and content of messages as well as whether veterans would like to receive the text messages again for future procedures.

We reviewed individual charts and collected Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores to determine adequate preparation. BBPS assigns a score of 0 to 3 for the right, transverse, and left colon applied upon withdrawal after flushing and suctioning have been completed.¹² Adequate preparation is considered a total score of ≥ 6 with no segment scoring < 2. This method of preparation assessment is preferred due to its ability to account for difference in preparation quality among colonic segments, well-defined scoring characteristics, and several studies validating its use showing inter- and intraobserver reliability.¹² Follow-up studies have shown validity of the BBPS when compared with relevant outcomes such as polyp detection rate and recommended timing for repeat procedure.¹³ Variables associated with poor bowel preparation (ie, gender, prior abdominal surgery, impaired mobility, high body mass index, diabetes mellitus, stroke, dementia, any neurologic diagnosis, cirrhosis, smoking, polypharmacy [> 8 active medications], and narcotic or tricyclic antidepressant medication use) were also collected through chart review.^3-5 We note that immobility was defined by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes and prescriptions for assistive devices (ie, canes, wheelchairs, 4-wheeled walkers).

Veterans assent to be enrolled in Annie. After enrollment, veterans must text back a specific word response to an initial text message to receive the protocolized messages from the Annie program. A contact phone number to the gastrointestinal nurse line was provided for questions during business hours. The start date for the text message protocol is 6 days prior to the procedure date. If a patient rescheduled their colonoscopy, the Annie database was updated manually.

Statistical Analysis

We used both Pearson χ² test and 2-sample t test analyses to compare demographic information and patient satisfaction scores between the control and intervention groups. We compared continuous BBPS scores between Annie intervention vs control group using parametric and nonparametric independent t tests using the Mann-Whitney U test. We repeated this analysis controlling for both mental health diagnoses and age using linear regression. We were unable to survey 61 of the 187 veterans who received Annie text messages. 

RESULTS

During PDSA cycles 1 and 2, 640 veterans were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy: 453 veterans were in the control group; 187 veterans were in the intervention group, of which 126 were surveyed. A significant percentage of veterans declined participation because they felt like they did not need reinforced education; others were not eligible for Annie due to requirement for extended bowel preparation, cancelled colonoscopy, inability to physically read text messages, or lack of cell phone.

The mean (SD) age was 65 (8) years; 184 (28.8%) had a diabetes mellitus diagnosis, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 31.6 (6.4). The Annie group was slightly more likely to have mental health diagnoses and lower age compared with the control group (Table 1).

Patient Feedback

We collected feedback from veterans after each PDSA cycle to identify areas for improvement by both in-person and telephone surveys. Based on feedback from PDSA cycle 1, we decreased the total number of text messages to create a more succinct set of instructions. The most frequently requested change involved timing the text messages to align with the exact morning a specific instruction should take place.

Patient satisfaction with the Annie text messaging service was high.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first report of using Annie at a VAMC for colonoscopy bowel preparation improvement. We found a statistically significant improvement in the average BBPS in those receiving Annie text messages compared with the routine care control group. We also found high levels of patient satisfaction with most patients requesting to receive them again for future procedures.

The clinical significance of a BBPS of 7.8 vs 8.2 is unclear, although any score > 6 is considered to be adequate. However, subjectively speaking, the higher the BBPS the cleaner the colon, and theoretically the easier it is to see small or flat polyps. Future steps could include calculating adenoma detection rates for those enrolled in the Annie program vs the control group.

We have received inquiries regarding potential program implementation at other facilities. Success and sustainability of the program will require long-term commitment and ideally protected time for staff. It is helpful to remember that for each person who chooses to enroll in the intervention, the program currently requires that a brief consent note is placed in the patient’s chart. Thus, depending on the facilities’ resources, it is ideal for one staff member to be the designated lead to help oversee, troubleshoot, and train additional personnel. Surveys can be intermittently used to obtain feedback for improvement but are not required for sustainability. Automated text messaging is a promising addition to medicine for clinical education and communication. Future studies should examine the clinical significance (ie, adenoma detection rates) of text messaging bowel preparation protocols.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, this was a single center study, thus generalizability is limited. MVAMC represents a predominantly White, male, and rural population. Second, data are likely an underestimation of the true impact of intervention, because results do not account for patients who were turned away on day of procedure (typically still reporting brown stools at time of check-in for procedure) due to poor preparation or aborted procedures secondary to poor preparation. Only about one-third of the 640 veterans opted to receive Annie text messages.

Studies have shown veterans are willing to use technology for health care; however, access to technology and lack of training remain barriers to use.¹⁴ This has been most robustly studied at the VA in veterans experiencing mental illness and homelessness. Targeted strategies to improve veteran adoption of technology within their health care include supplying veterans with cell phones and paid data plans and providing training on specific technology-based resources.^15-17 Future improvement for the Annie platform should include improved integration with CPRS. Integration will facilitate automatic import of key information such as mobile phone number or colonoscopy procedure date. Unfortunately, this is not currently an automated process, and the manual workload of staff limits sustainability. Since our study ended, the Annie database now allows an “event date” to be programmed in to center the text message series around. This will be entered at the time of Annie enrollment and eliminate manual activation of the protocol. The issue of updating information for rescheduled procedures remains.

Conclusions

There is increasing evidence that automated text messaging is a promising addition to medicine for clinical education and communication. It continues to gain traction as a readily available and acceptable option, and many patients are willing to incorporate the technology platform into their care plan. We found high patient satisfaction with our protocol, and Annie patients had cleaner bowel preparations compared with control patients. Our study supports the use of text message reminders as an effective intervention for improving patient adherence with bowel preparation instructions. We suspect that creation of a text messaging protocol designed for patients requiring outpatient extended bowel preparation will yield great benefit. As technology continues to improve, future implementation of Annie text messaging will become increasingly seamless within the field of gastroenterology and beyond.

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in both men and women.¹ Colonoscopy is the current gold standard for screening due to the ability to remove precancerous lesions but remains highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation.² Poor bowel preparation has been associated with impaired adenoma detection as well as increased health care utilization due to the need for a repeat colonoscopy.³

Multiple patient factors are associated with increased risk of poor bowel preparation, including age > 60 years, male sex, diabetes mellitus, and presence of a mental health diagnosis, factors that are prevalent among the veteran population.^3-5 Text messages have been shown to improve the quality of bowel preparation by increasing patients' understanding and adherence with the preparation process. Improved adherence with bowel preparation directions is associated with a cleaner colon prior to colonoscopy, leading to a thorough examination. Studies using text messaging instructions prior to colonoscopies have also shown measurable improvement in adenoma detection rate, patient preparation-associated discomfort, and completion of colonoscopy.^6-10

In 2016, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) introduced Annie, one of the first automated text messaging services, named after Army Lieutenant Annie Fox, the first woman to receive the Purple Heart for combat. The Annie platform allows for notifications, instructions, and simple data collection. The development of this platform allows VHA practitioners to engage and educate veterans in a similar way to other health care systems using text messaging protocols. Annie text messages have been piloted for the use of hepatitis C treatment, demonstrating promise of improved medication adherence and patient satisfaction.¹¹ We aimed to develop and pilot the Annie bowel preparation protocol to improve the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation for outpatients at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MVAMC) in Minnesota. A secondary goal included measuring patient satisfaction with the text messaging instructions for outpatient colonoscopy preparation.

Methods

We conducted a single center, prospective, endoscopist-blinded, study with two 3-month long Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to improve the text messaging bowel preparation protocol at MVAMC between January 2019 and April 2020. The MVAMC Institutional Review Board determined the quality improvement project was exempt. Veterans who had outpatient colonoscopies scheduled were included. Veterans undergoing inpatient colonoscopies or outpatients who could not be reached to obtain informed consent, lacked text message capability, declined participation, or required extended colonoscopy preparation were excluded. Per MVAMC procedures, extended colonoscopy preparation was provided to patients receiving general or monitored anesthesia care, with a history of poor bowel preparation, or with risk factors for poor preparation as determined by the ordering health care professional (HCP). Standard bowel preparation involves ingestion of 4 L of polyethylene glycol 3350 with electrolytes; extended bowel preparation requires ingestion of an additional 2 L to total 6 L and uses a different set of instructions. Additionally, the patient population requiring extended bowel preparation also includes patients with spinal cord injuries, who often are admitted for assistance with extended preparation. Patients who consented to receiving text messages were placed in the Annie intervention group, and all others were placed in the control group.

The control group received standardized patient education, including a mailed copy of bowel preparation instructions and a phone call from a gastroenterology service nurse about 1 to 2 weeks before the procedure. Current MVAMC standard of care involves a phone call from a nurse to confirm that patients have received the polyethylene glycol preparation solution, the mailed instructions, have an escort and transportation, and to answer any questions. Both the usual care and intervention group received the phone call. During this call, the Annie text messaging bowel preparation protocol was introduced; if the veteran chose to participate, consent and enrollment were completed.

On the day of the colonoscopy, veterans in the intervention group were surveyed in the waiting room about their experience receiving the text messages and soliciting feedback for improvement or surveyed via telephone call within 3 days of their procedure. Patient satisfaction was quantified with a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high), including questions about how helpful the texts were in relation to total number, timing, and content of messages as well as whether veterans would like to receive the text messages again for future procedures.

We reviewed individual charts and collected Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores to determine adequate preparation. BBPS assigns a score of 0 to 3 for the right, transverse, and left colon applied upon withdrawal after flushing and suctioning have been completed.¹² Adequate preparation is considered a total score of ≥ 6 with no segment scoring < 2. This method of preparation assessment is preferred due to its ability to account for difference in preparation quality among colonic segments, well-defined scoring characteristics, and several studies validating its use showing inter- and intraobserver reliability.¹² Follow-up studies have shown validity of the BBPS when compared with relevant outcomes such as polyp detection rate and recommended timing for repeat procedure.¹³ Variables associated with poor bowel preparation (ie, gender, prior abdominal surgery, impaired mobility, high body mass index, diabetes mellitus, stroke, dementia, any neurologic diagnosis, cirrhosis, smoking, polypharmacy [> 8 active medications], and narcotic or tricyclic antidepressant medication use) were also collected through chart review.^3-5 We note that immobility was defined by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes and prescriptions for assistive devices (ie, canes, wheelchairs, 4-wheeled walkers).

Veterans assent to be enrolled in Annie. After enrollment, veterans must text back a specific word response to an initial text message to receive the protocolized messages from the Annie program. A contact phone number to the gastrointestinal nurse line was provided for questions during business hours. The start date for the text message protocol is 6 days prior to the procedure date. If a patient rescheduled their colonoscopy, the Annie database was updated manually.

Statistical Analysis

We used both Pearson χ² test and 2-sample t test analyses to compare demographic information and patient satisfaction scores between the control and intervention groups. We compared continuous BBPS scores between Annie intervention vs control group using parametric and nonparametric independent t tests using the Mann-Whitney U test. We repeated this analysis controlling for both mental health diagnoses and age using linear regression. We were unable to survey 61 of the 187 veterans who received Annie text messages. 

RESULTS

During PDSA cycles 1 and 2, 640 veterans were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy: 453 veterans were in the control group; 187 veterans were in the intervention group, of which 126 were surveyed. A significant percentage of veterans declined participation because they felt like they did not need reinforced education; others were not eligible for Annie due to requirement for extended bowel preparation, cancelled colonoscopy, inability to physically read text messages, or lack of cell phone.

The mean (SD) age was 65 (8) years; 184 (28.8%) had a diabetes mellitus diagnosis, and the mean (SD) body mass index was 31.6 (6.4). The Annie group was slightly more likely to have mental health diagnoses and lower age compared with the control group (Table 1).

Patient Feedback

We collected feedback from veterans after each PDSA cycle to identify areas for improvement by both in-person and telephone surveys. Based on feedback from PDSA cycle 1, we decreased the total number of text messages to create a more succinct set of instructions. The most frequently requested change involved timing the text messages to align with the exact morning a specific instruction should take place.

Patient satisfaction with the Annie text messaging service was high.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first report of using Annie at a VAMC for colonoscopy bowel preparation improvement. We found a statistically significant improvement in the average BBPS in those receiving Annie text messages compared with the routine care control group. We also found high levels of patient satisfaction with most patients requesting to receive them again for future procedures.

The clinical significance of a BBPS of 7.8 vs 8.2 is unclear, although any score > 6 is considered to be adequate. However, subjectively speaking, the higher the BBPS the cleaner the colon, and theoretically the easier it is to see small or flat polyps. Future steps could include calculating adenoma detection rates for those enrolled in the Annie program vs the control group.

We have received inquiries regarding potential program implementation at other facilities. Success and sustainability of the program will require long-term commitment and ideally protected time for staff. It is helpful to remember that for each person who chooses to enroll in the intervention, the program currently requires that a brief consent note is placed in the patient’s chart. Thus, depending on the facilities’ resources, it is ideal for one staff member to be the designated lead to help oversee, troubleshoot, and train additional personnel. Surveys can be intermittently used to obtain feedback for improvement but are not required for sustainability. Automated text messaging is a promising addition to medicine for clinical education and communication. Future studies should examine the clinical significance (ie, adenoma detection rates) of text messaging bowel preparation protocols.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, this was a single center study, thus generalizability is limited. MVAMC represents a predominantly White, male, and rural population. Second, data are likely an underestimation of the true impact of intervention, because results do not account for patients who were turned away on day of procedure (typically still reporting brown stools at time of check-in for procedure) due to poor preparation or aborted procedures secondary to poor preparation. Only about one-third of the 640 veterans opted to receive Annie text messages.

Studies have shown veterans are willing to use technology for health care; however, access to technology and lack of training remain barriers to use.¹⁴ This has been most robustly studied at the VA in veterans experiencing mental illness and homelessness. Targeted strategies to improve veteran adoption of technology within their health care include supplying veterans with cell phones and paid data plans and providing training on specific technology-based resources.^15-17 Future improvement for the Annie platform should include improved integration with CPRS. Integration will facilitate automatic import of key information such as mobile phone number or colonoscopy procedure date. Unfortunately, this is not currently an automated process, and the manual workload of staff limits sustainability. Since our study ended, the Annie database now allows an “event date” to be programmed in to center the text message series around. This will be entered at the time of Annie enrollment and eliminate manual activation of the protocol. The issue of updating information for rescheduled procedures remains.

Conclusions

There is increasing evidence that automated text messaging is a promising addition to medicine for clinical education and communication. It continues to gain traction as a readily available and acceptable option, and many patients are willing to incorporate the technology platform into their care plan. We found high patient satisfaction with our protocol, and Annie patients had cleaner bowel preparations compared with control patients. Our study supports the use of text message reminders as an effective intervention for improving patient adherence with bowel preparation instructions. We suspect that creation of a text messaging protocol designed for patients requiring outpatient extended bowel preparation will yield great benefit. As technology continues to improve, future implementation of Annie text messaging will become increasingly seamless within the field of gastroenterology and beyond.

Patient portals are secure online website tools that provide patient access to personal health information (PHI). Access to online PHI improves health equity and satisfies the meaningful use objectives of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program.^1,2 Through patient portals, individuals can access PHI records and current diagnoses, request and reschedule appointments, locate test results, track trends for vital signs and laboratory values, refill medications, and communicate directly with the health care team through secure messaging. This alternative method of communication with the team is associated with increased patient satisfaction.³ Patients reported improved patient engagement in health care self-management and decision making, as well as strengthened relationships with their health care team.⁴

Background

One well-documented strategy to improve portal use includes the development of a nurse champion to facilitate enrollment during the clinic visit.⁵ Patient perceptions of portal value increased after education by a health care professional (HCP) and assistance in enrollment to familiarize patients with the platform for ongoing use.⁵ Use of patient portals has been associated with favorable outcomes in chronic disease management. Patients with diabetes mellitus who regularly use patient portals for prescription refills and secure messaging have demonstrated improved glycemic control, medication adherence, and associated health parameters compared with nonusers.^5-7 In patients with congestive heart failure, meaningful patient portal use results in fewer emergency department visits, fewer hospital admissions, lower readmission rates, and reduced unscheduled and no-show visits.^8-11

Patient portal access is a quality improvement (QI) measure that meets Medicare and Medicaid meaningful use requirements that is designed to improve collaboration between HCPs and patients through EHRs. Despite legislation, uptake of patient portal access has been slow, especially among older adults.^10,12,13 Barriers to patient portal registration and use include patient lack of awareness, perceived or actual digital illiteracy, mistrust in privacy precautions, lack of user-friendly interfaces, lack of internet or technology, HCP bias and workload, and misperceptions of usefulness.^9,10,12,14 The HCPs most likely to facilitate the use of patient portals, typically include nurse practitioners (NPs), nurses, and medical residents.^10,15 Patient portal platforms promote the partnership of these disciplines with the veteran to help the patient better manage their health. Despite the benefits and widespread integration of patient portals in health care systems, socioeconomic inequalities and HCP attitudes contribute to persistent disparities in its adoption by underserved populations. The veteran population is often faced with additional barriers to health care access with regard to geographic location, advanced age, trauma, disabilities, mental health challenges, and homelessness.^10,16 These barriers require unique approaches to maximize the use of technologic advances.¹⁷ Advanced age contributes to low rates of patient portal enrollment and lack of digital platform use, thus creating a digital divide.^11,12

The digital divide is described as the gap between those persons who use technology including computers and internet, and those persons who do not because of social and geographic barriers.¹⁶ It contributes to a growing health disparity in both access to care and quality of care especially for rural veterans. About 25% of the US population lacks fixed broadband at home; these individuals are more likely to be racial minorities, older, widowed, or to have lower levels of education.^18,19 Veterans are disproportionately represented in these demographic categories.²⁰ According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health, the percentage of rural veterans enrolled in the VA health care system (58%) is significantly higher than enrollment of urban veterans (38%); additionally, 27% of rural veterans do not access the internet at home.²¹

My HealtheVet

The VA plays an integral part in increasing virtual access to care, from the introduction of My Healthevet (MHV) in 2003 to the distribution of iPad tablets to vulnerable veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.^22,23 Due to COVID-19, the need for VA patient access to the internet and VA Video-Connect (VVC) telehealth services increased significantly.²² Access to internet and hardware supporting use of VVC and MHV has been facilitated by the Digital Divide Consult, a VA program launched in 2020 to increase access to telehealth services.²⁴ The VA has distributed > 26,000 cellular-enabled tablets and provided > 50,000 veterans with connectivity in collaboration with various private sector companies.²² Patients report that MHV facilitates engagement in health care through improved access to EHRs and expedited communication with the health care team.⁴

MHV is a secure online tool that provides patients access to PHI. MHV aims to empower veterans to take charge of their health by improving communication with HCPs, setting patient goals, and offering health and well-being resources.^25,26 In a study of outpatients at a large urban multisite health care system, < 35% of patients on 16 medical resident panels were enrolled in a patient portal.¹⁵ MHV internal national metrics show increasing registration and active users of the patient portal, yet locally, disparities in the use of the portal by rural and older veterans exist.

The Local Problem

A review of the registration process at a rural VA clinic revealed barriers to facilitating the veteran registration process at the point of care. Clinical reminders exist within the EHR to prompt clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of care. At the New England Healthcare System (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 1), a patient portal clinical reminder prompts staff to encourage veterans to register. Anecdotal data obtained from primary care staff interviews at a rural VA primary care clinic in Vermont revealed low clinician confidence in completing the clinical reminder, a lack of knowledge of MHV, and lack of time to educate veterans about the benefits of MHV.

Despite availability of a registration process at the point of care and clinical staff assigned to provide registration information to the veteran, access to the patient portal among veterans at this clinic remained low. This QI project aimed to increase patient portal enrollment of veterans in MHV in a single NP patient panel of 100 patients from a baseline of 33% by 10% in a 3-month time frame.  

Implementation

Before implementing the first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, we established the baseline data for 1 patient panel to be 33%. A retrospective review of the NP resident’s panel of 100 revealed 33 veterans were enrolled in MHV, providing a setting for process improvement. Evaluation of potential enrollment data for the panel population revealed unenrolled veterans were primarily aged ≥ 65 years. A rapid cycle QI (RCQI) strategy using the PDSA method was used to identify, implement, and measure changes over a 3-month time frame in 1 NP patient panel.¹⁴

The RCQI process included establishing baseline data and 3 PDSA cycles that evaluated the current state of patient access to the electronic patient portal, elucidated patient barriers to registration, assessed the processes for point-of-care enrollment, and developed strategies to improve the process and increase veteran enrollment. The QI project team included an NP resident as the project manager and MHV champion, a clinical faculty mentor at the site, a telehealth coordinator, an MHV coordinator, clinic registered nurse (RN), and clinic licensed nursing assistant (LNA). The RN and LNA additionally served as MHV champions as the project progressed.

PDSA Cycles

The objective for PDSA cycle 1 was to evaluate the process of patient registration and assess the impact on NP workload and clinic workflow over a 4-week period to improve veteran enrollment. Data were collected in a spreadsheet to track the number of veterans enrolled, time frame to enroll, and field notes that the NP resident recorded about the experience. The NP resident was trained in registration methods by the MHV coordinator. Several barriers to the registration process were identified: The process resulted in a change of the clinic visit closure focus, the clinic room was blocked for use by another patient, veterans had difficulty generating a unique username and password, veterans were unfamiliar with basic tablet accessibility and use, and additional time was required if incorrect information was entered. The veterans displayed low confidence in using tablet technology and were unaware of the patient portal or its usefulness. After discussion of the process with the project team, recommendations were made to address challenges, including an RN-led registration process. The first PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment by 4 veterans to 37%.

In PDSA cycle 2 after the NP visit, patients who agreed to register for the MHV portal were introduced to the tablet. The registration process was completed by the patient with the RN prior to the patient checkout. Once patient registration was completed, the veteran met the MHV coordinator and upgraded to a premium account, which provided full access to portal features. Electronic messaging was tested by the MHV coordinator and veteran to validate patient understanding. Although preloading demographic information improved accessibility issues, time was still required for the RN to orient the veteran to the tablet, provide additional directions, and answer questions.

The registration process reduced NP time commitment but added to the RN time burden and disrupted workflow; and clinic room access continued to be an issue. The wait time for the veteran to register in the clinic remained dependent on the availability of the RN. The decision was to move the registration process to the initial patient rooming assignment in the clinic and was transitioned from RN to LNA, prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Four additional veterans registered in the second PDSA cycle, and total enrollment increased to 41%, an overall 8% increase from baseline.

In the third PDSA cycle the patient enrollment process was managed by the clinic LNA using scripted information about MHV prior to the veteran encounter. A partially preloaded tablet was offered to the veteran to register with MHV during the rooming process, and written and oral instruction were provided to the veteran. The time required for each veteran to register for MHV averaged 10 minutes, and the veteran was able to register while waiting for the NP to enter the room. Typical LNA tasks included greeting patients, updating health records, completing clinical reminders with the veteran, obtaining vital signs, and addressing questions. The LNA introduced the veteran to MHV using scripted information and supported them in registering for MHV prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Registration at point of care during the rooming process was well received by both the LNA and veterans. The LNA reported the process was efficient and did not add excessive time to the LNA workflow. The LNA reported verbal patient satisfaction and registration was facilitated for 6 veterans during the 4-week period. 

Registration during point of care was reported as feasible and sustainable by the LNA. Upgrading the patient to a premium MHV account was transitioned to the MHV coordinator. All veterans seen during the 4-week period were approached about registration; if the veteran declined, written at-home step-by-step instructions were provided. A replacement electronic clinical reminder was proposed to the VISN clinical reminders team for review and was pilot tested by the primary care clinical team. The third PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment to 47%, an overall 14% increase from baseline. Six new veteran users were added during PDSA cycle 3.

Discussion

The project team successfully used a RCQI method with a PDSA strategy to improve patient access to the MHV portal and increased veteran enrollment by 14% on 1 NP resident patient panel. The project evaluated clinic workflow regarding veteran patient portal registration, uncovered inefficiencies, and developed improved processes to increase veteran access to the patient portal. Results were positively impacted through the recognition of inefficiencies and initiation of new processes to engage veterans in the portal registration process. Familiarizing the entire clinical team with the clinical reminder and registration process raised the awareness of a digital divide consult and the utility of the portal in patient care. The project provided an opportunity to evaluate veterans’ digital literacy, digital access to send and receive messages, and to provide coaching as needed. Sequential PDSA cycles employed audit and feedback, information preloading, multimodal teaching strategies (verbal, print, hands-on tablet learning), scripting, staff interviews, time studies, and workflow evaluation to improve processes. An MHV champion led the team, monitored the progress, set deadlines, and effectively communicated project performance.

Limitations

Project limitations included the single-site location, its small sample size, and the short 3-month implementation time frame. The patient panel was representative of other NP resident patient panels at the facility but may not be representative of other VA facilities.

Ethical Considerations

Patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the registration and data collection process. The project team (NP, RN, LNA) received training and written instructions on protection of patient confidentiality by the MHV coordinator prior to assisting veterans with the registration process. Privacy was maintained, no patient identifiers were collected or viewed, and no assistance was provided for username, password, or security questions. The tablet was password protected and secured, used only by the project team when veteran was interested in point-of-care portal registration.

Sustainability

QI projects require ongoing systemic efforts to enhance sustainability.^26,27 The project team used the PDSA methodology to stimulate the design of new workflow processes to engage staff and veterans in portal registration. Several actions were taken to promote sustainability for veteran portal registration and improve access to health care for rural and underserved veterans. First, printed instructions and website link are available in the clinic intake and examination rooms. Staff are equipped with patient education discussion points about the portal. A tablet is available in the clinic to encourage veterans to sign up. A clinical reminder is in place to encourage portal registration. A designated super-user is available to help new patient portal users register and navigate the system. Outcomes of the QI project were presented at 2 separate VISN 1 nursing grand rounds and reported to the MHV coordinator and telehealth coordinator to promote dialogue among staff and raise awareness of challenges to veteran MHV access.

Conclusions

Reviewing patient portal registration processes at the local level is essential to improve veteran access. This QI project proposed a realistic and scalable solution to implementing and improving patient enrollment to MHV in primary care clinics. Integrating measurement of patient registration into the daily routine of the clinic empowers the entire clinical team to improve the quality of access to patient portal.

The project team worked together to accomplish a shared goal, using errors as opportunities to improve the process, while using available staff without compromising significant time or resources. Engaging the entire team to audit processes and designating one member of the team as an MHV champion to provide feedback is critical to the sustainability of point-of-care registration in the MHV patient portal. Multifaceted approaches to maximizing the use of technology lessens the digital divide for veterans who are faced with geographical and social barriers to health care access.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Office of Academic Affiliations and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academic Partnerships in Graduate Education Nurse Practitioner residency program and clinical faculty and the affiliated University of Vermont faculty mentor/quality improvement coach for the support of the project.

Patient portals are secure online website tools that provide patient access to personal health information (PHI). Access to online PHI improves health equity and satisfies the meaningful use objectives of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program.^1,2 Through patient portals, individuals can access PHI records and current diagnoses, request and reschedule appointments, locate test results, track trends for vital signs and laboratory values, refill medications, and communicate directly with the health care team through secure messaging. This alternative method of communication with the team is associated with increased patient satisfaction.³ Patients reported improved patient engagement in health care self-management and decision making, as well as strengthened relationships with their health care team.⁴

Background

One well-documented strategy to improve portal use includes the development of a nurse champion to facilitate enrollment during the clinic visit.⁵ Patient perceptions of portal value increased after education by a health care professional (HCP) and assistance in enrollment to familiarize patients with the platform for ongoing use.⁵ Use of patient portals has been associated with favorable outcomes in chronic disease management. Patients with diabetes mellitus who regularly use patient portals for prescription refills and secure messaging have demonstrated improved glycemic control, medication adherence, and associated health parameters compared with nonusers.^5-7 In patients with congestive heart failure, meaningful patient portal use results in fewer emergency department visits, fewer hospital admissions, lower readmission rates, and reduced unscheduled and no-show visits.^8-11

Patient portal access is a quality improvement (QI) measure that meets Medicare and Medicaid meaningful use requirements that is designed to improve collaboration between HCPs and patients through EHRs. Despite legislation, uptake of patient portal access has been slow, especially among older adults.^10,12,13 Barriers to patient portal registration and use include patient lack of awareness, perceived or actual digital illiteracy, mistrust in privacy precautions, lack of user-friendly interfaces, lack of internet or technology, HCP bias and workload, and misperceptions of usefulness.^9,10,12,14 The HCPs most likely to facilitate the use of patient portals, typically include nurse practitioners (NPs), nurses, and medical residents.^10,15 Patient portal platforms promote the partnership of these disciplines with the veteran to help the patient better manage their health. Despite the benefits and widespread integration of patient portals in health care systems, socioeconomic inequalities and HCP attitudes contribute to persistent disparities in its adoption by underserved populations. The veteran population is often faced with additional barriers to health care access with regard to geographic location, advanced age, trauma, disabilities, mental health challenges, and homelessness.^10,16 These barriers require unique approaches to maximize the use of technologic advances.¹⁷ Advanced age contributes to low rates of patient portal enrollment and lack of digital platform use, thus creating a digital divide.^11,12

The digital divide is described as the gap between those persons who use technology including computers and internet, and those persons who do not because of social and geographic barriers.¹⁶ It contributes to a growing health disparity in both access to care and quality of care especially for rural veterans. About 25% of the US population lacks fixed broadband at home; these individuals are more likely to be racial minorities, older, widowed, or to have lower levels of education.^18,19 Veterans are disproportionately represented in these demographic categories.²⁰ According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health, the percentage of rural veterans enrolled in the VA health care system (58%) is significantly higher than enrollment of urban veterans (38%); additionally, 27% of rural veterans do not access the internet at home.²¹

My HealtheVet

The VA plays an integral part in increasing virtual access to care, from the introduction of My Healthevet (MHV) in 2003 to the distribution of iPad tablets to vulnerable veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.^22,23 Due to COVID-19, the need for VA patient access to the internet and VA Video-Connect (VVC) telehealth services increased significantly.²² Access to internet and hardware supporting use of VVC and MHV has been facilitated by the Digital Divide Consult, a VA program launched in 2020 to increase access to telehealth services.²⁴ The VA has distributed > 26,000 cellular-enabled tablets and provided > 50,000 veterans with connectivity in collaboration with various private sector companies.²² Patients report that MHV facilitates engagement in health care through improved access to EHRs and expedited communication with the health care team.⁴

MHV is a secure online tool that provides patients access to PHI. MHV aims to empower veterans to take charge of their health by improving communication with HCPs, setting patient goals, and offering health and well-being resources.^25,26 In a study of outpatients at a large urban multisite health care system, < 35% of patients on 16 medical resident panels were enrolled in a patient portal.¹⁵ MHV internal national metrics show increasing registration and active users of the patient portal, yet locally, disparities in the use of the portal by rural and older veterans exist.

The Local Problem

A review of the registration process at a rural VA clinic revealed barriers to facilitating the veteran registration process at the point of care. Clinical reminders exist within the EHR to prompt clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of care. At the New England Healthcare System (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 1), a patient portal clinical reminder prompts staff to encourage veterans to register. Anecdotal data obtained from primary care staff interviews at a rural VA primary care clinic in Vermont revealed low clinician confidence in completing the clinical reminder, a lack of knowledge of MHV, and lack of time to educate veterans about the benefits of MHV.

Despite availability of a registration process at the point of care and clinical staff assigned to provide registration information to the veteran, access to the patient portal among veterans at this clinic remained low. This QI project aimed to increase patient portal enrollment of veterans in MHV in a single NP patient panel of 100 patients from a baseline of 33% by 10% in a 3-month time frame.  

Implementation

Before implementing the first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, we established the baseline data for 1 patient panel to be 33%. A retrospective review of the NP resident’s panel of 100 revealed 33 veterans were enrolled in MHV, providing a setting for process improvement. Evaluation of potential enrollment data for the panel population revealed unenrolled veterans were primarily aged ≥ 65 years. A rapid cycle QI (RCQI) strategy using the PDSA method was used to identify, implement, and measure changes over a 3-month time frame in 1 NP patient panel.¹⁴

The RCQI process included establishing baseline data and 3 PDSA cycles that evaluated the current state of patient access to the electronic patient portal, elucidated patient barriers to registration, assessed the processes for point-of-care enrollment, and developed strategies to improve the process and increase veteran enrollment. The QI project team included an NP resident as the project manager and MHV champion, a clinical faculty mentor at the site, a telehealth coordinator, an MHV coordinator, clinic registered nurse (RN), and clinic licensed nursing assistant (LNA). The RN and LNA additionally served as MHV champions as the project progressed.

PDSA Cycles

The objective for PDSA cycle 1 was to evaluate the process of patient registration and assess the impact on NP workload and clinic workflow over a 4-week period to improve veteran enrollment. Data were collected in a spreadsheet to track the number of veterans enrolled, time frame to enroll, and field notes that the NP resident recorded about the experience. The NP resident was trained in registration methods by the MHV coordinator. Several barriers to the registration process were identified: The process resulted in a change of the clinic visit closure focus, the clinic room was blocked for use by another patient, veterans had difficulty generating a unique username and password, veterans were unfamiliar with basic tablet accessibility and use, and additional time was required if incorrect information was entered. The veterans displayed low confidence in using tablet technology and were unaware of the patient portal or its usefulness. After discussion of the process with the project team, recommendations were made to address challenges, including an RN-led registration process. The first PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment by 4 veterans to 37%.

In PDSA cycle 2 after the NP visit, patients who agreed to register for the MHV portal were introduced to the tablet. The registration process was completed by the patient with the RN prior to the patient checkout. Once patient registration was completed, the veteran met the MHV coordinator and upgraded to a premium account, which provided full access to portal features. Electronic messaging was tested by the MHV coordinator and veteran to validate patient understanding. Although preloading demographic information improved accessibility issues, time was still required for the RN to orient the veteran to the tablet, provide additional directions, and answer questions.

The registration process reduced NP time commitment but added to the RN time burden and disrupted workflow; and clinic room access continued to be an issue. The wait time for the veteran to register in the clinic remained dependent on the availability of the RN. The decision was to move the registration process to the initial patient rooming assignment in the clinic and was transitioned from RN to LNA, prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Four additional veterans registered in the second PDSA cycle, and total enrollment increased to 41%, an overall 8% increase from baseline.

In the third PDSA cycle the patient enrollment process was managed by the clinic LNA using scripted information about MHV prior to the veteran encounter. A partially preloaded tablet was offered to the veteran to register with MHV during the rooming process, and written and oral instruction were provided to the veteran. The time required for each veteran to register for MHV averaged 10 minutes, and the veteran was able to register while waiting for the NP to enter the room. Typical LNA tasks included greeting patients, updating health records, completing clinical reminders with the veteran, obtaining vital signs, and addressing questions. The LNA introduced the veteran to MHV using scripted information and supported them in registering for MHV prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Registration at point of care during the rooming process was well received by both the LNA and veterans. The LNA reported the process was efficient and did not add excessive time to the LNA workflow. The LNA reported verbal patient satisfaction and registration was facilitated for 6 veterans during the 4-week period. 

Registration during point of care was reported as feasible and sustainable by the LNA. Upgrading the patient to a premium MHV account was transitioned to the MHV coordinator. All veterans seen during the 4-week period were approached about registration; if the veteran declined, written at-home step-by-step instructions were provided. A replacement electronic clinical reminder was proposed to the VISN clinical reminders team for review and was pilot tested by the primary care clinical team. The third PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment to 47%, an overall 14% increase from baseline. Six new veteran users were added during PDSA cycle 3.

Discussion

The project team successfully used a RCQI method with a PDSA strategy to improve patient access to the MHV portal and increased veteran enrollment by 14% on 1 NP resident patient panel. The project evaluated clinic workflow regarding veteran patient portal registration, uncovered inefficiencies, and developed improved processes to increase veteran access to the patient portal. Results were positively impacted through the recognition of inefficiencies and initiation of new processes to engage veterans in the portal registration process. Familiarizing the entire clinical team with the clinical reminder and registration process raised the awareness of a digital divide consult and the utility of the portal in patient care. The project provided an opportunity to evaluate veterans’ digital literacy, digital access to send and receive messages, and to provide coaching as needed. Sequential PDSA cycles employed audit and feedback, information preloading, multimodal teaching strategies (verbal, print, hands-on tablet learning), scripting, staff interviews, time studies, and workflow evaluation to improve processes. An MHV champion led the team, monitored the progress, set deadlines, and effectively communicated project performance.

Limitations

Project limitations included the single-site location, its small sample size, and the short 3-month implementation time frame. The patient panel was representative of other NP resident patient panels at the facility but may not be representative of other VA facilities.

Ethical Considerations

Patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the registration and data collection process. The project team (NP, RN, LNA) received training and written instructions on protection of patient confidentiality by the MHV coordinator prior to assisting veterans with the registration process. Privacy was maintained, no patient identifiers were collected or viewed, and no assistance was provided for username, password, or security questions. The tablet was password protected and secured, used only by the project team when veteran was interested in point-of-care portal registration.

Sustainability

QI projects require ongoing systemic efforts to enhance sustainability.^26,27 The project team used the PDSA methodology to stimulate the design of new workflow processes to engage staff and veterans in portal registration. Several actions were taken to promote sustainability for veteran portal registration and improve access to health care for rural and underserved veterans. First, printed instructions and website link are available in the clinic intake and examination rooms. Staff are equipped with patient education discussion points about the portal. A tablet is available in the clinic to encourage veterans to sign up. A clinical reminder is in place to encourage portal registration. A designated super-user is available to help new patient portal users register and navigate the system. Outcomes of the QI project were presented at 2 separate VISN 1 nursing grand rounds and reported to the MHV coordinator and telehealth coordinator to promote dialogue among staff and raise awareness of challenges to veteran MHV access.

Conclusions

Reviewing patient portal registration processes at the local level is essential to improve veteran access. This QI project proposed a realistic and scalable solution to implementing and improving patient enrollment to MHV in primary care clinics. Integrating measurement of patient registration into the daily routine of the clinic empowers the entire clinical team to improve the quality of access to patient portal.

The project team worked together to accomplish a shared goal, using errors as opportunities to improve the process, while using available staff without compromising significant time or resources. Engaging the entire team to audit processes and designating one member of the team as an MHV champion to provide feedback is critical to the sustainability of point-of-care registration in the MHV patient portal. Multifaceted approaches to maximizing the use of technology lessens the digital divide for veterans who are faced with geographical and social barriers to health care access.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Office of Academic Affiliations and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academic Partnerships in Graduate Education Nurse Practitioner residency program and clinical faculty and the affiliated University of Vermont faculty mentor/quality improvement coach for the support of the project.

Patient portals are secure online website tools that provide patient access to personal health information (PHI). Access to online PHI improves health equity and satisfies the meaningful use objectives of the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program.^1,2 Through patient portals, individuals can access PHI records and current diagnoses, request and reschedule appointments, locate test results, track trends for vital signs and laboratory values, refill medications, and communicate directly with the health care team through secure messaging. This alternative method of communication with the team is associated with increased patient satisfaction.³ Patients reported improved patient engagement in health care self-management and decision making, as well as strengthened relationships with their health care team.⁴

Background

One well-documented strategy to improve portal use includes the development of a nurse champion to facilitate enrollment during the clinic visit.⁵ Patient perceptions of portal value increased after education by a health care professional (HCP) and assistance in enrollment to familiarize patients with the platform for ongoing use.⁵ Use of patient portals has been associated with favorable outcomes in chronic disease management. Patients with diabetes mellitus who regularly use patient portals for prescription refills and secure messaging have demonstrated improved glycemic control, medication adherence, and associated health parameters compared with nonusers.^5-7 In patients with congestive heart failure, meaningful patient portal use results in fewer emergency department visits, fewer hospital admissions, lower readmission rates, and reduced unscheduled and no-show visits.^8-11

Patient portal access is a quality improvement (QI) measure that meets Medicare and Medicaid meaningful use requirements that is designed to improve collaboration between HCPs and patients through EHRs. Despite legislation, uptake of patient portal access has been slow, especially among older adults.^10,12,13 Barriers to patient portal registration and use include patient lack of awareness, perceived or actual digital illiteracy, mistrust in privacy precautions, lack of user-friendly interfaces, lack of internet or technology, HCP bias and workload, and misperceptions of usefulness.^9,10,12,14 The HCPs most likely to facilitate the use of patient portals, typically include nurse practitioners (NPs), nurses, and medical residents.^10,15 Patient portal platforms promote the partnership of these disciplines with the veteran to help the patient better manage their health. Despite the benefits and widespread integration of patient portals in health care systems, socioeconomic inequalities and HCP attitudes contribute to persistent disparities in its adoption by underserved populations. The veteran population is often faced with additional barriers to health care access with regard to geographic location, advanced age, trauma, disabilities, mental health challenges, and homelessness.^10,16 These barriers require unique approaches to maximize the use of technologic advances.¹⁷ Advanced age contributes to low rates of patient portal enrollment and lack of digital platform use, thus creating a digital divide.^11,12

The digital divide is described as the gap between those persons who use technology including computers and internet, and those persons who do not because of social and geographic barriers.¹⁶ It contributes to a growing health disparity in both access to care and quality of care especially for rural veterans. About 25% of the US population lacks fixed broadband at home; these individuals are more likely to be racial minorities, older, widowed, or to have lower levels of education.^18,19 Veterans are disproportionately represented in these demographic categories.²⁰ According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health, the percentage of rural veterans enrolled in the VA health care system (58%) is significantly higher than enrollment of urban veterans (38%); additionally, 27% of rural veterans do not access the internet at home.²¹

My HealtheVet

The VA plays an integral part in increasing virtual access to care, from the introduction of My Healthevet (MHV) in 2003 to the distribution of iPad tablets to vulnerable veterans during the COVID-19 pandemic.^22,23 Due to COVID-19, the need for VA patient access to the internet and VA Video-Connect (VVC) telehealth services increased significantly.²² Access to internet and hardware supporting use of VVC and MHV has been facilitated by the Digital Divide Consult, a VA program launched in 2020 to increase access to telehealth services.²⁴ The VA has distributed > 26,000 cellular-enabled tablets and provided > 50,000 veterans with connectivity in collaboration with various private sector companies.²² Patients report that MHV facilitates engagement in health care through improved access to EHRs and expedited communication with the health care team.⁴

MHV is a secure online tool that provides patients access to PHI. MHV aims to empower veterans to take charge of their health by improving communication with HCPs, setting patient goals, and offering health and well-being resources.^25,26 In a study of outpatients at a large urban multisite health care system, < 35% of patients on 16 medical resident panels were enrolled in a patient portal.¹⁵ MHV internal national metrics show increasing registration and active users of the patient portal, yet locally, disparities in the use of the portal by rural and older veterans exist.

The Local Problem

A review of the registration process at a rural VA clinic revealed barriers to facilitating the veteran registration process at the point of care. Clinical reminders exist within the EHR to prompt clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of care. At the New England Healthcare System (Veterans Integrated Service Network [VISN] 1), a patient portal clinical reminder prompts staff to encourage veterans to register. Anecdotal data obtained from primary care staff interviews at a rural VA primary care clinic in Vermont revealed low clinician confidence in completing the clinical reminder, a lack of knowledge of MHV, and lack of time to educate veterans about the benefits of MHV.

Despite availability of a registration process at the point of care and clinical staff assigned to provide registration information to the veteran, access to the patient portal among veterans at this clinic remained low. This QI project aimed to increase patient portal enrollment of veterans in MHV in a single NP patient panel of 100 patients from a baseline of 33% by 10% in a 3-month time frame.  

Implementation

Before implementing the first Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, we established the baseline data for 1 patient panel to be 33%. A retrospective review of the NP resident’s panel of 100 revealed 33 veterans were enrolled in MHV, providing a setting for process improvement. Evaluation of potential enrollment data for the panel population revealed unenrolled veterans were primarily aged ≥ 65 years. A rapid cycle QI (RCQI) strategy using the PDSA method was used to identify, implement, and measure changes over a 3-month time frame in 1 NP patient panel.¹⁴

The RCQI process included establishing baseline data and 3 PDSA cycles that evaluated the current state of patient access to the electronic patient portal, elucidated patient barriers to registration, assessed the processes for point-of-care enrollment, and developed strategies to improve the process and increase veteran enrollment. The QI project team included an NP resident as the project manager and MHV champion, a clinical faculty mentor at the site, a telehealth coordinator, an MHV coordinator, clinic registered nurse (RN), and clinic licensed nursing assistant (LNA). The RN and LNA additionally served as MHV champions as the project progressed.

PDSA Cycles

The objective for PDSA cycle 1 was to evaluate the process of patient registration and assess the impact on NP workload and clinic workflow over a 4-week period to improve veteran enrollment. Data were collected in a spreadsheet to track the number of veterans enrolled, time frame to enroll, and field notes that the NP resident recorded about the experience. The NP resident was trained in registration methods by the MHV coordinator. Several barriers to the registration process were identified: The process resulted in a change of the clinic visit closure focus, the clinic room was blocked for use by another patient, veterans had difficulty generating a unique username and password, veterans were unfamiliar with basic tablet accessibility and use, and additional time was required if incorrect information was entered. The veterans displayed low confidence in using tablet technology and were unaware of the patient portal or its usefulness. After discussion of the process with the project team, recommendations were made to address challenges, including an RN-led registration process. The first PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment by 4 veterans to 37%.

In PDSA cycle 2 after the NP visit, patients who agreed to register for the MHV portal were introduced to the tablet. The registration process was completed by the patient with the RN prior to the patient checkout. Once patient registration was completed, the veteran met the MHV coordinator and upgraded to a premium account, which provided full access to portal features. Electronic messaging was tested by the MHV coordinator and veteran to validate patient understanding. Although preloading demographic information improved accessibility issues, time was still required for the RN to orient the veteran to the tablet, provide additional directions, and answer questions.

The registration process reduced NP time commitment but added to the RN time burden and disrupted workflow; and clinic room access continued to be an issue. The wait time for the veteran to register in the clinic remained dependent on the availability of the RN. The decision was to move the registration process to the initial patient rooming assignment in the clinic and was transitioned from RN to LNA, prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Four additional veterans registered in the second PDSA cycle, and total enrollment increased to 41%, an overall 8% increase from baseline.

In the third PDSA cycle the patient enrollment process was managed by the clinic LNA using scripted information about MHV prior to the veteran encounter. A partially preloaded tablet was offered to the veteran to register with MHV during the rooming process, and written and oral instruction were provided to the veteran. The time required for each veteran to register for MHV averaged 10 minutes, and the veteran was able to register while waiting for the NP to enter the room. Typical LNA tasks included greeting patients, updating health records, completing clinical reminders with the veteran, obtaining vital signs, and addressing questions. The LNA introduced the veteran to MHV using scripted information and supported them in registering for MHV prior to the NP-veteran encounter. Registration at point of care during the rooming process was well received by both the LNA and veterans. The LNA reported the process was efficient and did not add excessive time to the LNA workflow. The LNA reported verbal patient satisfaction and registration was facilitated for 6 veterans during the 4-week period. 

Registration during point of care was reported as feasible and sustainable by the LNA. Upgrading the patient to a premium MHV account was transitioned to the MHV coordinator. All veterans seen during the 4-week period were approached about registration; if the veteran declined, written at-home step-by-step instructions were provided. A replacement electronic clinical reminder was proposed to the VISN clinical reminders team for review and was pilot tested by the primary care clinical team. The third PDSA cycle increased the total patient panel enrollment to 47%, an overall 14% increase from baseline. Six new veteran users were added during PDSA cycle 3.

Discussion

The project team successfully used a RCQI method with a PDSA strategy to improve patient access to the MHV portal and increased veteran enrollment by 14% on 1 NP resident patient panel. The project evaluated clinic workflow regarding veteran patient portal registration, uncovered inefficiencies, and developed improved processes to increase veteran access to the patient portal. Results were positively impacted through the recognition of inefficiencies and initiation of new processes to engage veterans in the portal registration process. Familiarizing the entire clinical team with the clinical reminder and registration process raised the awareness of a digital divide consult and the utility of the portal in patient care. The project provided an opportunity to evaluate veterans’ digital literacy, digital access to send and receive messages, and to provide coaching as needed. Sequential PDSA cycles employed audit and feedback, information preloading, multimodal teaching strategies (verbal, print, hands-on tablet learning), scripting, staff interviews, time studies, and workflow evaluation to improve processes. An MHV champion led the team, monitored the progress, set deadlines, and effectively communicated project performance.

Limitations

Project limitations included the single-site location, its small sample size, and the short 3-month implementation time frame. The patient panel was representative of other NP resident patient panels at the facility but may not be representative of other VA facilities.

Ethical Considerations

Patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the registration and data collection process. The project team (NP, RN, LNA) received training and written instructions on protection of patient confidentiality by the MHV coordinator prior to assisting veterans with the registration process. Privacy was maintained, no patient identifiers were collected or viewed, and no assistance was provided for username, password, or security questions. The tablet was password protected and secured, used only by the project team when veteran was interested in point-of-care portal registration.

Sustainability

QI projects require ongoing systemic efforts to enhance sustainability.^26,27 The project team used the PDSA methodology to stimulate the design of new workflow processes to engage staff and veterans in portal registration. Several actions were taken to promote sustainability for veteran portal registration and improve access to health care for rural and underserved veterans. First, printed instructions and website link are available in the clinic intake and examination rooms. Staff are equipped with patient education discussion points about the portal. A tablet is available in the clinic to encourage veterans to sign up. A clinical reminder is in place to encourage portal registration. A designated super-user is available to help new patient portal users register and navigate the system. Outcomes of the QI project were presented at 2 separate VISN 1 nursing grand rounds and reported to the MHV coordinator and telehealth coordinator to promote dialogue among staff and raise awareness of challenges to veteran MHV access.

Conclusions

Reviewing patient portal registration processes at the local level is essential to improve veteran access. This QI project proposed a realistic and scalable solution to implementing and improving patient enrollment to MHV in primary care clinics. Integrating measurement of patient registration into the daily routine of the clinic empowers the entire clinical team to improve the quality of access to patient portal.

The project team worked together to accomplish a shared goal, using errors as opportunities to improve the process, while using available staff without compromising significant time or resources. Engaging the entire team to audit processes and designating one member of the team as an MHV champion to provide feedback is critical to the sustainability of point-of-care registration in the MHV patient portal. Multifaceted approaches to maximizing the use of technology lessens the digital divide for veterans who are faced with geographical and social barriers to health care access.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Office of Academic Affiliations and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Academic Partnerships in Graduate Education Nurse Practitioner residency program and clinical faculty and the affiliated University of Vermont faculty mentor/quality improvement coach for the support of the project.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Shortly into the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Robert Califf, the commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, warned of a coming tsunami of chronic diseases, exacerbated by missed care during the pandemic.¹ According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 30% of adults reported delaying or avoiding routine medical care in the first 6 months of 2020. This rate was highest in people with comorbidities.² Multiple studies demonstrated declines in hypertension care, hemoglobin A_1c testing, mammography, and colon cancer screening.^3-5 There has been a resultant increase in colon cancer complications, wounds, and amputations.^6,7 The United Kingdom is expected to have a 7.9% to 16.6% increase in future deaths due to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC).⁸ The World Health Organization estimates an excess 14.9 million people died in 2020 and 2021, either directly from or indirectly related to COVID-19.⁹

Due to the large-scale conversion from face-to-face care to telehealth modalities, COVID-19 vaccination events offered a unique opportunity to perform preventive health care that requires in-person visits, since most US adults have sought vaccination. However, vaccine events may not reach people most at risk for COVID-19 or chronic disease. Groups of Americans with lower vaccination rates were concerned about driving times and missing work to get the vaccine.¹⁰

Distance and travel time may be a particular challenge in Hawaii. Oahu is considered rural by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); some communities are 80 minutes away from the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System (VAPIHCS) main facility. Oahu has approximately 150 veterans experiencing homelessness who may not have transportation to vaccine events. Additionally, VAPIHCS serves veterans that may be at higher risk of not receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Racial and ethnic minority residents have lower vaccination rates, yet are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and through the pandemic, this vaccination gap worsened.^11,12 More than 10% of the population of Hawaii is Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and this population is at elevated risk for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and COVID-19 mortality.^13-16

Health Fair Program

The VA provides clinical reminders in its electronic health record (EHR) that are specified by age, gender assigned at birth, and comorbidities. The clinical reminder program is intended to provide clinically relevant reminders for preventive care at the point of care. Veterans with overdue clinical reminders can be identified by name and address, allowing for the creation of health fair events that were directed towards communities with veterans with clinical reminders, including COVID-19 vaccination need. A team of health care professionals from VAPIHCS conceived of a health fair program to increase the reach of vaccine events and include preventive care in partnership with the VAPIHCS Vet Center Program, local communities, U.S.VETS, and the Hawaii Institute of Health Services (HIHS). We sought to determine which services could be offered in community settings; large vaccine events; and at homeless emergency, transitional, or permanent housing. We tracked veterans who received care in the different locations of the directed health fair.

This project was determined to be a quality improvement initiative by the VAPIHCS Office of Research and Development. It was jointly planned by the VAPIHCS pharmacy, infectious diseases, Vet Center Program, and homeless team to make the COVID-19 vaccines available to more rural and to veterans experiencing homelessness, and in response to a decline in facility face-to-face visits. Monthly meetings were held to select sites within zip codes with higher numbers of open clinical reminders and lower vaccination uptake. Informatics developed a list of clinical reminders by zip code for care performed at face-to-face visits.

Partners

The Vet Center Program, suicide prevention coordinator, and the homeless outreach team have a mandate to perform outreach events.^17,18 These services collaborate with community partners to locate sites for events. The team was able to leverage these contacts to set up sites for events. The Vet Center Program readjustment counselor and the suicide prevention coordinator provide mental health counseling. The Vet Center counsels on veteran benefits. They supplied a mobile van with WiFi, counseling and examination spaces, and refrigeration, which became the mobile clinic for the preventive care offered at events. The homeless program works with multiple community partners. They contract with HIHS and U.S.VETS to provide emergency and permanent housing for veterans. Each event is reviewed with HIHS and U.S.VETS staff for permission to be on site. The suicide prevention coordinator or the Vet Center readjustment counselor and the homeless team became regular attendees of events. The homeless team provided resources for housing or food insecurity.

Preventive Health Measures

The VA clinical reminder system supports caregivers for both preventive health care and chronic condition management.¹⁹ Clinical reminders appear as due in the EHR, and reminder reports can be run by clinical informatics to determine groups of patients who have not had a reminder completed. The following reminders were completed: vaccinations (including COVID-19), CRC screening, diabetic foot check and teaching of foot care, diabetic retinal consultations, laboratory studies (lipids, hemoglobin A_1c, microalbumin), mammogram and pap smear referrals, mental health reminders, homeless and food insecurity screening, HIV and hepatitis C testing, and blood pressure (BP) measurement. Health records were reviewed 3 months after each event to determine whether they were completed by the veteran. Additionally, we determined whether BP was controlled (< 130/80 mm Hg).

Settings

Large urban event. The first setting for the health fair was a large vaccination event near the VAPIHCS center in April 2021. Attendance was solicited by VEText, phone calls, and social media advertisements. At check-in, veterans with relevant open clinical reminders were invited to receive preventive health care during the 15-minute monitoring period after the COVID-19 vaccine. The Vet Center Program stationed the mobile van outside the vaccination event, where a physician and a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) did assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests for about 4 hours. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Community Settings. Nine events occurred at least monthly between March and September 2021 at 4 different sites in Oahu. Texts and phone calls were used to solicit attendance; there was no prior publicity on social media. Community events required scheduling resources; this required about 30 hours of medical staff assistant time. Seven sites were visited for about 3 hours each. A physician, pharmacy technician, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans who had never signed up for VA health care.

Homeless veteran outreach. Five events occurred at 2 homeless veteran housing sites between August 2021 and January 2022. These sites were emergency housing sites (2 events) and transitional and permanent housing (2 events). U.S.VETS and HIHS contacted veterans living in those settings to promote the event. A physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and CPS conducted assessments, completed reminders, and entered follow-up requests. A medical support assistant registered veterans that had never signed up for VA health care. Each event lasted approximate 3 hours.

Process Quality Improvement

After the CDC changed recommendations to allow concurrent vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine, we added other vaccinations to the events. This occurred during the course of community events. In June of 2021, there was a health advisory concerning hepatitis A among people experiencing homelessness in Oahu, so hepatitis vaccinations were added for events for veterans.²⁰

Veterans Served

The EHR was used to determine demographics, open clinical reminders, and attendance at follow-up. Simple descriptive statistics were performed in Microsoft Excel. A total of 115 veterans were seen for preventive health visits, and 404 clinical reminders were completed. Seven hundred veterans attended the large centrally located vaccine event and 43 agreed to have a preventive health visit. Thirty-eight veterans had a preventive health visit at homeless outreach events and 34 veterans had a preventive health visit at the community events. Veterans at community

Of the 166 vaccines given, 73 were for COVID-19. Besides vaccination,

Discussion

This program provided evidence that adding preventive screenings to vaccine events may help reach veterans who may have missed important preventive care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The involvement of clinical informatics service allowed the outreach to be targeted to communities with incomplete clinical reminders. Interventions that could not be completed at the event had high levels of follow-up by veterans with important findings. The presence of a physician or nurse and a CPS allowed for point-of-care testing, as well as entering orders for medication, laboratory tests, and consultations. The attendance by representatives from the Vet Center, suicide prevention, and homeless services allowed counseling regarding benefits, and mental health follow-up. We believe that we were able to reach communities of veterans with unmet preventive needs and had higher risk of severe COVID-19, given the high numbers with open clinical reminders, the number of vaccines provided, and the high percentage of racial and ethnic minority veterans at events in the community. Our program experience provides some evidence that mobile and pop-up vaccination clinics may be beneficial for screening and managing chronic diseases, as proposed elsewhere.^21-24

Strengths of this intervention include that we were able to show a high level of follow-up for recommended medical care as well as the results of our interventions. We have found no similar articles that provide data on completion of follow-up appointments after a health fair. A prior study showed only 23% to 63% of participants at a health fair reported having a recommended follow-up discussion with doctors, but the study reported no outcome of completed cancer screenings.²⁵

Limitations

Weaknesses include the fact that health fair events may reach only healthy people, since attendees generally report better health and better health behaviors than nonattendees.^26,27 We felt this was more problematic for the large-scale urban event and that offering rural events and events in homeless housing improved the reach. Future efforts will involve the use of social media and mailings to solicit attendance. To improve follow-up, future work will include adding to the events: phlebotomy or expanded point-of-care testing; specialty care telehealth capability; cervical cancer screen self-collection; and tele-retinal services.

Conclusions

This program provided evidence that directed, preventive screening can be performed in outreach settings paired with vaccine events. These vaccination events in rural and homeless settings reached communities with demonstrable COVID-19 vaccination and other preventive care needs. This approach could be used to help veterans catch up on needed preventive care.

Acknowledgments

Veterans Affairs Pacific Islands Health Care System: Anthony Chance, LCSW; Nicholas Chang, PharmD; Andrew Dahlburg, LCSW; Wilminia G. Ellorimo-Gil, RN; Paul Guillory, RN; Wendy D. Joy; Arthur Minor, LCSW; Avalua Smith; Jessica Spurrier, RN. Veterans Health Administration Vet Center Program: Rolly O. Alvarado; Edmond G. DeGuzman; Richard T. Teel. Hawaii Institute for Human Services. U.S.VETS.

Narrative competence is the ability to acquire, interpret, and act on the stories of others.¹ Developing this skill through guided medical storytelling can improve health care practitioners’ (HCPs) sense of empathy and satisfaction with their work.² Narrative medicine experiences for medical students can foster a deeper understanding of their patients beyond illness-associated identities.³

Within narrative medicine, the “life story” is a specific technique that allows patients to share experiences through open-ended interviews that are entered into the health record.^4,5 By sharing life stories, patients control a narrative encompassing more than their illness and can reinforce a sense of purpose in their lives.⁶ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) My Life My Story (MLMS) program gives veterans the opportunity to share their narrative with staff and volunteer interviewers. MLMS is well received by veterans, has durable positive effects for HCPs who read the stories, and has been used as a tool to teach patient-centered care to medical trainees.^7-9

We created a narrative medicine curriculum at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) in which medical students interviewed veterans for the MLMS program. Medical students initially collected life stories through in-person conversation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing regulations limited direct patient interaction for students and prompted a switch to phone and video interviews. This shift paralleled the widespread adoption of telehealth, which will persist beyond the pandemic and require teachers and learners to develop competency in forming personal connections with patients through videoconferencing.^10,11

There are no published studies describing how to guide medical students (or other historians) in generating life stories without in-person patient contact. This article details the design of a medical student curriculum incorporating MLMS and the transition to remote interaction between instructors, students, and veterans during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

MLMS Program Origins

The MLMS project began at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2013 with staff and volunteer interviewers and has expanded to more than 60 VA facilities.⁷ In January 2020, we initiated a narrative medicine curriculum incorporating MLMS at the SFVAMC as a required component of a third-year internal medicine clerkship for medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Fifty-four medical students in 10 cohorts participated in the curriculum in 2020. The primary program objectives were for medical students to develop skills for eliciting and recording a life story and to appreciate the impact of this activity on a veteran’s experience of receiving health care. Secondary objectives were for students to understand the mission of the VA health care system and veteran demographics.

The first cohort of 6 UCSF medical students participated in MLMS during their 8-week VA clerkship. Students attended a 1-hour small group session to introduce the program and build narrative medicine skills. Preparation for this session involved listening to 2 podcast episodes introducing the VA health care system and MLMS.^12,13 The session began with a short interactive discussion of veteran demographics with an emphasis on addressing assumptions students might have about the veteran population. Students were taught strategies for engaging in open-ended conversations without emphasizing illness. Each student practiced collecting a life story with a simulated patient portrayed by an instructor and received feedback from classmates and instructors.

Over the following weeks, students selected a hospitalized veteran, typically a patient they were caring for, introduced MLMS, and obtained verbal consent to participate. They conducted a 60- to 90-minute interview, wrote and organized the life story, read it to the veteran, and solicited edits. Once a final version was generated, the student provided the veteran with printed copies and offered to place the story in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Near the end of their rotation, students attended a 1-hour small group session in which they shared reflections on the experience of collecting a life story, the impact of veterans’ life experiences on their health and illness, and moments when students confronted their own stereotypes and implicit biases. Students then reviewed narrative medicine skills that are generalizable to all patient interactions.

COVID-19-Related Adaptation

In March 2020, shortly after the second student cohort began, medical students were removed from the clinical setting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 8-week clerkship was converted to a 3-week remote learning rotation. The MLMS experience was preserved by converting small group sessions to videoconferences and expanding the pool of eligible patients to include veterans who students had met on prior rotations, current inpatients, and outpatients from VA primary care clinics. Students contacted veterans after an instructor had introduced MLMS to the veteran and confirmed that the veteran was interested in participating.

Students in the second and third cohorts completed a telephone-based iteration of MLMS in which interviews and life story reviews were conducted over the telephone and printed copies mailed to the veteran. For the fourth, fifth, and sixth cohorts, MLMS was transitioned to a video-based program with inpatients. Instructors collaborated with a volunteer group supplying tablet devices to inpatients to make video calls to their families during the pandemic.¹⁴ Clerkship students coordinated with that volunteer group to interview veterans and review their stories through the tablet devices.

From July to December 2020 medical students returned to 4-week on-site clinical rotations at the SFVAMC. The program returned to the original format for cohorts 7 to 10, with students attending in-person small group sessions and conducting in-person interviews with inpatients.

Curriculum Evaluation

Students completed surveys in the week after the curriculum concluded. Survey completion was voluntary, anonymous, and had no bearing on their evaluation or grade (pass/fail only). Likert scale questions (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) were used to assess the program (eAppendix 1). One-way analysis of variance testing was used to compare means stratified by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video). Surveys also included free-response questions asking students to highlight aspects of the program they valued or would change; responses were summarized by theme. This program evaluation was deemed exempt from review by the UCSF Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board.

Sixty-two veteran stories were collected by 54 participating students (one student was unable to complete an interview, while several students completed multiple interviews). Fifty-four (87%) veterans requested their stories be entered into the medical record.

All 54 students completed the survey. Students reported that the MLMS curriculum helped them develop new skills for eliciting and recording a life story (mean [SD] 4.5 [0.7]). Most students strongly agreed that MLMS helped them understand how sharing a life story can impact a veteran’s experience of receiving health care, with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (0.4). After completing MLMS, students also reported a better understanding of the mission of the VA and veteran demographics with a mean (SD) score of 4.4 (0.7) and 4.3 (0.7), respectively. Stratification of survey responses by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video) revealed no statistically significant differences in evaluations (Table 1).

Discussion

Previous research has demonstrated that a narrative medicine curriculum can help medicine clerkship students develop narrative competence through patient storytelling with a focus on a patient’s illness narrative.¹⁵ The VA MLMS program extends the patient narrative beyond health care–related experiences and encompasses their broader life story. This article adds to the MLMS and narrative medicine literature by demonstrating that the efficacy of teaching patient-centered care to medical trainees through direct interviews can be maintained in remote formats.⁹ The article also provides guidance for MLMS programs that wish to conduct remote veteran interviews.

The widespread adoption of telemedicine will require trainees to develop communication skills to establish therapeutic relationships with patients both face-to-face and through videoconferencing. In order to promote this important skill across varying levels of physical distancing, narrative medicine programs should be adaptable to a virtual learning environment. As we redesigned MLMS for the remote setting, we learned several key lessons that can guide similar curricular and programmatic innovations at other institutions. For example, videoconferencing created stronger connections between the students and veterans than telephone calls. However, tablet-based video interviews also introduced many technological challenges and required on-site personnel (nurses and volunteers) to connect students, veterans, and technology. Solutions for technology and communication challenges related to the basic personnel and infrastructure needed to start and maintain a remote MLMS program are outlined in Table 2.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the participation of trainees from a single institution and a lack of assessment of the impact of MLMS on veterans. Future research could assess whether life story skills and practices are maintained after the medicine clerkship. In addition, future studies could examine veterans’ perspectives through interviews with qualitative analysis to learn how MLMS affected their experience of receiving health care.

Conclusions

This is the first report of a remote-capable life story curriculum for medical students. Shifting to a virtual MLMS curriculum requires protocols and people to link interviewers, veterans, and technology. Training for in-person interactions while being prepared for remote interviewing is essential to ensure that the MLMS experience remains available to interviewers and veterans who otherwise may never have the chance to connect. The restrictions and isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade, but using MLMS to virtually connect patients, providers, and students will remain an important capability and opportunity as health care shifts to more virtual interaction.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Emma Levine, MD, for her assistance coordinating video interviews; Thor Ringler, MS, MFA, for his assistance with manuscript review; and the veterans of the San Francisco VA Health Care System for sharing their stories.

Narrative competence is the ability to acquire, interpret, and act on the stories of others.¹ Developing this skill through guided medical storytelling can improve health care practitioners’ (HCPs) sense of empathy and satisfaction with their work.² Narrative medicine experiences for medical students can foster a deeper understanding of their patients beyond illness-associated identities.³

Within narrative medicine, the “life story” is a specific technique that allows patients to share experiences through open-ended interviews that are entered into the health record.^4,5 By sharing life stories, patients control a narrative encompassing more than their illness and can reinforce a sense of purpose in their lives.⁶ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) My Life My Story (MLMS) program gives veterans the opportunity to share their narrative with staff and volunteer interviewers. MLMS is well received by veterans, has durable positive effects for HCPs who read the stories, and has been used as a tool to teach patient-centered care to medical trainees.^7-9

We created a narrative medicine curriculum at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) in which medical students interviewed veterans for the MLMS program. Medical students initially collected life stories through in-person conversation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing regulations limited direct patient interaction for students and prompted a switch to phone and video interviews. This shift paralleled the widespread adoption of telehealth, which will persist beyond the pandemic and require teachers and learners to develop competency in forming personal connections with patients through videoconferencing.^10,11

There are no published studies describing how to guide medical students (or other historians) in generating life stories without in-person patient contact. This article details the design of a medical student curriculum incorporating MLMS and the transition to remote interaction between instructors, students, and veterans during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

MLMS Program Origins

The MLMS project began at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2013 with staff and volunteer interviewers and has expanded to more than 60 VA facilities.⁷ In January 2020, we initiated a narrative medicine curriculum incorporating MLMS at the SFVAMC as a required component of a third-year internal medicine clerkship for medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Fifty-four medical students in 10 cohorts participated in the curriculum in 2020. The primary program objectives were for medical students to develop skills for eliciting and recording a life story and to appreciate the impact of this activity on a veteran’s experience of receiving health care. Secondary objectives were for students to understand the mission of the VA health care system and veteran demographics.

The first cohort of 6 UCSF medical students participated in MLMS during their 8-week VA clerkship. Students attended a 1-hour small group session to introduce the program and build narrative medicine skills. Preparation for this session involved listening to 2 podcast episodes introducing the VA health care system and MLMS.^12,13 The session began with a short interactive discussion of veteran demographics with an emphasis on addressing assumptions students might have about the veteran population. Students were taught strategies for engaging in open-ended conversations without emphasizing illness. Each student practiced collecting a life story with a simulated patient portrayed by an instructor and received feedback from classmates and instructors.

Over the following weeks, students selected a hospitalized veteran, typically a patient they were caring for, introduced MLMS, and obtained verbal consent to participate. They conducted a 60- to 90-minute interview, wrote and organized the life story, read it to the veteran, and solicited edits. Once a final version was generated, the student provided the veteran with printed copies and offered to place the story in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Near the end of their rotation, students attended a 1-hour small group session in which they shared reflections on the experience of collecting a life story, the impact of veterans’ life experiences on their health and illness, and moments when students confronted their own stereotypes and implicit biases. Students then reviewed narrative medicine skills that are generalizable to all patient interactions.

COVID-19-Related Adaptation

In March 2020, shortly after the second student cohort began, medical students were removed from the clinical setting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 8-week clerkship was converted to a 3-week remote learning rotation. The MLMS experience was preserved by converting small group sessions to videoconferences and expanding the pool of eligible patients to include veterans who students had met on prior rotations, current inpatients, and outpatients from VA primary care clinics. Students contacted veterans after an instructor had introduced MLMS to the veteran and confirmed that the veteran was interested in participating.

Students in the second and third cohorts completed a telephone-based iteration of MLMS in which interviews and life story reviews were conducted over the telephone and printed copies mailed to the veteran. For the fourth, fifth, and sixth cohorts, MLMS was transitioned to a video-based program with inpatients. Instructors collaborated with a volunteer group supplying tablet devices to inpatients to make video calls to their families during the pandemic.¹⁴ Clerkship students coordinated with that volunteer group to interview veterans and review their stories through the tablet devices.

From July to December 2020 medical students returned to 4-week on-site clinical rotations at the SFVAMC. The program returned to the original format for cohorts 7 to 10, with students attending in-person small group sessions and conducting in-person interviews with inpatients.

Curriculum Evaluation

Students completed surveys in the week after the curriculum concluded. Survey completion was voluntary, anonymous, and had no bearing on their evaluation or grade (pass/fail only). Likert scale questions (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) were used to assess the program (eAppendix 1). One-way analysis of variance testing was used to compare means stratified by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video). Surveys also included free-response questions asking students to highlight aspects of the program they valued or would change; responses were summarized by theme. This program evaluation was deemed exempt from review by the UCSF Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board.

Sixty-two veteran stories were collected by 54 participating students (one student was unable to complete an interview, while several students completed multiple interviews). Fifty-four (87%) veterans requested their stories be entered into the medical record.

All 54 students completed the survey. Students reported that the MLMS curriculum helped them develop new skills for eliciting and recording a life story (mean [SD] 4.5 [0.7]). Most students strongly agreed that MLMS helped them understand how sharing a life story can impact a veteran’s experience of receiving health care, with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (0.4). After completing MLMS, students also reported a better understanding of the mission of the VA and veteran demographics with a mean (SD) score of 4.4 (0.7) and 4.3 (0.7), respectively. Stratification of survey responses by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video) revealed no statistically significant differences in evaluations (Table 1).

Discussion

Previous research has demonstrated that a narrative medicine curriculum can help medicine clerkship students develop narrative competence through patient storytelling with a focus on a patient’s illness narrative.¹⁵ The VA MLMS program extends the patient narrative beyond health care–related experiences and encompasses their broader life story. This article adds to the MLMS and narrative medicine literature by demonstrating that the efficacy of teaching patient-centered care to medical trainees through direct interviews can be maintained in remote formats.⁹ The article also provides guidance for MLMS programs that wish to conduct remote veteran interviews.

The widespread adoption of telemedicine will require trainees to develop communication skills to establish therapeutic relationships with patients both face-to-face and through videoconferencing. In order to promote this important skill across varying levels of physical distancing, narrative medicine programs should be adaptable to a virtual learning environment. As we redesigned MLMS for the remote setting, we learned several key lessons that can guide similar curricular and programmatic innovations at other institutions. For example, videoconferencing created stronger connections between the students and veterans than telephone calls. However, tablet-based video interviews also introduced many technological challenges and required on-site personnel (nurses and volunteers) to connect students, veterans, and technology. Solutions for technology and communication challenges related to the basic personnel and infrastructure needed to start and maintain a remote MLMS program are outlined in Table 2.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the participation of trainees from a single institution and a lack of assessment of the impact of MLMS on veterans. Future research could assess whether life story skills and practices are maintained after the medicine clerkship. In addition, future studies could examine veterans’ perspectives through interviews with qualitative analysis to learn how MLMS affected their experience of receiving health care.

Conclusions

This is the first report of a remote-capable life story curriculum for medical students. Shifting to a virtual MLMS curriculum requires protocols and people to link interviewers, veterans, and technology. Training for in-person interactions while being prepared for remote interviewing is essential to ensure that the MLMS experience remains available to interviewers and veterans who otherwise may never have the chance to connect. The restrictions and isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade, but using MLMS to virtually connect patients, providers, and students will remain an important capability and opportunity as health care shifts to more virtual interaction.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Emma Levine, MD, for her assistance coordinating video interviews; Thor Ringler, MS, MFA, for his assistance with manuscript review; and the veterans of the San Francisco VA Health Care System for sharing their stories.

Narrative competence is the ability to acquire, interpret, and act on the stories of others.¹ Developing this skill through guided medical storytelling can improve health care practitioners’ (HCPs) sense of empathy and satisfaction with their work.² Narrative medicine experiences for medical students can foster a deeper understanding of their patients beyond illness-associated identities.³

Within narrative medicine, the “life story” is a specific technique that allows patients to share experiences through open-ended interviews that are entered into the health record.^4,5 By sharing life stories, patients control a narrative encompassing more than their illness and can reinforce a sense of purpose in their lives.⁶ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) My Life My Story (MLMS) program gives veterans the opportunity to share their narrative with staff and volunteer interviewers. MLMS is well received by veterans, has durable positive effects for HCPs who read the stories, and has been used as a tool to teach patient-centered care to medical trainees.^7-9

We created a narrative medicine curriculum at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (SFVAMC) in which medical students interviewed veterans for the MLMS program. Medical students initially collected life stories through in-person conversation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, physical distancing regulations limited direct patient interaction for students and prompted a switch to phone and video interviews. This shift paralleled the widespread adoption of telehealth, which will persist beyond the pandemic and require teachers and learners to develop competency in forming personal connections with patients through videoconferencing.^10,11

There are no published studies describing how to guide medical students (or other historians) in generating life stories without in-person patient contact. This article details the design of a medical student curriculum incorporating MLMS and the transition to remote interaction between instructors, students, and veterans during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

MLMS Program Origins

The MLMS project began at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2013 with staff and volunteer interviewers and has expanded to more than 60 VA facilities.⁷ In January 2020, we initiated a narrative medicine curriculum incorporating MLMS at the SFVAMC as a required component of a third-year internal medicine clerkship for medical students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Fifty-four medical students in 10 cohorts participated in the curriculum in 2020. The primary program objectives were for medical students to develop skills for eliciting and recording a life story and to appreciate the impact of this activity on a veteran’s experience of receiving health care. Secondary objectives were for students to understand the mission of the VA health care system and veteran demographics.

The first cohort of 6 UCSF medical students participated in MLMS during their 8-week VA clerkship. Students attended a 1-hour small group session to introduce the program and build narrative medicine skills. Preparation for this session involved listening to 2 podcast episodes introducing the VA health care system and MLMS.^12,13 The session began with a short interactive discussion of veteran demographics with an emphasis on addressing assumptions students might have about the veteran population. Students were taught strategies for engaging in open-ended conversations without emphasizing illness. Each student practiced collecting a life story with a simulated patient portrayed by an instructor and received feedback from classmates and instructors.

Over the following weeks, students selected a hospitalized veteran, typically a patient they were caring for, introduced MLMS, and obtained verbal consent to participate. They conducted a 60- to 90-minute interview, wrote and organized the life story, read it to the veteran, and solicited edits. Once a final version was generated, the student provided the veteran with printed copies and offered to place the story in the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Near the end of their rotation, students attended a 1-hour small group session in which they shared reflections on the experience of collecting a life story, the impact of veterans’ life experiences on their health and illness, and moments when students confronted their own stereotypes and implicit biases. Students then reviewed narrative medicine skills that are generalizable to all patient interactions.

COVID-19-Related Adaptation

In March 2020, shortly after the second student cohort began, medical students were removed from the clinical setting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 8-week clerkship was converted to a 3-week remote learning rotation. The MLMS experience was preserved by converting small group sessions to videoconferences and expanding the pool of eligible patients to include veterans who students had met on prior rotations, current inpatients, and outpatients from VA primary care clinics. Students contacted veterans after an instructor had introduced MLMS to the veteran and confirmed that the veteran was interested in participating.

Students in the second and third cohorts completed a telephone-based iteration of MLMS in which interviews and life story reviews were conducted over the telephone and printed copies mailed to the veteran. For the fourth, fifth, and sixth cohorts, MLMS was transitioned to a video-based program with inpatients. Instructors collaborated with a volunteer group supplying tablet devices to inpatients to make video calls to their families during the pandemic.¹⁴ Clerkship students coordinated with that volunteer group to interview veterans and review their stories through the tablet devices.

From July to December 2020 medical students returned to 4-week on-site clinical rotations at the SFVAMC. The program returned to the original format for cohorts 7 to 10, with students attending in-person small group sessions and conducting in-person interviews with inpatients.

Curriculum Evaluation

Students completed surveys in the week after the curriculum concluded. Survey completion was voluntary, anonymous, and had no bearing on their evaluation or grade (pass/fail only). Likert scale questions (1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) were used to assess the program (eAppendix 1). One-way analysis of variance testing was used to compare means stratified by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video). Surveys also included free-response questions asking students to highlight aspects of the program they valued or would change; responses were summarized by theme. This program evaluation was deemed exempt from review by the UCSF Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board.

Sixty-two veteran stories were collected by 54 participating students (one student was unable to complete an interview, while several students completed multiple interviews). Fifty-four (87%) veterans requested their stories be entered into the medical record.

All 54 students completed the survey. Students reported that the MLMS curriculum helped them develop new skills for eliciting and recording a life story (mean [SD] 4.5 [0.7]). Most students strongly agreed that MLMS helped them understand how sharing a life story can impact a veteran’s experience of receiving health care, with a mean (SD) score of 4.8 (0.4). After completing MLMS, students also reported a better understanding of the mission of the VA and veteran demographics with a mean (SD) score of 4.4 (0.7) and 4.3 (0.7), respectively. Stratification of survey responses by method of interview (in person, telephone, or video) revealed no statistically significant differences in evaluations (Table 1).

Discussion

Previous research has demonstrated that a narrative medicine curriculum can help medicine clerkship students develop narrative competence through patient storytelling with a focus on a patient’s illness narrative.¹⁵ The VA MLMS program extends the patient narrative beyond health care–related experiences and encompasses their broader life story. This article adds to the MLMS and narrative medicine literature by demonstrating that the efficacy of teaching patient-centered care to medical trainees through direct interviews can be maintained in remote formats.⁹ The article also provides guidance for MLMS programs that wish to conduct remote veteran interviews.

The widespread adoption of telemedicine will require trainees to develop communication skills to establish therapeutic relationships with patients both face-to-face and through videoconferencing. In order to promote this important skill across varying levels of physical distancing, narrative medicine programs should be adaptable to a virtual learning environment. As we redesigned MLMS for the remote setting, we learned several key lessons that can guide similar curricular and programmatic innovations at other institutions. For example, videoconferencing created stronger connections between the students and veterans than telephone calls. However, tablet-based video interviews also introduced many technological challenges and required on-site personnel (nurses and volunteers) to connect students, veterans, and technology. Solutions for technology and communication challenges related to the basic personnel and infrastructure needed to start and maintain a remote MLMS program are outlined in Table 2.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the participation of trainees from a single institution and a lack of assessment of the impact of MLMS on veterans. Future research could assess whether life story skills and practices are maintained after the medicine clerkship. In addition, future studies could examine veterans’ perspectives through interviews with qualitative analysis to learn how MLMS affected their experience of receiving health care.

Conclusions

This is the first report of a remote-capable life story curriculum for medical students. Shifting to a virtual MLMS curriculum requires protocols and people to link interviewers, veterans, and technology. Training for in-person interactions while being prepared for remote interviewing is essential to ensure that the MLMS experience remains available to interviewers and veterans who otherwise may never have the chance to connect. The restrictions and isolation of the COVID-19 pandemic will fade, but using MLMS to virtually connect patients, providers, and students will remain an important capability and opportunity as health care shifts to more virtual interaction.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Emma Levine, MD, for her assistance coordinating video interviews; Thor Ringler, MS, MFA, for his assistance with manuscript review; and the veterans of the San Francisco VA Health Care System for sharing their stories.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Community outreach coordinators identified Veterans who were not aware of their entitlement to service-connected benefits. Veterans were also unaware of the importance of adding new presumptive diagnoses to their existing service connection and were unaware of new conditions that were added to the presumptive lists. Many Veterans, unaware of the Agent Orange/Camp Lejeune presumptive conditions, were paying out of pocket for their oncology care. A project was developed between community outreach and oncology to identify, and contact Veterans newly diagnosed with cancers on the presumptive list for Vietnam and Camp Lejeune. The goals for the project were to: Increase presumptive condition awareness, assist Veterans in navigating the VHA, VBA and VSC (Veteran Service Commission) and provide a VA resource for the Veterans for assistance. Oncology team reviewed the cancer registry each month and identified Veterans who served during the Vietnam Era or the Marine Corps and contacted them to screen for military history. If a Veteran met the time and location qualifications, the Veteran was referred to the community outreach coordinators. The coordinators then further screened the Veterans for eligibility, assisted the Veterans in initiating their claims applications and connected the Veterans with their local VSC. At the six month follow up, 74 Veterans had been referred to community outreach, and 16 Veterans had received 100% service connection. It is important to note, the benefits application process can take several months to complete under normal circumstances. Since implementation the project has been revised. The project team developed mailers to alert Veterans of: Potential benefits eligibility, importance for filing claims, contact information for their local VSC and contact information for VA Outreach for additional assistance. Informatics was recruited to assist with identifying Veterans who met the service criteria and providing their addresses. The Veterans identified were then sent mailers, which expedited the process, allowing the project team to reach more Veterans in a shorter timeframe. Since project initiation, 74 Veterans were contacted directly by outreach coordinators, 273 mailers have been sent to potentially eligible Veterans, and 34 have received 100% service connection to date. al center will continue this practice moving forward.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Effective transitions of care (TOC) are essential to ensure quality continuity of care after hospital discharge. About 20 to 30% of patients experience an adverse event (AE) in the peridischarge period when discharged to the community.¹ Additionally, about two-thirds of AEs are preventable.¹ The Joint Commission has identified various breakdowns in care that are associated with poor outcomes, including a lack of standardized discharge procedures, limited time dedicated to discharge planning and processes, and patients who lack the necessary resources or skills to implement discharge care plans.²

Background

The most impactful TOC programs are those that target patients who are at high risk for readmission or adverse outcomes.³ Factors such as advanced age, polypharmacy, cognitive impairment, and lack of social support are patient characteristics that have been associated with unfavorable outcomes after discharge.⁴ To identify this subset of high-risk individuals, various risk assessment scores have been developed, ranging from those that are used locally at the facility level to those that are nationally validated. The LACE score (Length of hospital stay; Acuity of the admission; Comorbidities measured with the Charlson comorbidity index score; and Emergency department visits within the past 6 months) is a validated index scoring tool that is used to identify medical and surgical patients at risk for readmission or death within 30 days of hospital discharge. On a 19-point scale, a score of ≥ 10 is considered high risk.⁵ Specific to the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score was developed to risk stratify the veteran population. The CAN score is generated using information including patient demographics, medical conditions, VA health care utilization, vital signs, laboratory values, medications, and socioeconomic status. This score is expressed as a percentile that compares the probability of death or admission among veterans at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge. Veterans in the 99th percentile have a 74% risk for these adverse outcomes at 1 year.⁶

The Joint Commission states that a fundamental component to assuring safe and effective TOC is medication management, which includes the involvement of pharmacists.² TOC programs with pharmacist involvement have shown significant improvements related to reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and health care costs in addition to significant medication-related interventions.^7-9 While this body of evidence continues to grow and demonstrates that pharmacists are an integral component of the TOC process, there is no gold standard program. Brantley and colleagues noted that a weakness of many TOC programs is that they are one dimensional, meaning that they focus on only 1 element of care transitions or 1 specific patient population or disease.¹⁰

There is well-supported evidence of high-impact interventions for pharmacists involved early in the admission process, but data are less robust on the discharge process. ^11,12 Therefore, the primary focus of this project was to develop a pharmacist-based TOC program and implement a process for communicating high-risk patients who are discharging from our hospital across the continuum of care.

Setting

The Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC) is a tertiary care referral center for veterans in Indiana and eastern Illinois. Acute care clinical pharmacists are fully integrated into the acute care teams and practice under a comprehensive care model. Pharmacists attend daily patient care rounds and conduct discharge medication reconciliation for all patients with additional bedside counseling for patients who are being discharged home.

Primary care services are provided by patient aligned care teams (PACTs), multidisciplinary teams composed of physicians, advanced practice nurses, pharmacists, mental health care providers, registered nurses, dieticians, and care coordinators. Ambulatory Care or PACT clinical pharmacists are established within each RLRVAMC PACT clinic and provide comprehensive care management through an independent scope of practice for several chronic diseases, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, and tobacco cessation. Prior to this project implementation, there was no formalized or standardized method for facilitating routine communication of patients between acute care and PACT pharmacists in the TOC process.

Pilot Study

In 2017, RLRVAMC implemented a TOC pharmacy program pilot. A pharmacy resident and both acute care and PACT clinical pharmacy specialists (CPSs) developed the service. The pilot program was conducted from September 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The initial phase consisted of the development of an electronic TOC tool to standardize communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists. The TOC tool was created on a secure site accessible only to pharmacy personnel and not part of the formal medical record. (Figure 1).

The acute care pharmacist identified high-risk patients through calculated CAN and LACE scores during the discharge process and offered PACT pharmacist follow-up to the patient during bedside discharge counseling. Information was then entered into the TOC tool, including patient identifiers and a message with specific information outlining the reason for referral. PACT pharmacists routinely reviewed the tool and attempted to phone each patient within 7 days of discharge. Follow-up included medication reconciliation and chronic disease management as warranted at the discretion of the PACT pharmacist. All postdischarge follow-up appointments were created and documented in the electronic health record. A retrospective chart review was completed on patients who were entered into the TOC tool.

Patients were eligible for referral if they were discharged during the study period with primary care established in one of the facility’s PACT clinics. Additionally, patients had to meet ≥ 1 of the following criteria, deeming them a high risk for readmission: LACE score ≥ 10, CAN score ≥ 90th percentile, or be considered high risk based on the discretion of the acute care pharmacist. Patients were included in the analysis if they met the CAN or LACE score requirement. Patients were excluded if they received primary care from a site other than a RLRVAMC PACT clinic. This included non-VA primary care, home-based primary care, or VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs). Patients also were excluded if they required further institutional care postdischarge (ie, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility, etc), discharged to hospice, or against medical advice.

The average referral rate per month during the pilot study was 19 patients, with 113 total referrals during the 6-month study period. Lower rates of index emergency department (ED) visits (5.3% vs 23.3%) and readmissions (1% vs 6.7%) were seen in the group of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up postdischarge compared with those who did not. Additionally, PACT pharmacists were able to make > 120 interventions, averaging 1.7 interventions per patient. Of note, these results were not statistically analyzed and were assessed as observational data to determine whether the program had the potential to be impactful. The results of the pilot study demonstrated positive outcomes associated with having a pharmacist-based TOC process and led to the desire for further development and implementation of the TOC program at the RLRVAMC. These positive results prompted a second phase project to address barriers, make improvements, and ensure sustainability.

Methods

Phase 2 was a quality improvement initiative; therefore, institutional review board approval was not needed. The aim of phase 2 was to improve, expand, and sustain the TOC program that was implemented in the pilot study. Barriers identified after discussion with acute care and PACT pharmacists included difficulty in making referrals due to required entry of cumbersome readmission risk factor calculations, limiting inclusion to patients who receive primary care at the main hospital facility, and the expansion of pharmacy staff with new pharmacists who were not knowledgeable of the referral process.

Design

To overcome barriers, 4 main targeted interventions were needed: streamlining the referral process, enhancing pharmacy staff education, updating the discharge note template, and expanding the criteria to include patients who receive care at VA CBOCs. The referral process was streamlined by removing required calculated readmission risk scores, allowing pharmacist judgement to take precedence for referrals. Focused face-to-face education was provided to acute care and PACT pharmacists about the referral process and inclusion criteria to increase awareness and provide guidance of who may benefit from entry into the tool. Unlike the first phase of the study, education was provided for outpatient staff pharmacists responsible for discharging patients on the weekends. Additionally, the pharmacists received a printed quick reference guide of the information covered during the education sessions (Figure 2). Referral prompts were embedded into the standard pharmacy discharge note template to serve as a reminder to discharging pharmacists to assess patients for inclusion into the tool and provided a direct link to the tool. Expansion to include VA CBOCs occurred postpilot study, allowing increased patient access to this TOC service. All other aspects of the program were continued from the pilot phase.

Patients were eligible if they were discharged from RLRVAMC between October 1, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Additionally, the patient had to be established in a PACT clinic for primary care and have been referred to the tool based on the discretion of an acute care pharmacist. Patients were excluded if they were discharged against medical advice or to any facility where the patient and/or caregiver would not be responsible for medication administration (eg, subacute rehabilitation, extended care facility), or if the patient refused pharmacy follow-up.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes assessed were all-cause and index ED visits and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. All-cause ED visits and readmissions were defined as a second visit to RLRVAMC , regardless of readmission diagnosis. Index ED visits and readmissions were defined as those that were related to the initial admission diagnosis. Additional data collected and analyzed included the number of patients referred by pharmacists, number and type of medication discrepancies, medication changes, counseling interventions, time to follow-up postdischarge, and number of patients added to the PACT pharmacist’s clinic schedule for further management. A discrepancy identified by a PACT pharmacist was defined as a difference between the discharge medication list and the patient-reported medication list at the time of follow-up. Patients who were referred to the TOC tool but were unable to be reached by telephone served as the control group for this study.

Data Collection

A retrospective chart review was completed on patients entered into the tool. Data were collected and kept in a secured Microsoft Excel workbook. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using either a χ² for nominal data or Student t test for continuous data. The primary outcomes were analyzed using a χ² test. All statistical tests were analyzed using MiniTab 19 Statistical Software.

Results

Pharmacists added 172 patients into the TOC tool; 139 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those excluded, most were because the PACT pharmacist did not attempt to contact the patient since they already had a primary care visit scheduled postdischarge (Table 1). Of the 139 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 99 were successfully contacted by a PACT pharmacist. Most patients were aged in their 60s, male, and white. Both groups had a similar quantity of outpatient medications on admission and medication changes made at discharge. Additionally, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospitalizations and/or ED visits in the 3 months before hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral (Table 2).

Hospital Readmission

Hospital 30-day readmission rates for patients who were successfully followed by pharmacy compared with those who were not were 5.1% vs 15.0% (P = .049) for index readmissions and 8.1% vs 27.5% (P = .03) for all-cause readmissions. No statistically significant difference existed between those patients with follow-up compared with those without follow-up for either index (10.1% vs 12.5%, respectively; P = .68) or for all-cause ED visit rates (15.2% vs 20.0%, respectively; P = .49).

Patient Encounters

The average time to follow-up was 8.8 days, which was above the predetermined goal of contact within 7 days. Additionally, this was a decline from the initial pilot study, which had an average time to reach of 4.7 days. All patients reached by a pharmacist received medication reconciliation, with ≥ 28% of patients having ≥ 1 discrepancy. There were 43 discrepancies among all patients. Of the discrepancies, 25 were reported as errors performed by the patient, and 18 were from an error during the discharge process. The discrepancies that resulted from patient error were primarily patients who took the wrong dose of prescribed medications. Other patient discrepancies included taking medications not as scheduled, omitting medications (both intentionally and mistakenly), continuing to take medications that had been discontinued by a health care provider and improper administration technique. Examples of provider errors that occurred during the discharge process included not ordering medications for patient to pick up at discharge, not discontinuing a medication from the patient’s profile, and failure to renew expired prescriptions.

Additional counseling was provided to 75% of patients: The most common reason for counseling was T2DM, hypertension, and dyslipidemia management. PACT pharmacists changed medication regimens for 27.3% of patients for improved control of chronic diseases or relief of medication AEs.

At the end of each visit, patients were assessed to determine whether they could benefit from additional pharmacy follow-up. Thirty-seven patients were added to the pharmacist schedules for disease management appointments. The most common conditions for these appointments were T2DM, hypertension, tobacco cessation, and hyperlipidemia. Among the 37 patients who had pharmacy follow-up, there were 137 additional pharmacy appointments within the study period.

Program Referrals

After expansion to include the VA CBOCs, elimination of the elevated LACE or CAN score requirement, and additional staff education, the rate of referrals per month increased during phase 2 in comparison to the pilot study (Figure 3). There were a mean (SD) of 34 (10) referrals per month. Although not statistically analyzed, it is an objective increase in comparison to a mean 19 referrals per month in the pilot study.

Discussion

The continued development and use of a pharmacist-driven TOC tool at RLRVAMC increased communication and follow-up of high-risk patients, demonstrated the ability of pharmacists to identify and intervene in medication-related issues postdischarge, and successfully reduce 30-day readmissions. This program emphasized pharmacist involvement during the discharge process and created a standardized mechanism for TOC follow-up, addressing multiple areas that were identified by The Joint Commission as being associated with poor outcomes. The advanced pharmacy practice model at RLRVAMC allowed for a multidimensional program, including prospective patient identification and multiple pharmacy touchpoints. This is unique in comparison to many of the one-dimensional programs described in the literature.

Polypharmacy has been identified as a major predictor of medication discrepancies postdischarge, and patients with ≥ 10 active medications have been found to be at highest risk.^13,14 Patients in this study had a mean 13 active medications on admission, with a mean 5 medication changes at discharge. PACT pharmacists documented 28 of 99 patients with ≥ 1 medication-related discrepancy at postdischarge reconciliation. This 28% discrepancy rate is consistent with discrepancy rates previously reported in the literature, which ranged from 14 to 45% in large meta-analyses.^14,15 The majority of these discrepancies (58%) were related to patients who took the wrong dose of a prescribed medication.

Targeted interventions to overcome barriers in the pilot study increased the referral rates to the TOC tool; however, the increase in referral rate was associated with increased time to follow up by ambulatory care pharmacists. The extended follow-up times were seen most often in the 2 busiest primary care clinics, one of which is considered a teaching clinic for medical residents. Pharmacists were required to integrate these calls into their normal work schedule and were not provided additional time for calling, allowing for an increased follow-up time. The increased follow-up time likely contributed to the increased number of patients excluded due to already having PACT follow-up, giving more time for the primary care provider to have an appointment with the patient. The ambulatory care pharmacist could then determine whether further intervention was needed. In the summer of 2018, a decrease in referral rates occurred for a short time, but this is likely explained by incoming new residents and staff within the pharmacy department and decreased awareness among the new staff. The enhanced staff education took place during September 2018 and lead to increased referral rates compared with those seen in months prior.

PACT pharmacists were not only able to identify discrepancies, but also provide timely intervention on a multitude of medication-related issues by using their scope of practice (SOP). Most interventions were related to medication or disease counseling, including lifestyle, device, and disease education. The independent SOP of our PACT pharmacists is a unique aspect of this program and allowed pharmacists to independently adjust many aspects of a patient’s medication regimen during follow-up visits.

The outcomes of 30-day index and all-cause readmissions, as well as index and all-cause ED visit rates, were lower in the subset of patients who received PACT pharmacist follow-up after discharge (Table 3). The difference was most pronounced in the all-cause readmission rates: Only 8.1% of patients who received PACT follow-up experienced a readmission compared with 27.5% of those who did not. The difference between the groups regarding ED visit rates were not as pronounced, but this may be attributed to a limited sample size. These data indicate that the role of the pharmacist in identifying discrepancies and performing interventions at follow-up may play a clinically significant part in reducing both ED visit rates and hospital readmissions.

Limitations

There are some limitations identified within this study. Although the referral criteria were relaxed from the pilot study and enhanced education was created, continued education regarding appropriate referral of TOC patients continues to be necessary given intermittent staff changeover, incorporation of pharmacy trainees, and modifications to clinic workflow. Patients who were discharged to facilities were not included. This ensured that appropriate and consistent PACT pharmacist follow-up would be available, but likely reduced our sample size.

Although performing this study in a closed health care system with pharmacists who have independent SOPs is a strength of our study, also it can limit generalizability. Not all facilities house both acute care and ambulatory care in one location with wide SOPs to allow for comprehensive and continued care. Last, this study used convenience sampling, potentially introducing selection bias, as patients unable to be reached by PACT pharmacists may inherently be at increased risk for hospital readmission. However, in the 3 months preceding the hospital admission that resulted in TOC tool referral, both groups had a similar number of patients with hospital admissions and ED visits.

The TOC tool has become fully integrated into the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists. After the conclusion of the study period, the referral rates into the tool have been maintained at a steady level, even surpassing the rates seen during the study period. In comparison with the pilot study, PACT pharmacists reported a subjective increase in referrals placed for procedures such as medication reconciliation or adherence checks. This is likely because acute care pharmacists were able to use their clinical judgement rather than to rely solely on calculated readmission risk scores for TOC tool referral.

The success of the TOC program led to the expansion to other specialty areas. ED pharmacists now refer patients from the ED who were not admitted to the hospital but would benefit from PACT follow-up. Additionally, the option to refer hematology and oncology patients was added to allow these patients to be followed up by our hematology/oncology CPSs by phone appointments. Unique reasons for follow-up for this patient population include concerns about delayed chemotherapy cycles or chemotherapy-associated AEs.

Conclusions

This study outlines the creation and continued improvement of a pharmacist-based TOC program. The program was designed as a method of communication between acute care and PACT pharmacists about high-risk patients. The creation of this program allowed PACT pharmacists not only to identify discrepancies and make interventions on high-risk patients, but also demonstrate that having pharmacists involved in these programs may have a positive impact on readmissions and ED visits. The success of the TOC tool at the RLRVAMC has led to its expansion and is now an integral part of the daily workflow for both acute care and PACT pharmacists.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.