User login
Implementing a Prospective Surveillance Physical Therapy Program for Those Affected by Cancer
Background
This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.
Methods
A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.
Results
The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.
Conclusions
PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.
Background
This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.
Methods
A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.
Results
The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.
Conclusions
PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.
Background
This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.
Methods
A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.
Results
The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.
Conclusions
PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.
Developing a Cancer Rehabilitation Program—Improving Access to Ancillary Services to Mitigate the Impact of Cancer and its Treatments for Veterans Diagnosed With Cancer
Background
Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.
Methods
Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.
Results
Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.
Conclusions
Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.
Background
Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.
Methods
Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.
Results
Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.
Conclusions
Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.
Background
Approximately 56,000 Veterans are diagnosed with cancer every year in the VA system. Up to 90% of survivors have at least one impairment that decreases their quality of life, but only 2-9% are receiving cancer rehabilitation. Current research in cancer care demonstrates the importance of prospective surveillance, rehabilitation, and a multidisciplinary (MultiD) approach to cancer survivorship. Multi-D treatments help mitigate the effects of cancer and its treatments as the veterans proceed through care, improve outcomes, and streamline the process to meet all rehabilitation needs for those affected by cancer. Prior to the development of this program all services except navigation were available. Those diagnosed with cancer were not receiving prehabilitation and consults to ancillary services did not occur until after active cancer treatment was completed. CCRP united existing Multi-D programs to better serve the needs of veterans with cancer. Development of the CCRP CPRS Consult menu has allowed for improved access for both providers and veterans.
Methods
Identified the need for ancillary services during cancer survivorship, regardless of Veterans treatment location within or outside the VA system. Initiated tracking via CCR consults, developed a CCRP guidebook to identify all services available and how to access them as well as the CCCRP consult menu to create easier access for providers and veterans. Tracking via Multi-D departments that allow for tracking in CPRS via CCRP Consult.
Results
Prior to FY23 no cancer rehab consults existed. Consults received since program implementation: Navigation: 144, Physical Therapy: 102, Occupational Therapy: 7, Speech: 15. All other Multi-D did not track CCRP-specific consults. Other tools for data analysis are utilized in other departments in which gaps in coordination of care have been caught/resolved, and advocacy has increased.
Conclusions
Comprehensive cancer care from diagnosis throughout survivorship improves quality of life. A Multi-D comprehensive Cancer rehabilitation provides an opportunity to streamline care via a CPRS Menu. Other VA medical centers can develop a Multi-D cancer rehabilitation program to coordinate treatments from diagnosis through survivorship. This is an opportunity to make the VA the forefront of oncology care – by providing all services within one system.
Optimization of Hematology/ Oncology E-Consult Ordering Process
Background
Multiple responses or repeat e-consults were observed by Hematology/Oncology Department. Root cause analysis uncovered that 60% of e-consults ordered required multiple responses or repeat econsults for the same clinical situation, often due to the need for additional lab testing before the e-consult question could be addressed. Hematology/Oncology econsult ordering process did not have an order design menu to provide guidance on appropriate questions, simplified ordering of relevant tests, or ways to identify patients that were either already established in the Hem/Onc clinic or patients that would be better managed with a more urgent or in-person consultation. This quality improvement project was created to improve the appropriateness and efficiency of hematology/oncology e-consult ordering process.
Methods
Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodology, a project team lead by Hematology/Oncology, Clinical Informatics, Clinical Application Coordinator and the Systems Redesign Coordinator, rebuilt menus to navigate referring providers to the appropriate e-consults. This would improve the process flow and enhance clear communication. The primary process improvement goals were 1) to decrease the number of e-consults that were better suited for inperson evaluation; 2) decrease the number of Hem/Onc e-consults that lack adequate clinical lab information and 3) decrease the number of e-consults for patients that are already established with a Hematology/Oncology provider.
Results
Baseline sample data (7-1-23-11-30-22)-revealed only 60% of e-consults placed were deemed appropriate. 13% required certain minimum lab testing, 11% were already established patients and 11% were better managed through in-person consultation. After the first PDSA cycle, from 9/21/23-3/29/24, 72% of econsults were deemed appropriate (114/158), a 12% improvement.
Conclusions
The success of the project supports the use of existing VA hospital-based program resources such as clinical informatics and utilizing frontline physician input. This input was critical to the redesigned ordering process. Ultimately, our process improvement efforts helped facilitate communication and information flow which improved our ability to better coordinate our Veteran’s care.
Background
Multiple responses or repeat e-consults were observed by Hematology/Oncology Department. Root cause analysis uncovered that 60% of e-consults ordered required multiple responses or repeat econsults for the same clinical situation, often due to the need for additional lab testing before the e-consult question could be addressed. Hematology/Oncology econsult ordering process did not have an order design menu to provide guidance on appropriate questions, simplified ordering of relevant tests, or ways to identify patients that were either already established in the Hem/Onc clinic or patients that would be better managed with a more urgent or in-person consultation. This quality improvement project was created to improve the appropriateness and efficiency of hematology/oncology e-consult ordering process.
Methods
Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodology, a project team lead by Hematology/Oncology, Clinical Informatics, Clinical Application Coordinator and the Systems Redesign Coordinator, rebuilt menus to navigate referring providers to the appropriate e-consults. This would improve the process flow and enhance clear communication. The primary process improvement goals were 1) to decrease the number of e-consults that were better suited for inperson evaluation; 2) decrease the number of Hem/Onc e-consults that lack adequate clinical lab information and 3) decrease the number of e-consults for patients that are already established with a Hematology/Oncology provider.
Results
Baseline sample data (7-1-23-11-30-22)-revealed only 60% of e-consults placed were deemed appropriate. 13% required certain minimum lab testing, 11% were already established patients and 11% were better managed through in-person consultation. After the first PDSA cycle, from 9/21/23-3/29/24, 72% of econsults were deemed appropriate (114/158), a 12% improvement.
Conclusions
The success of the project supports the use of existing VA hospital-based program resources such as clinical informatics and utilizing frontline physician input. This input was critical to the redesigned ordering process. Ultimately, our process improvement efforts helped facilitate communication and information flow which improved our ability to better coordinate our Veteran’s care.
Background
Multiple responses or repeat e-consults were observed by Hematology/Oncology Department. Root cause analysis uncovered that 60% of e-consults ordered required multiple responses or repeat econsults for the same clinical situation, often due to the need for additional lab testing before the e-consult question could be addressed. Hematology/Oncology econsult ordering process did not have an order design menu to provide guidance on appropriate questions, simplified ordering of relevant tests, or ways to identify patients that were either already established in the Hem/Onc clinic or patients that would be better managed with a more urgent or in-person consultation. This quality improvement project was created to improve the appropriateness and efficiency of hematology/oncology e-consult ordering process.
Methods
Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement methodology, a project team lead by Hematology/Oncology, Clinical Informatics, Clinical Application Coordinator and the Systems Redesign Coordinator, rebuilt menus to navigate referring providers to the appropriate e-consults. This would improve the process flow and enhance clear communication. The primary process improvement goals were 1) to decrease the number of e-consults that were better suited for inperson evaluation; 2) decrease the number of Hem/Onc e-consults that lack adequate clinical lab information and 3) decrease the number of e-consults for patients that are already established with a Hematology/Oncology provider.
Results
Baseline sample data (7-1-23-11-30-22)-revealed only 60% of e-consults placed were deemed appropriate. 13% required certain minimum lab testing, 11% were already established patients and 11% were better managed through in-person consultation. After the first PDSA cycle, from 9/21/23-3/29/24, 72% of econsults were deemed appropriate (114/158), a 12% improvement.
Conclusions
The success of the project supports the use of existing VA hospital-based program resources such as clinical informatics and utilizing frontline physician input. This input was critical to the redesigned ordering process. Ultimately, our process improvement efforts helped facilitate communication and information flow which improved our ability to better coordinate our Veteran’s care.
A Time to Heal for Veterans With Cancer
Background
Cancer diagnosis and treatment can be devastating! After treatment, a person often feels tired, weak, and worried while trying to put their life back together. This transition period is known to be difficult (www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/survivorship/new-normal). A Time to Heal for Veterans and their Caregivers (“wellness rehabilitation”) was created to provide support, information, and skills to help with this transition.
Methods
This 9-week program is based on a successful, well documented, evidence-based book and protocol developed in 2005, that has been updated and adapted for specific populations. The VA program has a customized participant book and is facilitated by a VA social worker and a VA oncology nurse. It includes weekly protocols of research-based educational presentations on the following topics: Building Resilience, Physical Side Effects, Calming Worries and Fears, Nutrition and Exercise for Cancer Survivors, Relationships After Cancer, Nurturing Inner Strength, Planning for the Future, and Happiness Going Forward. It also includes facilitated discussions to share experiences, demonstration/ practices of simple strategies for relaxation or health, and journaling/affirmation writing. The program is held in person at the VA for locals and via Zoom for non-local participants (hybrid format).
Results
A Time to Heal program for Veterans has been offered since 2016. In 2020 it was shortened from 12 weeks to 9 weeks. Since then, 24 veterans and 8 caregivers have completed the program and 13 have completed the evaluation/survey. On a scale of 1 (below expectations) to 5 (exceeded expectations), the program and book have consistently received rating averages of 4.5/5.0. Testimonials include: “Awesome program!” “Was hesitant at first, but so glad I decided to participate. I was able to open up my feelings and express them. I am grateful for the VA to have these resources.”
Conclusions
Recruitment for the program has relied on fliers and education from oncology staff. The feedback received from veterans with cancer, caregivers, and providers indicates a positive impact of this program. More study is needed to evaluate specific aspects of the program, guide participant recruitment, and determine best delivery methods for participants.
Background
Cancer diagnosis and treatment can be devastating! After treatment, a person often feels tired, weak, and worried while trying to put their life back together. This transition period is known to be difficult (www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/survivorship/new-normal). A Time to Heal for Veterans and their Caregivers (“wellness rehabilitation”) was created to provide support, information, and skills to help with this transition.
Methods
This 9-week program is based on a successful, well documented, evidence-based book and protocol developed in 2005, that has been updated and adapted for specific populations. The VA program has a customized participant book and is facilitated by a VA social worker and a VA oncology nurse. It includes weekly protocols of research-based educational presentations on the following topics: Building Resilience, Physical Side Effects, Calming Worries and Fears, Nutrition and Exercise for Cancer Survivors, Relationships After Cancer, Nurturing Inner Strength, Planning for the Future, and Happiness Going Forward. It also includes facilitated discussions to share experiences, demonstration/ practices of simple strategies for relaxation or health, and journaling/affirmation writing. The program is held in person at the VA for locals and via Zoom for non-local participants (hybrid format).
Results
A Time to Heal program for Veterans has been offered since 2016. In 2020 it was shortened from 12 weeks to 9 weeks. Since then, 24 veterans and 8 caregivers have completed the program and 13 have completed the evaluation/survey. On a scale of 1 (below expectations) to 5 (exceeded expectations), the program and book have consistently received rating averages of 4.5/5.0. Testimonials include: “Awesome program!” “Was hesitant at first, but so glad I decided to participate. I was able to open up my feelings and express them. I am grateful for the VA to have these resources.”
Conclusions
Recruitment for the program has relied on fliers and education from oncology staff. The feedback received from veterans with cancer, caregivers, and providers indicates a positive impact of this program. More study is needed to evaluate specific aspects of the program, guide participant recruitment, and determine best delivery methods for participants.
Background
Cancer diagnosis and treatment can be devastating! After treatment, a person often feels tired, weak, and worried while trying to put their life back together. This transition period is known to be difficult (www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/survivorship/new-normal). A Time to Heal for Veterans and their Caregivers (“wellness rehabilitation”) was created to provide support, information, and skills to help with this transition.
Methods
This 9-week program is based on a successful, well documented, evidence-based book and protocol developed in 2005, that has been updated and adapted for specific populations. The VA program has a customized participant book and is facilitated by a VA social worker and a VA oncology nurse. It includes weekly protocols of research-based educational presentations on the following topics: Building Resilience, Physical Side Effects, Calming Worries and Fears, Nutrition and Exercise for Cancer Survivors, Relationships After Cancer, Nurturing Inner Strength, Planning for the Future, and Happiness Going Forward. It also includes facilitated discussions to share experiences, demonstration/ practices of simple strategies for relaxation or health, and journaling/affirmation writing. The program is held in person at the VA for locals and via Zoom for non-local participants (hybrid format).
Results
A Time to Heal program for Veterans has been offered since 2016. In 2020 it was shortened from 12 weeks to 9 weeks. Since then, 24 veterans and 8 caregivers have completed the program and 13 have completed the evaluation/survey. On a scale of 1 (below expectations) to 5 (exceeded expectations), the program and book have consistently received rating averages of 4.5/5.0. Testimonials include: “Awesome program!” “Was hesitant at first, but so glad I decided to participate. I was able to open up my feelings and express them. I am grateful for the VA to have these resources.”
Conclusions
Recruitment for the program has relied on fliers and education from oncology staff. The feedback received from veterans with cancer, caregivers, and providers indicates a positive impact of this program. More study is needed to evaluate specific aspects of the program, guide participant recruitment, and determine best delivery methods for participants.
Identifying Barriers in Germline Genetic Testing Referrals for Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Experience
Background
Purpose: to review the number of genetic testing referrals for breast cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center and identify barriers that hinder testing, aiming to improve risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients. National guidelines recommend genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes in specific patient populations, such as those under 50, those with a high-risk family history, high-risk pathology, male breast cancer, or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Despite efforts to adhere to these guidelines, several barriers persist that limit testing rates among eligible patients.
Methods
The medical oncology team selected breast cancer as the focus for reviewing adherence to germline genetic testing referrals in the Stratton VA Medical Center. With assistance from cancer registrars, a list of genetics referrals for breast cancer from January to December 2023 was compiled. Descriptive analysis was conducted to assess referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, genetic testing outcomes, and reasons for non-completion of genetic testing.
Results
During the study period, 32 patients were referred for germline genetic testing for breast cancer. Of these, 26 (81%) completed the evaluation visit, and 11 (34%) underwent genetic testing. Of these, 7 patients had noteworthy results, and 2 patients (6%) were found to carry pathogenic variants: BRCA2 and CDH1. Reasons for non-completion included perceived irrelevance without biological children, need for additional time to consider testing, fear of exacerbating self-harm thoughts, and fear of losing service connection. Additionally, 2 patients did not meet the guidelines for testing per genetic counselor.
Conclusions
This project marks the initial step in identifying barriers to germline genetic testing for breast cancer based on an extensive review of patients diagnosed and treated at a single VA site. Despite the removal of the service connection clause from the consent form, some veterans still declined testing due to fear of losing their service connection. The findings emphasize the importance of educating providers on counseling techniques and education of veterans to enhance risk reduction strategies and patient care. Further research is essential to quantify the real-world outcomes and longterm impacts of improving genetic counseling rates on patient management and outcomes.
Background
Purpose: to review the number of genetic testing referrals for breast cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center and identify barriers that hinder testing, aiming to improve risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients. National guidelines recommend genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes in specific patient populations, such as those under 50, those with a high-risk family history, high-risk pathology, male breast cancer, or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Despite efforts to adhere to these guidelines, several barriers persist that limit testing rates among eligible patients.
Methods
The medical oncology team selected breast cancer as the focus for reviewing adherence to germline genetic testing referrals in the Stratton VA Medical Center. With assistance from cancer registrars, a list of genetics referrals for breast cancer from January to December 2023 was compiled. Descriptive analysis was conducted to assess referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, genetic testing outcomes, and reasons for non-completion of genetic testing.
Results
During the study period, 32 patients were referred for germline genetic testing for breast cancer. Of these, 26 (81%) completed the evaluation visit, and 11 (34%) underwent genetic testing. Of these, 7 patients had noteworthy results, and 2 patients (6%) were found to carry pathogenic variants: BRCA2 and CDH1. Reasons for non-completion included perceived irrelevance without biological children, need for additional time to consider testing, fear of exacerbating self-harm thoughts, and fear of losing service connection. Additionally, 2 patients did not meet the guidelines for testing per genetic counselor.
Conclusions
This project marks the initial step in identifying barriers to germline genetic testing for breast cancer based on an extensive review of patients diagnosed and treated at a single VA site. Despite the removal of the service connection clause from the consent form, some veterans still declined testing due to fear of losing their service connection. The findings emphasize the importance of educating providers on counseling techniques and education of veterans to enhance risk reduction strategies and patient care. Further research is essential to quantify the real-world outcomes and longterm impacts of improving genetic counseling rates on patient management and outcomes.
Background
Purpose: to review the number of genetic testing referrals for breast cancer at the Stratton VA Medical Center and identify barriers that hinder testing, aiming to improve risk reduction strategies and therapeutic options for patients. National guidelines recommend genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes in specific patient populations, such as those under 50, those with a high-risk family history, high-risk pathology, male breast cancer, or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Despite efforts to adhere to these guidelines, several barriers persist that limit testing rates among eligible patients.
Methods
The medical oncology team selected breast cancer as the focus for reviewing adherence to germline genetic testing referrals in the Stratton VA Medical Center. With assistance from cancer registrars, a list of genetics referrals for breast cancer from January to December 2023 was compiled. Descriptive analysis was conducted to assess referral rates, evaluation visit completion rates, genetic testing outcomes, and reasons for non-completion of genetic testing.
Results
During the study period, 32 patients were referred for germline genetic testing for breast cancer. Of these, 26 (81%) completed the evaluation visit, and 11 (34%) underwent genetic testing. Of these, 7 patients had noteworthy results, and 2 patients (6%) were found to carry pathogenic variants: BRCA2 and CDH1. Reasons for non-completion included perceived irrelevance without biological children, need for additional time to consider testing, fear of exacerbating self-harm thoughts, and fear of losing service connection. Additionally, 2 patients did not meet the guidelines for testing per genetic counselor.
Conclusions
This project marks the initial step in identifying barriers to germline genetic testing for breast cancer based on an extensive review of patients diagnosed and treated at a single VA site. Despite the removal of the service connection clause from the consent form, some veterans still declined testing due to fear of losing their service connection. The findings emphasize the importance of educating providers on counseling techniques and education of veterans to enhance risk reduction strategies and patient care. Further research is essential to quantify the real-world outcomes and longterm impacts of improving genetic counseling rates on patient management and outcomes.
ENT Multidisciplinary Workgroup
Background
The care of veterans with head and neck cancers requires a team approach among multiple disciplines throughout the entire trajectory of their cancer treatment course. Veterans with head and neck cancer have complicated treatments including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and reconstructive surgery which can affect swallow function, speech, taste and physical appearance. Many patients who get treated for head and neck cancer will have lasting side effects of treatment. Veterans with cancer are more likely than the general population to have mental health comorbidities such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. Many head and neck cancer patients have used tobacco and/or alcohol as coping mechanisms for these issues. A new diagnosis of cancer may exacerbate their mental illness. Tobacco cessation may exacerbate anxiety for patients who have used tobacco as a coping mechanism. Ongoing alcohol use can complicate treatment. All of these issues can create delays in care.
Methods
In August 2019, a task force (“the ENT Multidisciplinary Workgroup”) was formed at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) including representatives from ENT, Speech Pathology, Nutrition, Palliative Care and Oncology with the specific goal of improved coordination of care for head and neck cancer patients. Regular weekly meetings began in September 2019 to identify and track patients and to make referrals for appropriate diagnostic testing, treatment and supportive care.
Discussion
Weekly meeting among the core members of the ENT workgroup led to identification of patient needs earlier in the illness course than was observed prior to this workgroup initiative. Each week several opportunities are identified to improve patient care. This is a dynamic, ongoing process that has improved communication among key members of the interdisciplinary team that cares for these very complex patients and has led to the development of quality improvement initiatives that are reproducible at other VA sites.
Background
The care of veterans with head and neck cancers requires a team approach among multiple disciplines throughout the entire trajectory of their cancer treatment course. Veterans with head and neck cancer have complicated treatments including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and reconstructive surgery which can affect swallow function, speech, taste and physical appearance. Many patients who get treated for head and neck cancer will have lasting side effects of treatment. Veterans with cancer are more likely than the general population to have mental health comorbidities such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. Many head and neck cancer patients have used tobacco and/or alcohol as coping mechanisms for these issues. A new diagnosis of cancer may exacerbate their mental illness. Tobacco cessation may exacerbate anxiety for patients who have used tobacco as a coping mechanism. Ongoing alcohol use can complicate treatment. All of these issues can create delays in care.
Methods
In August 2019, a task force (“the ENT Multidisciplinary Workgroup”) was formed at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) including representatives from ENT, Speech Pathology, Nutrition, Palliative Care and Oncology with the specific goal of improved coordination of care for head and neck cancer patients. Regular weekly meetings began in September 2019 to identify and track patients and to make referrals for appropriate diagnostic testing, treatment and supportive care.
Discussion
Weekly meeting among the core members of the ENT workgroup led to identification of patient needs earlier in the illness course than was observed prior to this workgroup initiative. Each week several opportunities are identified to improve patient care. This is a dynamic, ongoing process that has improved communication among key members of the interdisciplinary team that cares for these very complex patients and has led to the development of quality improvement initiatives that are reproducible at other VA sites.
Background
The care of veterans with head and neck cancers requires a team approach among multiple disciplines throughout the entire trajectory of their cancer treatment course. Veterans with head and neck cancer have complicated treatments including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and reconstructive surgery which can affect swallow function, speech, taste and physical appearance. Many patients who get treated for head and neck cancer will have lasting side effects of treatment. Veterans with cancer are more likely than the general population to have mental health comorbidities such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. Many head and neck cancer patients have used tobacco and/or alcohol as coping mechanisms for these issues. A new diagnosis of cancer may exacerbate their mental illness. Tobacco cessation may exacerbate anxiety for patients who have used tobacco as a coping mechanism. Ongoing alcohol use can complicate treatment. All of these issues can create delays in care.
Methods
In August 2019, a task force (“the ENT Multidisciplinary Workgroup”) was formed at VA Connecticut Healthcare System (“VACHS”) including representatives from ENT, Speech Pathology, Nutrition, Palliative Care and Oncology with the specific goal of improved coordination of care for head and neck cancer patients. Regular weekly meetings began in September 2019 to identify and track patients and to make referrals for appropriate diagnostic testing, treatment and supportive care.
Discussion
Weekly meeting among the core members of the ENT workgroup led to identification of patient needs earlier in the illness course than was observed prior to this workgroup initiative. Each week several opportunities are identified to improve patient care. This is a dynamic, ongoing process that has improved communication among key members of the interdisciplinary team that cares for these very complex patients and has led to the development of quality improvement initiatives that are reproducible at other VA sites.
National Tele-Oncology High-Risk Breast Clinic Program
Background
Assess implementation outcomes of the National Tele-Oncology’s first high-risk breast clinic program, part of the Breast and Gynecological System of Excellence (BGSOE). Women Veterans are the fastest-growing demographic in the Veteran population. Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer among women. An estimated 15% of women will be considered high risk for BC at some point during their lifetime. For these reasons, the BGSOE high-risk breast clinic offers screening and risk reduction care to women with an increased risk for BC.
Methods
We described the patients seen in the BGSOE high-risk breast clinic since its implementation in 2023. We collected demographic and geographic information, genetic testing status, imaging, and risk-reducing agents (RRA) use. We reported percentages for categorical variables, followed by the total number of patients in parenthesis.
Results
There are a total of 124 patients served since 2023 (123 female, 1 male). The average age was 44.6 years. 61.3% (76) of patients lived in an urban setting, while 38.7% (48) lived in rural areas. Most patients were White at 63.7% (79), followed by African American 20.2%(25), Other 5.6% (7), and Unknown/declined 10.5%(13). Regarding ethnicity, 9% (12) were Hispanic. The most common reasons for referral to the clinic were a family history of breast cancer 89.2% (111), followed by high-risk genetic pathogenic variants 5.6% (7), mammary dysplasia 3.2% (4), inconclusive imaging 0.8% (1) and personal history of radiation 0.8%(1). 2 patients were started on RRAs. 56% (70) of patients had genetic testing discussions. The clinic coordinated 50 mammograms and 10 breast MRIs.
Conclusions
We demonstrated the successful implementation of the BGSOE high-risk breast program. We reached multiple historically underserved populations, including a high percentage of rural and African American patients. We also facilitated breast MRIs. Similar to other studies, there was a low uptake of RRA in our clinic. BGSOE is now working on a clinical pathway to standardize RRA and breast imaging recommendations for high-risk women. There are many more women Veterans at risk for BC and future expansion of the highrisk breast clinic could further raise awareness of lifetime breast cancer risk and risk-reducing and surveillance options in Veterans.
Background
Assess implementation outcomes of the National Tele-Oncology’s first high-risk breast clinic program, part of the Breast and Gynecological System of Excellence (BGSOE). Women Veterans are the fastest-growing demographic in the Veteran population. Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer among women. An estimated 15% of women will be considered high risk for BC at some point during their lifetime. For these reasons, the BGSOE high-risk breast clinic offers screening and risk reduction care to women with an increased risk for BC.
Methods
We described the patients seen in the BGSOE high-risk breast clinic since its implementation in 2023. We collected demographic and geographic information, genetic testing status, imaging, and risk-reducing agents (RRA) use. We reported percentages for categorical variables, followed by the total number of patients in parenthesis.
Results
There are a total of 124 patients served since 2023 (123 female, 1 male). The average age was 44.6 years. 61.3% (76) of patients lived in an urban setting, while 38.7% (48) lived in rural areas. Most patients were White at 63.7% (79), followed by African American 20.2%(25), Other 5.6% (7), and Unknown/declined 10.5%(13). Regarding ethnicity, 9% (12) were Hispanic. The most common reasons for referral to the clinic were a family history of breast cancer 89.2% (111), followed by high-risk genetic pathogenic variants 5.6% (7), mammary dysplasia 3.2% (4), inconclusive imaging 0.8% (1) and personal history of radiation 0.8%(1). 2 patients were started on RRAs. 56% (70) of patients had genetic testing discussions. The clinic coordinated 50 mammograms and 10 breast MRIs.
Conclusions
We demonstrated the successful implementation of the BGSOE high-risk breast program. We reached multiple historically underserved populations, including a high percentage of rural and African American patients. We also facilitated breast MRIs. Similar to other studies, there was a low uptake of RRA in our clinic. BGSOE is now working on a clinical pathway to standardize RRA and breast imaging recommendations for high-risk women. There are many more women Veterans at risk for BC and future expansion of the highrisk breast clinic could further raise awareness of lifetime breast cancer risk and risk-reducing and surveillance options in Veterans.
Background
Assess implementation outcomes of the National Tele-Oncology’s first high-risk breast clinic program, part of the Breast and Gynecological System of Excellence (BGSOE). Women Veterans are the fastest-growing demographic in the Veteran population. Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer among women. An estimated 15% of women will be considered high risk for BC at some point during their lifetime. For these reasons, the BGSOE high-risk breast clinic offers screening and risk reduction care to women with an increased risk for BC.
Methods
We described the patients seen in the BGSOE high-risk breast clinic since its implementation in 2023. We collected demographic and geographic information, genetic testing status, imaging, and risk-reducing agents (RRA) use. We reported percentages for categorical variables, followed by the total number of patients in parenthesis.
Results
There are a total of 124 patients served since 2023 (123 female, 1 male). The average age was 44.6 years. 61.3% (76) of patients lived in an urban setting, while 38.7% (48) lived in rural areas. Most patients were White at 63.7% (79), followed by African American 20.2%(25), Other 5.6% (7), and Unknown/declined 10.5%(13). Regarding ethnicity, 9% (12) were Hispanic. The most common reasons for referral to the clinic were a family history of breast cancer 89.2% (111), followed by high-risk genetic pathogenic variants 5.6% (7), mammary dysplasia 3.2% (4), inconclusive imaging 0.8% (1) and personal history of radiation 0.8%(1). 2 patients were started on RRAs. 56% (70) of patients had genetic testing discussions. The clinic coordinated 50 mammograms and 10 breast MRIs.
Conclusions
We demonstrated the successful implementation of the BGSOE high-risk breast program. We reached multiple historically underserved populations, including a high percentage of rural and African American patients. We also facilitated breast MRIs. Similar to other studies, there was a low uptake of RRA in our clinic. BGSOE is now working on a clinical pathway to standardize RRA and breast imaging recommendations for high-risk women. There are many more women Veterans at risk for BC and future expansion of the highrisk breast clinic could further raise awareness of lifetime breast cancer risk and risk-reducing and surveillance options in Veterans.
Creating a Urology Prostate Cancer Note, a National Oncology and Surgery Office Collaboration for Prostate Cancer Clinical Pathway Utilization
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy diagnosis within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Prostate Cancer Clinical Pathways (PCCP) were developed to enable providers to treat all Veterans with prostate cancer at subject matter expert level.
Discussion
The PCCP was launched in February 2021; however, provider documentation of PCCP is variable across the VA healthcare system and within the PCCP, specific flow maps have differential use. For example, the Very Low Risk flow map has seven unique Veterans entered, whereas the Molecular Testing flow map has over 3,900 unique Veterans entered. One clear reason for this disparity in pathway documentation use is that local prostate cancer is managed by urology and their documentation of the PCCP is not as widespread as the medical oncologists. The National Oncology Program developed clinical note templates to document PCCP that medical oncologist use which has increased utilization. To increase urology specific flow map use, a collaboration between the National Surgery Office and National Oncology Program was established to develop a Urology Prostate Cancer Note (UPCN). The UPCN was designed by urologists with assistance from a medical oncologist and a clinical applications coordinator. The UPCN will function as a working clinical note for urologists and has the PCCPs embedded into reminder dialog templates, which when completed generate health factors. The health factors that are generated from the UPCN are data mined to record PCCP use and to perform data analytics. The UPCN is in the testing phase at three pilot test sites and is scheduled to be deployed summer 2024. The collaborative effort is aligned with the VHA directives outlined in the Cleland Dole Act.
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy diagnosis within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Prostate Cancer Clinical Pathways (PCCP) were developed to enable providers to treat all Veterans with prostate cancer at subject matter expert level.
Discussion
The PCCP was launched in February 2021; however, provider documentation of PCCP is variable across the VA healthcare system and within the PCCP, specific flow maps have differential use. For example, the Very Low Risk flow map has seven unique Veterans entered, whereas the Molecular Testing flow map has over 3,900 unique Veterans entered. One clear reason for this disparity in pathway documentation use is that local prostate cancer is managed by urology and their documentation of the PCCP is not as widespread as the medical oncologists. The National Oncology Program developed clinical note templates to document PCCP that medical oncologist use which has increased utilization. To increase urology specific flow map use, a collaboration between the National Surgery Office and National Oncology Program was established to develop a Urology Prostate Cancer Note (UPCN). The UPCN was designed by urologists with assistance from a medical oncologist and a clinical applications coordinator. The UPCN will function as a working clinical note for urologists and has the PCCPs embedded into reminder dialog templates, which when completed generate health factors. The health factors that are generated from the UPCN are data mined to record PCCP use and to perform data analytics. The UPCN is in the testing phase at three pilot test sites and is scheduled to be deployed summer 2024. The collaborative effort is aligned with the VHA directives outlined in the Cleland Dole Act.
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy diagnosis within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Prostate Cancer Clinical Pathways (PCCP) were developed to enable providers to treat all Veterans with prostate cancer at subject matter expert level.
Discussion
The PCCP was launched in February 2021; however, provider documentation of PCCP is variable across the VA healthcare system and within the PCCP, specific flow maps have differential use. For example, the Very Low Risk flow map has seven unique Veterans entered, whereas the Molecular Testing flow map has over 3,900 unique Veterans entered. One clear reason for this disparity in pathway documentation use is that local prostate cancer is managed by urology and their documentation of the PCCP is not as widespread as the medical oncologists. The National Oncology Program developed clinical note templates to document PCCP that medical oncologist use which has increased utilization. To increase urology specific flow map use, a collaboration between the National Surgery Office and National Oncology Program was established to develop a Urology Prostate Cancer Note (UPCN). The UPCN was designed by urologists with assistance from a medical oncologist and a clinical applications coordinator. The UPCN will function as a working clinical note for urologists and has the PCCPs embedded into reminder dialog templates, which when completed generate health factors. The health factors that are generated from the UPCN are data mined to record PCCP use and to perform data analytics. The UPCN is in the testing phase at three pilot test sites and is scheduled to be deployed summer 2024. The collaborative effort is aligned with the VHA directives outlined in the Cleland Dole Act.
Impact of a Pharmacist-Led Emergency Department Urinary Tract Infection Aftercare Program
The emergency department (ED) is estimated to provide half of all medical care in the United States, serving as a conduit between ambulatory care and inpatient settings.1 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, around 11 million antibiotic prescriptions were written in EDs in 2021.2 A previous study conducted at a US Department of Veterans (VA) Affairs medical center found that about 40% of all antimicrobial use in the ED was inappropriate.3 The ED is a critical and high-yield space for antimicrobial stewardship efforts.4
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common reasons for ED visits.4 In 2018, there were about 3 million UTI discharge diagnoses reported in the US.5 Diagnosis and management of UTIs can vary depending on patient sex, upper or lower urinary tract involvement, and the severity of the infection.6 Most UTIs are uncomplicated and can be safely treated with oral antibiotics at home; however, if mismanaged, they can lead to increased morbidity and mortality.6
Antimicrobial prescribing in the ED is predominantly empiric with challenges such as diverse patient needs, rising antimicrobial resistance, and limited microbiologic data at the time of discharge.6 The lack of a standardized process for urine culture follow-up after discharge represents another major complicating factor in the outpatient management of UTIs. Studies have shown that ED pharmacists play a vital role in providing quality follow-up care by optimizing antimicrobial use, resulting in improved patient outcomes in various infectious syndromes, including UTIs.7-13
Program Description
In June 2021, the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) piloted an ED pharmacist-led aftercare program to optimize postdischarge antimicrobial therapy management of UTIs. After a patient is discharged from the ED, the clinical pharmacist reviews urine culture results, interprets available antimicrobial susceptibility, conducts patient interviews, adjusts for patient-specific factors, and addresses potential antibiotic-associated adverse events. The ED pharmacist is then responsible for managing therapy changes in consultation with an ED health care practitioner (HCP).
Methods
This single center, retrospective chart review included veterans who were discharged with an oral antibiotic for UTI treatment from the VAGLAHS ED and evaluated by clinical pharmacists between June 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. For patients with multiple ED visits, only the initial ED encounter was reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had a complicated UTI diagnosis requiring intravenous antibiotics or if they were admitted to the hospital. Data were generated through the Corporate Data Warehouse by VAGLAHS Pharmacy Informatics Service. Each patient was assigned a random number using the Microsoft Excel formula =RAND( ) and then sorted in chronological order to ensure randomization at baseline prior to data collection.
The primary aim of this quality improvement project was to characterize the impact of ED pharmacist-led interventions by evaluating the proportion of empiric to targeted therapy adjustments, antibiotic therapy discontinuation, and unmodified index treatment. The secondary objectives evaluated time to ED pharmacist aftercare follow-up, days of antibiotic exposure avoided, 30-day ED visits related to a urinary source, and transition of care documentation. Descriptive statistics were performed; median and IQR were calculated in Microsoft Excel.
Results
A total of 548 ED UTI encounters were identified, including 449 patients with an index ED UTI aftercare follow-up evaluation. Of the 246 randomly screened patients, 200 veterans met inclusion criteria. The median age of included patients was 73 years and most (83.0%) were male (Table 1). One hundred thirty-two patients (66.0%) had a cystitis diagnosis, followed by complicated UTI (14.0%) and catheter-associated UTI (11.0%). The most frequently isolated uropathogen was Escherichia coli (30.5%). ß-lactams were prescribed for empiric treatment to 121 patients (60.5%), followed by 36 fluoroquinolones prescriptions (18.0%). The median treatment duration was 7 days.
The median time to ED pharmacist UTI aftercare evaluation was 2 days (Table 2). Sixty-seven cases required pharmacist intervention, which included 34 transitions to targeted therapy (17.0%) and 33 antibiotic discontinuations (16.5%). A total of 144 days of antibiotic exposure was avoided (ie, days antibiotic was prescribed minus days therapy administered). The majority of cases without modification to index therapy were due to appropriate empiric treatment selection (49.0%). Twelve (6.0%) patients had a subsequent urinary-related ED visit within 30 days due to 8 cases of persistent and/or worsening urinary symptoms (66.7%) and 2 cases of recurrent UTI (16.7%).
Discussion
Outpatient antibiotic prescribing for UTI management in the ED is challenging due to the absence of microbiologic data at time of diagnosis and lack of consistent transition of care follow-up.6 The VAGLAHS ED UTI aftercare program piloted a pharmacist-driven protocol for review of all urine cultures and optimization of antibiotic therapy.
Most ED UTI discharges that did not require pharmacist intervention had empiric treatment selection active against the clinical isolates. This suggests that the ED prescribing practices concur with theVAGLAHS antibiogram and treatment guidelines. Clinical pharmacists intervened in about one-third of UTI cases, which included modification or discontinuation of therapy. Further review of these cases demonstrated that about half of those with a subsequent 30-day ED visit related to a urinary source had therapy modification. Most patients with a 30-day ED visit had persistent and/or worsening urinary symptoms, prompting further exploratory workup.
Although this project did not evaluate time from urine culture results to aftercare review, the VAGLAHS ED pharmacists had a median follow-up time of 48 hours. This timeline mirrors the typical duration for urine culture results, suggesting that the pilot program allowed for real time pharmacist review and intervention. Consequently, this initiative resulted in the avoidance of 144 unnecessary days of antibiotic exposure.
While the current protocol highlights the work that ED pharmacists provide postdischarge, there are additional opportunities for pharmacist intervention. For example, one-third of these clinical encounters were completed without HCP notification, indicating an ongoing need to ensure continuity of care. Additionally, all 16 patients diagnosed with asymptomatic bacteriuria were discharged with an oral antibiotic, highlighting an opportunity to further optimize antibiotic prescribing prior to discharge. ED pharmacists continue to play an important role in mitigating inappropriate and unnecessary antibiotic use, which will reduce antibiotic-related adverse drug reactions, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antimicrobial resistance.
Limitations
Inconsistent and incomplete documentation of clinical data in the electronic health record made the characterization of patient encounters challenging. Furthermore, ED HCPs varying clinical practices may have impacted the heterogeneity of UTI diagnosis and management at VAGLAHS.
Conclusions
Implementation of an ED pharmacist-driven UTI aftercare program at VAGLAHS reduced unnecessary antimicrobial exposure, improved antibiotic management, and ensured continuity of care postdischarge. Findings from our project implicate possible future pharmacist involvement predischarge, such as targeting inappropriate asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment.14-16 This pilot program suggested the feasibility of integrating antimicrobial stewardship practices within the ED setting in an ongoing effort to improve the quality of care for veterans.
1. Marcozzi D, Carr B, Liferidge A, Baehr N, Browne B.. Trends in the contribution of emergency departments to the provision of hospital-associated health care in the USA. Int J Health Serv. 2018;48(2):267–288. doi:10.1177/0020731417734498
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outpatient antibiotic prescriptions — United States, 2021. Updated October 4, 2022. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/data/report-2021.html
3. Timbrook TT, Caffrey AR, Ovalle A, et al. Assessments of opportunities to improve antibiotic prescribing in an emergency department: a period prevalence survey. Infect Dis Ther. 2017;6(4):497-505. doi:10.1007/s40121-017-0175-9
4. Pulia M, Redwood R, May L. Antimicrobial stewardship in the emergency department. Emerg Med Clin North. 2018;36(4):853-872. doi:10.1016/j.emc.2018.06.012
5. Weiss A, Jiang H. Most frequent reasons for emergency department visits, 2018. December 16, 2021. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb286-ED-Frequent-Conditions-2018.pdf
6. Abrahamian FM, Moran GJ, Talan DA. Urinary tract infections in the emergency department. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2008;22(1):73-87. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2007.10.002
7. Dumkow LE, Kenney RM, MacDonald NC, Carreno JJ, Malhotra MK, Davis SL. Impact of a multidisciplinary culture follow-up program of antimicrobial therapy in the emergency department. Infect Dis Ther. 2014;3(1):45-53. doi:10.1007/s40121-014-0026-x
8. Davis LC, Covey RB, Weston JS, Hu BB, Laine GA. Pharmacist-driven antimicrobial optimization in the emergency department. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(5 Suppl 1):S49-S56. doi:10.2146/sp150036
9. Lingenfelter E, Darkin Z, Fritz K, Youngquist S, Madsen T, Fix M. ED pharmacist monitoring of provider antibiotic selection aids appropriate treatment for outpatient UTI. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(8):1600-1603. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2016.05.076
10. Zhang X, Rowan N, Pflugeisen BM, Alajbegovic S. Urine culture guided antibiotic interventions: a pharmacist driven antimicrobial stewardship effort in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(4):594-598. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.036
11. Percival KM, Valenti KM, Schmittling SE, Strader BD, Lopez RR, Bergman SJ. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention on urinary tract infection treatment in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(9):1129-1133. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.067
12. Almulhim AS, Aldayyen A, Yenina K, Chiappini A, Khan TM. Optimization of antibiotic selection in the emergency department for urine culture follow ups, a retrospective pre-post intervention study: clinical pharmacist efforts. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019;12(1):8. Published online April 9, 2019. doi:10.1186/s40545-019-0168-z
13. Stoll K, Feltz E, Ebert S. Pharmacist-driven implementation of outpatient antibiotic prescribing algorithms improves guideline adherence in the emergency department. J Pharm Pract. 2021;34(6):875-881. doi:10.1177/0897190020930979
14. Petty LA, Vaughn VM, Flanders SA, et al. Assessment of testing and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria initiated in the emergency department. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(12):ofaa537. Published online November 3, 2020. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa537
15. Ingalls EM, Veillette JJ, Olson J, et al. Impact of a multifaceted intervention on antibiotic prescribing for cystitis and asymptomatic bacteriuria in 23 community hospital emergency departments. Hosp Pharm. 2023;58(4):401-407. doi:10.1177/00185787231159578
16. Daniel M, Keller S, Mozafarihashjin M, Pahwa A, Soong C. An implementation guide to reducing overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(2):271-276.doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7290
The emergency department (ED) is estimated to provide half of all medical care in the United States, serving as a conduit between ambulatory care and inpatient settings.1 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, around 11 million antibiotic prescriptions were written in EDs in 2021.2 A previous study conducted at a US Department of Veterans (VA) Affairs medical center found that about 40% of all antimicrobial use in the ED was inappropriate.3 The ED is a critical and high-yield space for antimicrobial stewardship efforts.4
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common reasons for ED visits.4 In 2018, there were about 3 million UTI discharge diagnoses reported in the US.5 Diagnosis and management of UTIs can vary depending on patient sex, upper or lower urinary tract involvement, and the severity of the infection.6 Most UTIs are uncomplicated and can be safely treated with oral antibiotics at home; however, if mismanaged, they can lead to increased morbidity and mortality.6
Antimicrobial prescribing in the ED is predominantly empiric with challenges such as diverse patient needs, rising antimicrobial resistance, and limited microbiologic data at the time of discharge.6 The lack of a standardized process for urine culture follow-up after discharge represents another major complicating factor in the outpatient management of UTIs. Studies have shown that ED pharmacists play a vital role in providing quality follow-up care by optimizing antimicrobial use, resulting in improved patient outcomes in various infectious syndromes, including UTIs.7-13
Program Description
In June 2021, the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) piloted an ED pharmacist-led aftercare program to optimize postdischarge antimicrobial therapy management of UTIs. After a patient is discharged from the ED, the clinical pharmacist reviews urine culture results, interprets available antimicrobial susceptibility, conducts patient interviews, adjusts for patient-specific factors, and addresses potential antibiotic-associated adverse events. The ED pharmacist is then responsible for managing therapy changes in consultation with an ED health care practitioner (HCP).
Methods
This single center, retrospective chart review included veterans who were discharged with an oral antibiotic for UTI treatment from the VAGLAHS ED and evaluated by clinical pharmacists between June 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. For patients with multiple ED visits, only the initial ED encounter was reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had a complicated UTI diagnosis requiring intravenous antibiotics or if they were admitted to the hospital. Data were generated through the Corporate Data Warehouse by VAGLAHS Pharmacy Informatics Service. Each patient was assigned a random number using the Microsoft Excel formula =RAND( ) and then sorted in chronological order to ensure randomization at baseline prior to data collection.
The primary aim of this quality improvement project was to characterize the impact of ED pharmacist-led interventions by evaluating the proportion of empiric to targeted therapy adjustments, antibiotic therapy discontinuation, and unmodified index treatment. The secondary objectives evaluated time to ED pharmacist aftercare follow-up, days of antibiotic exposure avoided, 30-day ED visits related to a urinary source, and transition of care documentation. Descriptive statistics were performed; median and IQR were calculated in Microsoft Excel.
Results
A total of 548 ED UTI encounters were identified, including 449 patients with an index ED UTI aftercare follow-up evaluation. Of the 246 randomly screened patients, 200 veterans met inclusion criteria. The median age of included patients was 73 years and most (83.0%) were male (Table 1). One hundred thirty-two patients (66.0%) had a cystitis diagnosis, followed by complicated UTI (14.0%) and catheter-associated UTI (11.0%). The most frequently isolated uropathogen was Escherichia coli (30.5%). ß-lactams were prescribed for empiric treatment to 121 patients (60.5%), followed by 36 fluoroquinolones prescriptions (18.0%). The median treatment duration was 7 days.
The median time to ED pharmacist UTI aftercare evaluation was 2 days (Table 2). Sixty-seven cases required pharmacist intervention, which included 34 transitions to targeted therapy (17.0%) and 33 antibiotic discontinuations (16.5%). A total of 144 days of antibiotic exposure was avoided (ie, days antibiotic was prescribed minus days therapy administered). The majority of cases without modification to index therapy were due to appropriate empiric treatment selection (49.0%). Twelve (6.0%) patients had a subsequent urinary-related ED visit within 30 days due to 8 cases of persistent and/or worsening urinary symptoms (66.7%) and 2 cases of recurrent UTI (16.7%).
Discussion
Outpatient antibiotic prescribing for UTI management in the ED is challenging due to the absence of microbiologic data at time of diagnosis and lack of consistent transition of care follow-up.6 The VAGLAHS ED UTI aftercare program piloted a pharmacist-driven protocol for review of all urine cultures and optimization of antibiotic therapy.
Most ED UTI discharges that did not require pharmacist intervention had empiric treatment selection active against the clinical isolates. This suggests that the ED prescribing practices concur with theVAGLAHS antibiogram and treatment guidelines. Clinical pharmacists intervened in about one-third of UTI cases, which included modification or discontinuation of therapy. Further review of these cases demonstrated that about half of those with a subsequent 30-day ED visit related to a urinary source had therapy modification. Most patients with a 30-day ED visit had persistent and/or worsening urinary symptoms, prompting further exploratory workup.
Although this project did not evaluate time from urine culture results to aftercare review, the VAGLAHS ED pharmacists had a median follow-up time of 48 hours. This timeline mirrors the typical duration for urine culture results, suggesting that the pilot program allowed for real time pharmacist review and intervention. Consequently, this initiative resulted in the avoidance of 144 unnecessary days of antibiotic exposure.
While the current protocol highlights the work that ED pharmacists provide postdischarge, there are additional opportunities for pharmacist intervention. For example, one-third of these clinical encounters were completed without HCP notification, indicating an ongoing need to ensure continuity of care. Additionally, all 16 patients diagnosed with asymptomatic bacteriuria were discharged with an oral antibiotic, highlighting an opportunity to further optimize antibiotic prescribing prior to discharge. ED pharmacists continue to play an important role in mitigating inappropriate and unnecessary antibiotic use, which will reduce antibiotic-related adverse drug reactions, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antimicrobial resistance.
Limitations
Inconsistent and incomplete documentation of clinical data in the electronic health record made the characterization of patient encounters challenging. Furthermore, ED HCPs varying clinical practices may have impacted the heterogeneity of UTI diagnosis and management at VAGLAHS.
Conclusions
Implementation of an ED pharmacist-driven UTI aftercare program at VAGLAHS reduced unnecessary antimicrobial exposure, improved antibiotic management, and ensured continuity of care postdischarge. Findings from our project implicate possible future pharmacist involvement predischarge, such as targeting inappropriate asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment.14-16 This pilot program suggested the feasibility of integrating antimicrobial stewardship practices within the ED setting in an ongoing effort to improve the quality of care for veterans.
The emergency department (ED) is estimated to provide half of all medical care in the United States, serving as a conduit between ambulatory care and inpatient settings.1 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, around 11 million antibiotic prescriptions were written in EDs in 2021.2 A previous study conducted at a US Department of Veterans (VA) Affairs medical center found that about 40% of all antimicrobial use in the ED was inappropriate.3 The ED is a critical and high-yield space for antimicrobial stewardship efforts.4
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common reasons for ED visits.4 In 2018, there were about 3 million UTI discharge diagnoses reported in the US.5 Diagnosis and management of UTIs can vary depending on patient sex, upper or lower urinary tract involvement, and the severity of the infection.6 Most UTIs are uncomplicated and can be safely treated with oral antibiotics at home; however, if mismanaged, they can lead to increased morbidity and mortality.6
Antimicrobial prescribing in the ED is predominantly empiric with challenges such as diverse patient needs, rising antimicrobial resistance, and limited microbiologic data at the time of discharge.6 The lack of a standardized process for urine culture follow-up after discharge represents another major complicating factor in the outpatient management of UTIs. Studies have shown that ED pharmacists play a vital role in providing quality follow-up care by optimizing antimicrobial use, resulting in improved patient outcomes in various infectious syndromes, including UTIs.7-13
Program Description
In June 2021, the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) piloted an ED pharmacist-led aftercare program to optimize postdischarge antimicrobial therapy management of UTIs. After a patient is discharged from the ED, the clinical pharmacist reviews urine culture results, interprets available antimicrobial susceptibility, conducts patient interviews, adjusts for patient-specific factors, and addresses potential antibiotic-associated adverse events. The ED pharmacist is then responsible for managing therapy changes in consultation with an ED health care practitioner (HCP).
Methods
This single center, retrospective chart review included veterans who were discharged with an oral antibiotic for UTI treatment from the VAGLAHS ED and evaluated by clinical pharmacists between June 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. For patients with multiple ED visits, only the initial ED encounter was reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had a complicated UTI diagnosis requiring intravenous antibiotics or if they were admitted to the hospital. Data were generated through the Corporate Data Warehouse by VAGLAHS Pharmacy Informatics Service. Each patient was assigned a random number using the Microsoft Excel formula =RAND( ) and then sorted in chronological order to ensure randomization at baseline prior to data collection.
The primary aim of this quality improvement project was to characterize the impact of ED pharmacist-led interventions by evaluating the proportion of empiric to targeted therapy adjustments, antibiotic therapy discontinuation, and unmodified index treatment. The secondary objectives evaluated time to ED pharmacist aftercare follow-up, days of antibiotic exposure avoided, 30-day ED visits related to a urinary source, and transition of care documentation. Descriptive statistics were performed; median and IQR were calculated in Microsoft Excel.
Results
A total of 548 ED UTI encounters were identified, including 449 patients with an index ED UTI aftercare follow-up evaluation. Of the 246 randomly screened patients, 200 veterans met inclusion criteria. The median age of included patients was 73 years and most (83.0%) were male (Table 1). One hundred thirty-two patients (66.0%) had a cystitis diagnosis, followed by complicated UTI (14.0%) and catheter-associated UTI (11.0%). The most frequently isolated uropathogen was Escherichia coli (30.5%). ß-lactams were prescribed for empiric treatment to 121 patients (60.5%), followed by 36 fluoroquinolones prescriptions (18.0%). The median treatment duration was 7 days.
The median time to ED pharmacist UTI aftercare evaluation was 2 days (Table 2). Sixty-seven cases required pharmacist intervention, which included 34 transitions to targeted therapy (17.0%) and 33 antibiotic discontinuations (16.5%). A total of 144 days of antibiotic exposure was avoided (ie, days antibiotic was prescribed minus days therapy administered). The majority of cases without modification to index therapy were due to appropriate empiric treatment selection (49.0%). Twelve (6.0%) patients had a subsequent urinary-related ED visit within 30 days due to 8 cases of persistent and/or worsening urinary symptoms (66.7%) and 2 cases of recurrent UTI (16.7%).
Discussion
Outpatient antibiotic prescribing for UTI management in the ED is challenging due to the absence of microbiologic data at time of diagnosis and lack of consistent transition of care follow-up.6 The VAGLAHS ED UTI aftercare program piloted a pharmacist-driven protocol for review of all urine cultures and optimization of antibiotic therapy.
Most ED UTI discharges that did not require pharmacist intervention had empiric treatment selection active against the clinical isolates. This suggests that the ED prescribing practices concur with theVAGLAHS antibiogram and treatment guidelines. Clinical pharmacists intervened in about one-third of UTI cases, which included modification or discontinuation of therapy. Further review of these cases demonstrated that about half of those with a subsequent 30-day ED visit related to a urinary source had therapy modification. Most patients with a 30-day ED visit had persistent and/or worsening urinary symptoms, prompting further exploratory workup.
Although this project did not evaluate time from urine culture results to aftercare review, the VAGLAHS ED pharmacists had a median follow-up time of 48 hours. This timeline mirrors the typical duration for urine culture results, suggesting that the pilot program allowed for real time pharmacist review and intervention. Consequently, this initiative resulted in the avoidance of 144 unnecessary days of antibiotic exposure.
While the current protocol highlights the work that ED pharmacists provide postdischarge, there are additional opportunities for pharmacist intervention. For example, one-third of these clinical encounters were completed without HCP notification, indicating an ongoing need to ensure continuity of care. Additionally, all 16 patients diagnosed with asymptomatic bacteriuria were discharged with an oral antibiotic, highlighting an opportunity to further optimize antibiotic prescribing prior to discharge. ED pharmacists continue to play an important role in mitigating inappropriate and unnecessary antibiotic use, which will reduce antibiotic-related adverse drug reactions, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antimicrobial resistance.
Limitations
Inconsistent and incomplete documentation of clinical data in the electronic health record made the characterization of patient encounters challenging. Furthermore, ED HCPs varying clinical practices may have impacted the heterogeneity of UTI diagnosis and management at VAGLAHS.
Conclusions
Implementation of an ED pharmacist-driven UTI aftercare program at VAGLAHS reduced unnecessary antimicrobial exposure, improved antibiotic management, and ensured continuity of care postdischarge. Findings from our project implicate possible future pharmacist involvement predischarge, such as targeting inappropriate asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment.14-16 This pilot program suggested the feasibility of integrating antimicrobial stewardship practices within the ED setting in an ongoing effort to improve the quality of care for veterans.
1. Marcozzi D, Carr B, Liferidge A, Baehr N, Browne B.. Trends in the contribution of emergency departments to the provision of hospital-associated health care in the USA. Int J Health Serv. 2018;48(2):267–288. doi:10.1177/0020731417734498
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outpatient antibiotic prescriptions — United States, 2021. Updated October 4, 2022. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/data/report-2021.html
3. Timbrook TT, Caffrey AR, Ovalle A, et al. Assessments of opportunities to improve antibiotic prescribing in an emergency department: a period prevalence survey. Infect Dis Ther. 2017;6(4):497-505. doi:10.1007/s40121-017-0175-9
4. Pulia M, Redwood R, May L. Antimicrobial stewardship in the emergency department. Emerg Med Clin North. 2018;36(4):853-872. doi:10.1016/j.emc.2018.06.012
5. Weiss A, Jiang H. Most frequent reasons for emergency department visits, 2018. December 16, 2021. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb286-ED-Frequent-Conditions-2018.pdf
6. Abrahamian FM, Moran GJ, Talan DA. Urinary tract infections in the emergency department. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2008;22(1):73-87. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2007.10.002
7. Dumkow LE, Kenney RM, MacDonald NC, Carreno JJ, Malhotra MK, Davis SL. Impact of a multidisciplinary culture follow-up program of antimicrobial therapy in the emergency department. Infect Dis Ther. 2014;3(1):45-53. doi:10.1007/s40121-014-0026-x
8. Davis LC, Covey RB, Weston JS, Hu BB, Laine GA. Pharmacist-driven antimicrobial optimization in the emergency department. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(5 Suppl 1):S49-S56. doi:10.2146/sp150036
9. Lingenfelter E, Darkin Z, Fritz K, Youngquist S, Madsen T, Fix M. ED pharmacist monitoring of provider antibiotic selection aids appropriate treatment for outpatient UTI. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(8):1600-1603. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2016.05.076
10. Zhang X, Rowan N, Pflugeisen BM, Alajbegovic S. Urine culture guided antibiotic interventions: a pharmacist driven antimicrobial stewardship effort in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(4):594-598. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.036
11. Percival KM, Valenti KM, Schmittling SE, Strader BD, Lopez RR, Bergman SJ. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention on urinary tract infection treatment in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(9):1129-1133. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.067
12. Almulhim AS, Aldayyen A, Yenina K, Chiappini A, Khan TM. Optimization of antibiotic selection in the emergency department for urine culture follow ups, a retrospective pre-post intervention study: clinical pharmacist efforts. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019;12(1):8. Published online April 9, 2019. doi:10.1186/s40545-019-0168-z
13. Stoll K, Feltz E, Ebert S. Pharmacist-driven implementation of outpatient antibiotic prescribing algorithms improves guideline adherence in the emergency department. J Pharm Pract. 2021;34(6):875-881. doi:10.1177/0897190020930979
14. Petty LA, Vaughn VM, Flanders SA, et al. Assessment of testing and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria initiated in the emergency department. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(12):ofaa537. Published online November 3, 2020. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa537
15. Ingalls EM, Veillette JJ, Olson J, et al. Impact of a multifaceted intervention on antibiotic prescribing for cystitis and asymptomatic bacteriuria in 23 community hospital emergency departments. Hosp Pharm. 2023;58(4):401-407. doi:10.1177/00185787231159578
16. Daniel M, Keller S, Mozafarihashjin M, Pahwa A, Soong C. An implementation guide to reducing overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(2):271-276.doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7290
1. Marcozzi D, Carr B, Liferidge A, Baehr N, Browne B.. Trends in the contribution of emergency departments to the provision of hospital-associated health care in the USA. Int J Health Serv. 2018;48(2):267–288. doi:10.1177/0020731417734498
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outpatient antibiotic prescriptions — United States, 2021. Updated October 4, 2022. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/data/report-2021.html
3. Timbrook TT, Caffrey AR, Ovalle A, et al. Assessments of opportunities to improve antibiotic prescribing in an emergency department: a period prevalence survey. Infect Dis Ther. 2017;6(4):497-505. doi:10.1007/s40121-017-0175-9
4. Pulia M, Redwood R, May L. Antimicrobial stewardship in the emergency department. Emerg Med Clin North. 2018;36(4):853-872. doi:10.1016/j.emc.2018.06.012
5. Weiss A, Jiang H. Most frequent reasons for emergency department visits, 2018. December 16, 2021. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb286-ED-Frequent-Conditions-2018.pdf
6. Abrahamian FM, Moran GJ, Talan DA. Urinary tract infections in the emergency department. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2008;22(1):73-87. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2007.10.002
7. Dumkow LE, Kenney RM, MacDonald NC, Carreno JJ, Malhotra MK, Davis SL. Impact of a multidisciplinary culture follow-up program of antimicrobial therapy in the emergency department. Infect Dis Ther. 2014;3(1):45-53. doi:10.1007/s40121-014-0026-x
8. Davis LC, Covey RB, Weston JS, Hu BB, Laine GA. Pharmacist-driven antimicrobial optimization in the emergency department. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2016;73(5 Suppl 1):S49-S56. doi:10.2146/sp150036
9. Lingenfelter E, Darkin Z, Fritz K, Youngquist S, Madsen T, Fix M. ED pharmacist monitoring of provider antibiotic selection aids appropriate treatment for outpatient UTI. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(8):1600-1603. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2016.05.076
10. Zhang X, Rowan N, Pflugeisen BM, Alajbegovic S. Urine culture guided antibiotic interventions: a pharmacist driven antimicrobial stewardship effort in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(4):594-598. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.036
11. Percival KM, Valenti KM, Schmittling SE, Strader BD, Lopez RR, Bergman SJ. Impact of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention on urinary tract infection treatment in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(9):1129-1133. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.067
12. Almulhim AS, Aldayyen A, Yenina K, Chiappini A, Khan TM. Optimization of antibiotic selection in the emergency department for urine culture follow ups, a retrospective pre-post intervention study: clinical pharmacist efforts. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019;12(1):8. Published online April 9, 2019. doi:10.1186/s40545-019-0168-z
13. Stoll K, Feltz E, Ebert S. Pharmacist-driven implementation of outpatient antibiotic prescribing algorithms improves guideline adherence in the emergency department. J Pharm Pract. 2021;34(6):875-881. doi:10.1177/0897190020930979
14. Petty LA, Vaughn VM, Flanders SA, et al. Assessment of testing and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria initiated in the emergency department. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(12):ofaa537. Published online November 3, 2020. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa537
15. Ingalls EM, Veillette JJ, Olson J, et al. Impact of a multifaceted intervention on antibiotic prescribing for cystitis and asymptomatic bacteriuria in 23 community hospital emergency departments. Hosp Pharm. 2023;58(4):401-407. doi:10.1177/00185787231159578
16. Daniel M, Keller S, Mozafarihashjin M, Pahwa A, Soong C. An implementation guide to reducing overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(2):271-276.doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7290
Visual Management Board Implementation to Enhance High Reliability at a Large VA Health Care System
Health care organizations began implementing Lean management and high reliability organization (HRO) principles in the 1990s to improve quality and efficiency by aligning leaders and staff to a shared vision, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, identifying the root causes of complex problems, and engaging frontline staff as drivers of improvement efforts.1 There are 4 components for establishing a Lean management system: (1) leader standard work; (2) visual management; (3) daily accountability; and (4) discipline to institute the first 3 components.2 Leader standard work promotes continuous improvement by setting a standard routine of behaviors, actions, and tools consistently performed by leadership. These include routine and frequent frontline check-ins (ie, Gemba walks) as well as standardization of employee onboarding, training, and evaluations. Visual management refers to the process of making problems and abnormal conditions readily apparent to staff and leadership.3
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed to implementing similar principles of HROs, which focus on error analysis and process improvement to foster a culture of safety, leadership commitment, and staff engagement.4,5 Visual management is an important tool for HROs; it reflects the mindset of promoting transparency, teamwork, and openness.6,7
Visual management boards (VMBs), such as huddle boards, Gemba boards, or visibility walls, are critical tools that can promote daily accountability and the core principles of Lean thinking and HROs.1,6,8,9 Accountability is enhanced through frequent real-time, data-driven feedback between staff and leadership. This is often facilitated with a huddle, a structured and disciplined team meeting that provides bidirectional information.1 Frequently, a VMB is incorporated into the structure and flow of the huddle.
In a literature review of 20 years of implementation of Lean management systems in health care, Winner and colleagues report that while the frequency and duration of huddles vary, they are often united by several characteristics, including the involvement of the unit team, focus on feedback, problem identification and solutions, and central location around a visual board.1 VMBs most often take the form of a magnetic, dry-erase board located in a hall or conference room central to the work area.1 In addition to identifying and tracking problems in the place of work, VMBs can also provide a representation of key performance indicators and metrics, disseminate essential unit information, and acknowledge the work and successes of staff and leaders.6,8-12
This article outlines the commitment of the Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center (VAMC) within the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) to the HRO principle of visual management. We describe the incorporation of VMBs throughout VAAAHS and provide a detailed report of the development and use at a large outpatient subspecialty clinic.
Implementation
The goal of implementing visual management tools at VAAAHS was to empower staff members to identify problems and process improvements, enhance teamwork, and improve communication between staff and section leadership. The Systems Redesign and Improvement Program (SR), which supports Veteran Health Administration high reliability initiatives, helped implement VMBs in VAAAHS departments. Each board was designed to meet the specialized needs of each respective team and could be a physical board, virtual board, or combination. However, all boards sought to create standardized work and identify department needs.
The VAAAHS outpatient cardiology section VMB complemented an existing daily huddle framework. The cardiology section is large and diverse, with 6 subspecialty clinics, and team members who work in multiple locations. The clinic team includes 19 faculty physicians, 14 cardiology fellow physicians,9 nurse care managers, 13 nurse practitioners, 2 licensed practical nurses, and 5 medical support assistants at both the Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VAMC and Toledo, Ohio, community based outpatient clinic. Prior to VMB implementation, a morning huddle with clinic team members led by a cardiology manager was an unstructured group discussion about clinic operations for the day. While the daily huddle had a positive impact on staff orientation to daily goals, it did not fully meet the aims of staff empowerment, problem identification and tracking, and knowledge distribution. The VMB was codeveloped with cardiology and the SR program with these goals in mind.
Cardiology was the first VAAAHS outpatient subspecialty clinic to institute a VMB. Two boards were created: a large standard VMB (Figure 1) and a smaller kudos board (Figure 2), which were placed in a central hallway in which staff members and patients pass frequently throughout the day. This location was chosen to promote engagement and promote the VAAAHS commitment to continuous improvement. The VMB focused on identifying and tracking problems, information sharing, and metric monitoring. The goal of the smaller kudos board was to highlight staff achievements and provide an opportunity for patient feedback.
The SR program required that the board incorporate problem identification and a uniform VAAAHS ticket tracking system. Each department could customize the VMB to fit its needs. Staff members are asked to define a problem, complete a ticket describing the issue, consider possible root causes, and suggest solutions. This approach empowers staff to take ownership, make a problem visible, and identify a solution. The problem is then discussed in group huddles using an Impact and Effort Matrix, a tool focused on categorizing and prioritizing those interventions that require low effort and lead to high impact.13
Tickets move along the board as they are addressed using a Plan-Do-Study-Act problem-solving model.14 Plan involves identifying and assigning leadership for the problem and understanding its root causes. Do involves implementing an action plan. Study involves evaluating the results. Finally, Act involves determining whether the plan was successful, and if so, standardizing the improvement and using it regularly.14 Complicated projects that require higher effort or additional resources are moved to the roll-up and parking lot, so they may be addressed by leadership at an appropriate time. Roll up is the escalation of process improvement tickets that frontline staff are unable to resolve with their current resources. The parking lot is for tickets that staff want to address later based on priority determined using an impact vs effort matrix. This allows for enhanced bidirectional communication between the department and high-level leadership, showing a commitment to HRO principles at all levels. The cardiology department customized its board to include essential clinic information, such as faculty staffing for the clinic that day and clinic metric information (eg, patient satisfaction scores, and appointment wait times). The kudos board, a space for patient feedback and to celebrate staff accomplishments, was located across the hall closest to the waiting area.
After the VMB was implemented as a new component to the daily team huddle, the group discussion physically moved to just in front of the board; pertinent clinic information is discussed daily, and the ticketing system is discussed 1 to 3 times per week, depending on ticket progress. Open and unresolved tickets are reviewed for updates on the status by the responsible team member, who receives ongoing feedback and assistance.
Program Impact
A total of 55 improvement opportunity tickets were submitted by staff members during the initial 23 months after the implementation of the outpatient cardiology clinic VMB. Most were submitted by nurse practitioners, although there were contributions from all faculty and staff. The high percentage of ticket submissions by nurse practitioners may be related to their full-time daily presence in the clinic, whereas some other staff members are part-time (most physicians are present 1 day each week). Improvement opportunities were noted within a variety of areas, including clinic facilities (eg, clinic equipment), communication between the clinic and patients (eg, telephone calls from patients or appointment letters), and patient care (eg, medication reconciliation and laboratory requisition).
In an improvement opportunity ticket, a staff member identified that the low seating in the patient waiting area was a fall risk and not diversified for varying body types. They posted a ticket, and the issue was discussed as a group. This staff member assumed ownership of the problem and placed an interior design request for taller chairs and bariatric options. The ticket was resolved when the waiting area was upgraded to include safer and more inclusive seating options for patients. Of 55 tickets submitted by staff as of June 2024, 45 have identified solutions, 4 are in process, and 6 have been placed in the parking lot. On average, the morning huddle spends about 5 to 10 minutes addressing tickets, but on occasion, more complex topics require additional time. The kudos board receives feedback from patients who express their gratitude, and serves as a space to celebrate awards received by staff members.
Implementing a VMB into daily huddles within the cardiology clinic led to increased staff engagement and ownership of challenges, as well as improved communication between frontline workers and leadership. VMBs have proven to be useful for annual staff performance evaluations because staff members who engaged in the board and volunteered to take accountability for ticket resolution could use those accomplishments in their assessments. Finally, VMBs made quality improvement and safety work accessible by normalizing frequent conversations. This empowered staff to engage in improvement projects and even led some members to enroll in formal Lean training.
The outpatient cardiology clinic VMB at the VAAAHS was identified as a best practice during a site visit by the Promising Practice Team in the Veterans Health Administration Office of Integrated Veteran Care. The outpatient cardiology clinic leadership team, including the authors of this article, was invited to present our visual management work as a main topic at the January 2024 Office of Integrated Veteran Care collaborative meeting.
Further Implementation
The SR program has collaborated with additional VAAAHS teams to implement VMBs. Forty-four physical VMBs and 20 virtual VMBs are currently in use throughout the VAAAHS. Virtual VMB content is similar to a physical board and can be modified by each team to meet its particular needs. Several virtual VMBs have been implemented at the VAAAHS and can achieve the same goals of staff teamwork, empowerment, and engagement. Each team can choose the format of the VMB that best fits their needs, which may be partially influenced by the team’s overall interaction style (on-site teams may function better with a physical VMB, and off-site teams may find a virtual VMB works best). VMBs have been implemented in various work areas, including laboratories, inpatient wards, subspecialty outpatient clinics, procedural areas, and the engineering department. In fiscal year 2024, 180 tickets were electronically submitted by teams across the VAAAHS, of which 170 identified solutions and were marked completed. Ticket counts may be underestimated since not all physical board tickets are reported in the electronic system. The SR program periodically attends morning huddles of various teams and obtains feedback on their VMBs, a practice that highlights its contribution to staff engagement, transparency, teamwork, and continuous improvement (Table). A goal of the SR program is to identify areas of the VAAAHS in which VMBs would add value to the team and implement them as necessary.
Discussion
VMBs are common in health care and are implemented to promote the core principlesof Lean thinking and HROs, including visual management and daily accountability. The goals of a visual management tool are to make problems visible and document their management. A VMB can serve as a focal point for team discussion and a physical space to track each problem through its initial identification, understanding of root causes, consideration of potential solutions, and recording of intervention results.
A VMB can foster a culture of safety, leadership commitment, and continuous process improvement when designed and implemented to reflect team needs. VMBs can empower staff members to share work concerns and openly promote engagement. As a central place for discussion between staff and leaders, VMBs can also foster teamwork and communication. The daily huddle provides a safe, productive working environment by ensuring that lines of communication are open among all team members, regardless of role or leadership designation.
Limitations
This article focused on the implementation of 1 type of visual management tool. It provides an in-depth discussion of the development, implementation, and experience with a VMB at multiple clinics of a single section in 1 health care system. These reported experiences may not represent other VA facilities. Perceptions of the impact and usefulness of the VMB were mostly anecdotal. Further evaluation of the VMB implementation experience and utility at other VA health care systems would provide additional insight into the optimal implementation of VMBs.
Conclusions
Through increased transparency, empowerment, and communication, VMBs are an important tool in the visual management tool belt for organizations committed to HROs and Lean management. Given the successful institution of VMBs at the VAAAHS, the description of our experience may aid other VA systems for the incorporation of visual management into the daily culture of their respective health care teams.
1. Winner LE, Reinhardt E, Benishek L, Marsteller JA. Lean management systems in health care: a review of the literature. Qual Manag Health Care. 2022;31(4):221-230. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000353
2. Mann D. Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions. Productivity Press; 2005.
3. Graban M. Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement. 3rd ed. Productivity Press; 2016.
4. Veazie S, Peterson K, Bourne D. Evidence Brief: Implementation of High Reliability Organization Principles. US Dept of Veterans Affairs; 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542883/
5. Stone RA, Lieberman SL. VHA’s Vision for a High Reliability Organization. US Dept of Veterans Affairs. Summer 2020. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/forum/summer20/default.cfm?ForumMenu=summer20-1
6. Bourgault AM, Upvall MJ, Graham A. Using Gemba boards to facilitate evidence-based practice in critical care. Crit Care Nurse. 2018;38(3):e1-e7. doi:10.4037/ccn2018714
7. Ferro J, Gouveia R. How to create an effective daily management system. Planet Lean. July 7, 2015. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.planet-lean.com/articles/lean-transformation-daily-management
8. Creating a cardiovascular OR huddle board. AORN J. 2020;111(6):687-690. Published 28 May 2020. doi:10.1002/aorn.13057
9. Rakover J, Little K, Scoville R, Holder B. Implementing daily management systems to support sustained quality improvement in ambulatory surgery centers. AORN J. 2020;111(4):415-422. doi:10.1002/aorn.12988
10. Loesche AH. Using huddles to improve communication and teamwork in an instrument-processing department. Nurs Manag (Harrow). 2020;27(6):34-42. doi:10.7748/nm.2020.e1958
11. Zarbo RJ, Varney RC, Copeland JR, D’Angelo R, Sharma G. Daily management system of the Henry Ford production system: QTIPS to focus continuous improvements at the level of the work. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;144(1):122-136. doi:1309/AJCPLQYMOFWU31CK
12. Hung D, Martinez M, Yakir M, Gray C. Implementing a lean management system in primary care: facilitators and barriers from the front lines. Qual Manag Health Care. 2015;24(3):103-108. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000062
13. Croft D. Guide: Impact and Effort Matrix. Learn Lean 6 Sigma. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.learnleansigma.com/guides/impact-effort-matrix/
14. Leis JA, Shojania KG. A primer on PDSA: executing plan-do-study-act cycles in practice, not just in name. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(7):572-577. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006245
Health care organizations began implementing Lean management and high reliability organization (HRO) principles in the 1990s to improve quality and efficiency by aligning leaders and staff to a shared vision, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, identifying the root causes of complex problems, and engaging frontline staff as drivers of improvement efforts.1 There are 4 components for establishing a Lean management system: (1) leader standard work; (2) visual management; (3) daily accountability; and (4) discipline to institute the first 3 components.2 Leader standard work promotes continuous improvement by setting a standard routine of behaviors, actions, and tools consistently performed by leadership. These include routine and frequent frontline check-ins (ie, Gemba walks) as well as standardization of employee onboarding, training, and evaluations. Visual management refers to the process of making problems and abnormal conditions readily apparent to staff and leadership.3
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed to implementing similar principles of HROs, which focus on error analysis and process improvement to foster a culture of safety, leadership commitment, and staff engagement.4,5 Visual management is an important tool for HROs; it reflects the mindset of promoting transparency, teamwork, and openness.6,7
Visual management boards (VMBs), such as huddle boards, Gemba boards, or visibility walls, are critical tools that can promote daily accountability and the core principles of Lean thinking and HROs.1,6,8,9 Accountability is enhanced through frequent real-time, data-driven feedback between staff and leadership. This is often facilitated with a huddle, a structured and disciplined team meeting that provides bidirectional information.1 Frequently, a VMB is incorporated into the structure and flow of the huddle.
In a literature review of 20 years of implementation of Lean management systems in health care, Winner and colleagues report that while the frequency and duration of huddles vary, they are often united by several characteristics, including the involvement of the unit team, focus on feedback, problem identification and solutions, and central location around a visual board.1 VMBs most often take the form of a magnetic, dry-erase board located in a hall or conference room central to the work area.1 In addition to identifying and tracking problems in the place of work, VMBs can also provide a representation of key performance indicators and metrics, disseminate essential unit information, and acknowledge the work and successes of staff and leaders.6,8-12
This article outlines the commitment of the Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center (VAMC) within the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) to the HRO principle of visual management. We describe the incorporation of VMBs throughout VAAAHS and provide a detailed report of the development and use at a large outpatient subspecialty clinic.
Implementation
The goal of implementing visual management tools at VAAAHS was to empower staff members to identify problems and process improvements, enhance teamwork, and improve communication between staff and section leadership. The Systems Redesign and Improvement Program (SR), which supports Veteran Health Administration high reliability initiatives, helped implement VMBs in VAAAHS departments. Each board was designed to meet the specialized needs of each respective team and could be a physical board, virtual board, or combination. However, all boards sought to create standardized work and identify department needs.
The VAAAHS outpatient cardiology section VMB complemented an existing daily huddle framework. The cardiology section is large and diverse, with 6 subspecialty clinics, and team members who work in multiple locations. The clinic team includes 19 faculty physicians, 14 cardiology fellow physicians,9 nurse care managers, 13 nurse practitioners, 2 licensed practical nurses, and 5 medical support assistants at both the Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VAMC and Toledo, Ohio, community based outpatient clinic. Prior to VMB implementation, a morning huddle with clinic team members led by a cardiology manager was an unstructured group discussion about clinic operations for the day. While the daily huddle had a positive impact on staff orientation to daily goals, it did not fully meet the aims of staff empowerment, problem identification and tracking, and knowledge distribution. The VMB was codeveloped with cardiology and the SR program with these goals in mind.
Cardiology was the first VAAAHS outpatient subspecialty clinic to institute a VMB. Two boards were created: a large standard VMB (Figure 1) and a smaller kudos board (Figure 2), which were placed in a central hallway in which staff members and patients pass frequently throughout the day. This location was chosen to promote engagement and promote the VAAAHS commitment to continuous improvement. The VMB focused on identifying and tracking problems, information sharing, and metric monitoring. The goal of the smaller kudos board was to highlight staff achievements and provide an opportunity for patient feedback.
The SR program required that the board incorporate problem identification and a uniform VAAAHS ticket tracking system. Each department could customize the VMB to fit its needs. Staff members are asked to define a problem, complete a ticket describing the issue, consider possible root causes, and suggest solutions. This approach empowers staff to take ownership, make a problem visible, and identify a solution. The problem is then discussed in group huddles using an Impact and Effort Matrix, a tool focused on categorizing and prioritizing those interventions that require low effort and lead to high impact.13
Tickets move along the board as they are addressed using a Plan-Do-Study-Act problem-solving model.14 Plan involves identifying and assigning leadership for the problem and understanding its root causes. Do involves implementing an action plan. Study involves evaluating the results. Finally, Act involves determining whether the plan was successful, and if so, standardizing the improvement and using it regularly.14 Complicated projects that require higher effort or additional resources are moved to the roll-up and parking lot, so they may be addressed by leadership at an appropriate time. Roll up is the escalation of process improvement tickets that frontline staff are unable to resolve with their current resources. The parking lot is for tickets that staff want to address later based on priority determined using an impact vs effort matrix. This allows for enhanced bidirectional communication between the department and high-level leadership, showing a commitment to HRO principles at all levels. The cardiology department customized its board to include essential clinic information, such as faculty staffing for the clinic that day and clinic metric information (eg, patient satisfaction scores, and appointment wait times). The kudos board, a space for patient feedback and to celebrate staff accomplishments, was located across the hall closest to the waiting area.
After the VMB was implemented as a new component to the daily team huddle, the group discussion physically moved to just in front of the board; pertinent clinic information is discussed daily, and the ticketing system is discussed 1 to 3 times per week, depending on ticket progress. Open and unresolved tickets are reviewed for updates on the status by the responsible team member, who receives ongoing feedback and assistance.
Program Impact
A total of 55 improvement opportunity tickets were submitted by staff members during the initial 23 months after the implementation of the outpatient cardiology clinic VMB. Most were submitted by nurse practitioners, although there were contributions from all faculty and staff. The high percentage of ticket submissions by nurse practitioners may be related to their full-time daily presence in the clinic, whereas some other staff members are part-time (most physicians are present 1 day each week). Improvement opportunities were noted within a variety of areas, including clinic facilities (eg, clinic equipment), communication between the clinic and patients (eg, telephone calls from patients or appointment letters), and patient care (eg, medication reconciliation and laboratory requisition).
In an improvement opportunity ticket, a staff member identified that the low seating in the patient waiting area was a fall risk and not diversified for varying body types. They posted a ticket, and the issue was discussed as a group. This staff member assumed ownership of the problem and placed an interior design request for taller chairs and bariatric options. The ticket was resolved when the waiting area was upgraded to include safer and more inclusive seating options for patients. Of 55 tickets submitted by staff as of June 2024, 45 have identified solutions, 4 are in process, and 6 have been placed in the parking lot. On average, the morning huddle spends about 5 to 10 minutes addressing tickets, but on occasion, more complex topics require additional time. The kudos board receives feedback from patients who express their gratitude, and serves as a space to celebrate awards received by staff members.
Implementing a VMB into daily huddles within the cardiology clinic led to increased staff engagement and ownership of challenges, as well as improved communication between frontline workers and leadership. VMBs have proven to be useful for annual staff performance evaluations because staff members who engaged in the board and volunteered to take accountability for ticket resolution could use those accomplishments in their assessments. Finally, VMBs made quality improvement and safety work accessible by normalizing frequent conversations. This empowered staff to engage in improvement projects and even led some members to enroll in formal Lean training.
The outpatient cardiology clinic VMB at the VAAAHS was identified as a best practice during a site visit by the Promising Practice Team in the Veterans Health Administration Office of Integrated Veteran Care. The outpatient cardiology clinic leadership team, including the authors of this article, was invited to present our visual management work as a main topic at the January 2024 Office of Integrated Veteran Care collaborative meeting.
Further Implementation
The SR program has collaborated with additional VAAAHS teams to implement VMBs. Forty-four physical VMBs and 20 virtual VMBs are currently in use throughout the VAAAHS. Virtual VMB content is similar to a physical board and can be modified by each team to meet its particular needs. Several virtual VMBs have been implemented at the VAAAHS and can achieve the same goals of staff teamwork, empowerment, and engagement. Each team can choose the format of the VMB that best fits their needs, which may be partially influenced by the team’s overall interaction style (on-site teams may function better with a physical VMB, and off-site teams may find a virtual VMB works best). VMBs have been implemented in various work areas, including laboratories, inpatient wards, subspecialty outpatient clinics, procedural areas, and the engineering department. In fiscal year 2024, 180 tickets were electronically submitted by teams across the VAAAHS, of which 170 identified solutions and were marked completed. Ticket counts may be underestimated since not all physical board tickets are reported in the electronic system. The SR program periodically attends morning huddles of various teams and obtains feedback on their VMBs, a practice that highlights its contribution to staff engagement, transparency, teamwork, and continuous improvement (Table). A goal of the SR program is to identify areas of the VAAAHS in which VMBs would add value to the team and implement them as necessary.
Discussion
VMBs are common in health care and are implemented to promote the core principlesof Lean thinking and HROs, including visual management and daily accountability. The goals of a visual management tool are to make problems visible and document their management. A VMB can serve as a focal point for team discussion and a physical space to track each problem through its initial identification, understanding of root causes, consideration of potential solutions, and recording of intervention results.
A VMB can foster a culture of safety, leadership commitment, and continuous process improvement when designed and implemented to reflect team needs. VMBs can empower staff members to share work concerns and openly promote engagement. As a central place for discussion between staff and leaders, VMBs can also foster teamwork and communication. The daily huddle provides a safe, productive working environment by ensuring that lines of communication are open among all team members, regardless of role or leadership designation.
Limitations
This article focused on the implementation of 1 type of visual management tool. It provides an in-depth discussion of the development, implementation, and experience with a VMB at multiple clinics of a single section in 1 health care system. These reported experiences may not represent other VA facilities. Perceptions of the impact and usefulness of the VMB were mostly anecdotal. Further evaluation of the VMB implementation experience and utility at other VA health care systems would provide additional insight into the optimal implementation of VMBs.
Conclusions
Through increased transparency, empowerment, and communication, VMBs are an important tool in the visual management tool belt for organizations committed to HROs and Lean management. Given the successful institution of VMBs at the VAAAHS, the description of our experience may aid other VA systems for the incorporation of visual management into the daily culture of their respective health care teams.
Health care organizations began implementing Lean management and high reliability organization (HRO) principles in the 1990s to improve quality and efficiency by aligning leaders and staff to a shared vision, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, identifying the root causes of complex problems, and engaging frontline staff as drivers of improvement efforts.1 There are 4 components for establishing a Lean management system: (1) leader standard work; (2) visual management; (3) daily accountability; and (4) discipline to institute the first 3 components.2 Leader standard work promotes continuous improvement by setting a standard routine of behaviors, actions, and tools consistently performed by leadership. These include routine and frequent frontline check-ins (ie, Gemba walks) as well as standardization of employee onboarding, training, and evaluations. Visual management refers to the process of making problems and abnormal conditions readily apparent to staff and leadership.3
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is committed to implementing similar principles of HROs, which focus on error analysis and process improvement to foster a culture of safety, leadership commitment, and staff engagement.4,5 Visual management is an important tool for HROs; it reflects the mindset of promoting transparency, teamwork, and openness.6,7
Visual management boards (VMBs), such as huddle boards, Gemba boards, or visibility walls, are critical tools that can promote daily accountability and the core principles of Lean thinking and HROs.1,6,8,9 Accountability is enhanced through frequent real-time, data-driven feedback between staff and leadership. This is often facilitated with a huddle, a structured and disciplined team meeting that provides bidirectional information.1 Frequently, a VMB is incorporated into the structure and flow of the huddle.
In a literature review of 20 years of implementation of Lean management systems in health care, Winner and colleagues report that while the frequency and duration of huddles vary, they are often united by several characteristics, including the involvement of the unit team, focus on feedback, problem identification and solutions, and central location around a visual board.1 VMBs most often take the form of a magnetic, dry-erase board located in a hall or conference room central to the work area.1 In addition to identifying and tracking problems in the place of work, VMBs can also provide a representation of key performance indicators and metrics, disseminate essential unit information, and acknowledge the work and successes of staff and leaders.6,8-12
This article outlines the commitment of the Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center (VAMC) within the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) to the HRO principle of visual management. We describe the incorporation of VMBs throughout VAAAHS and provide a detailed report of the development and use at a large outpatient subspecialty clinic.
Implementation
The goal of implementing visual management tools at VAAAHS was to empower staff members to identify problems and process improvements, enhance teamwork, and improve communication between staff and section leadership. The Systems Redesign and Improvement Program (SR), which supports Veteran Health Administration high reliability initiatives, helped implement VMBs in VAAAHS departments. Each board was designed to meet the specialized needs of each respective team and could be a physical board, virtual board, or combination. However, all boards sought to create standardized work and identify department needs.
The VAAAHS outpatient cardiology section VMB complemented an existing daily huddle framework. The cardiology section is large and diverse, with 6 subspecialty clinics, and team members who work in multiple locations. The clinic team includes 19 faculty physicians, 14 cardiology fellow physicians,9 nurse care managers, 13 nurse practitioners, 2 licensed practical nurses, and 5 medical support assistants at both the Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VAMC and Toledo, Ohio, community based outpatient clinic. Prior to VMB implementation, a morning huddle with clinic team members led by a cardiology manager was an unstructured group discussion about clinic operations for the day. While the daily huddle had a positive impact on staff orientation to daily goals, it did not fully meet the aims of staff empowerment, problem identification and tracking, and knowledge distribution. The VMB was codeveloped with cardiology and the SR program with these goals in mind.
Cardiology was the first VAAAHS outpatient subspecialty clinic to institute a VMB. Two boards were created: a large standard VMB (Figure 1) and a smaller kudos board (Figure 2), which were placed in a central hallway in which staff members and patients pass frequently throughout the day. This location was chosen to promote engagement and promote the VAAAHS commitment to continuous improvement. The VMB focused on identifying and tracking problems, information sharing, and metric monitoring. The goal of the smaller kudos board was to highlight staff achievements and provide an opportunity for patient feedback.
The SR program required that the board incorporate problem identification and a uniform VAAAHS ticket tracking system. Each department could customize the VMB to fit its needs. Staff members are asked to define a problem, complete a ticket describing the issue, consider possible root causes, and suggest solutions. This approach empowers staff to take ownership, make a problem visible, and identify a solution. The problem is then discussed in group huddles using an Impact and Effort Matrix, a tool focused on categorizing and prioritizing those interventions that require low effort and lead to high impact.13
Tickets move along the board as they are addressed using a Plan-Do-Study-Act problem-solving model.14 Plan involves identifying and assigning leadership for the problem and understanding its root causes. Do involves implementing an action plan. Study involves evaluating the results. Finally, Act involves determining whether the plan was successful, and if so, standardizing the improvement and using it regularly.14 Complicated projects that require higher effort or additional resources are moved to the roll-up and parking lot, so they may be addressed by leadership at an appropriate time. Roll up is the escalation of process improvement tickets that frontline staff are unable to resolve with their current resources. The parking lot is for tickets that staff want to address later based on priority determined using an impact vs effort matrix. This allows for enhanced bidirectional communication between the department and high-level leadership, showing a commitment to HRO principles at all levels. The cardiology department customized its board to include essential clinic information, such as faculty staffing for the clinic that day and clinic metric information (eg, patient satisfaction scores, and appointment wait times). The kudos board, a space for patient feedback and to celebrate staff accomplishments, was located across the hall closest to the waiting area.
After the VMB was implemented as a new component to the daily team huddle, the group discussion physically moved to just in front of the board; pertinent clinic information is discussed daily, and the ticketing system is discussed 1 to 3 times per week, depending on ticket progress. Open and unresolved tickets are reviewed for updates on the status by the responsible team member, who receives ongoing feedback and assistance.
Program Impact
A total of 55 improvement opportunity tickets were submitted by staff members during the initial 23 months after the implementation of the outpatient cardiology clinic VMB. Most were submitted by nurse practitioners, although there were contributions from all faculty and staff. The high percentage of ticket submissions by nurse practitioners may be related to their full-time daily presence in the clinic, whereas some other staff members are part-time (most physicians are present 1 day each week). Improvement opportunities were noted within a variety of areas, including clinic facilities (eg, clinic equipment), communication between the clinic and patients (eg, telephone calls from patients or appointment letters), and patient care (eg, medication reconciliation and laboratory requisition).
In an improvement opportunity ticket, a staff member identified that the low seating in the patient waiting area was a fall risk and not diversified for varying body types. They posted a ticket, and the issue was discussed as a group. This staff member assumed ownership of the problem and placed an interior design request for taller chairs and bariatric options. The ticket was resolved when the waiting area was upgraded to include safer and more inclusive seating options for patients. Of 55 tickets submitted by staff as of June 2024, 45 have identified solutions, 4 are in process, and 6 have been placed in the parking lot. On average, the morning huddle spends about 5 to 10 minutes addressing tickets, but on occasion, more complex topics require additional time. The kudos board receives feedback from patients who express their gratitude, and serves as a space to celebrate awards received by staff members.
Implementing a VMB into daily huddles within the cardiology clinic led to increased staff engagement and ownership of challenges, as well as improved communication between frontline workers and leadership. VMBs have proven to be useful for annual staff performance evaluations because staff members who engaged in the board and volunteered to take accountability for ticket resolution could use those accomplishments in their assessments. Finally, VMBs made quality improvement and safety work accessible by normalizing frequent conversations. This empowered staff to engage in improvement projects and even led some members to enroll in formal Lean training.
The outpatient cardiology clinic VMB at the VAAAHS was identified as a best practice during a site visit by the Promising Practice Team in the Veterans Health Administration Office of Integrated Veteran Care. The outpatient cardiology clinic leadership team, including the authors of this article, was invited to present our visual management work as a main topic at the January 2024 Office of Integrated Veteran Care collaborative meeting.
Further Implementation
The SR program has collaborated with additional VAAAHS teams to implement VMBs. Forty-four physical VMBs and 20 virtual VMBs are currently in use throughout the VAAAHS. Virtual VMB content is similar to a physical board and can be modified by each team to meet its particular needs. Several virtual VMBs have been implemented at the VAAAHS and can achieve the same goals of staff teamwork, empowerment, and engagement. Each team can choose the format of the VMB that best fits their needs, which may be partially influenced by the team’s overall interaction style (on-site teams may function better with a physical VMB, and off-site teams may find a virtual VMB works best). VMBs have been implemented in various work areas, including laboratories, inpatient wards, subspecialty outpatient clinics, procedural areas, and the engineering department. In fiscal year 2024, 180 tickets were electronically submitted by teams across the VAAAHS, of which 170 identified solutions and were marked completed. Ticket counts may be underestimated since not all physical board tickets are reported in the electronic system. The SR program periodically attends morning huddles of various teams and obtains feedback on their VMBs, a practice that highlights its contribution to staff engagement, transparency, teamwork, and continuous improvement (Table). A goal of the SR program is to identify areas of the VAAAHS in which VMBs would add value to the team and implement them as necessary.
Discussion
VMBs are common in health care and are implemented to promote the core principlesof Lean thinking and HROs, including visual management and daily accountability. The goals of a visual management tool are to make problems visible and document their management. A VMB can serve as a focal point for team discussion and a physical space to track each problem through its initial identification, understanding of root causes, consideration of potential solutions, and recording of intervention results.
A VMB can foster a culture of safety, leadership commitment, and continuous process improvement when designed and implemented to reflect team needs. VMBs can empower staff members to share work concerns and openly promote engagement. As a central place for discussion between staff and leaders, VMBs can also foster teamwork and communication. The daily huddle provides a safe, productive working environment by ensuring that lines of communication are open among all team members, regardless of role or leadership designation.
Limitations
This article focused on the implementation of 1 type of visual management tool. It provides an in-depth discussion of the development, implementation, and experience with a VMB at multiple clinics of a single section in 1 health care system. These reported experiences may not represent other VA facilities. Perceptions of the impact and usefulness of the VMB were mostly anecdotal. Further evaluation of the VMB implementation experience and utility at other VA health care systems would provide additional insight into the optimal implementation of VMBs.
Conclusions
Through increased transparency, empowerment, and communication, VMBs are an important tool in the visual management tool belt for organizations committed to HROs and Lean management. Given the successful institution of VMBs at the VAAAHS, the description of our experience may aid other VA systems for the incorporation of visual management into the daily culture of their respective health care teams.
1. Winner LE, Reinhardt E, Benishek L, Marsteller JA. Lean management systems in health care: a review of the literature. Qual Manag Health Care. 2022;31(4):221-230. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000353
2. Mann D. Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions. Productivity Press; 2005.
3. Graban M. Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement. 3rd ed. Productivity Press; 2016.
4. Veazie S, Peterson K, Bourne D. Evidence Brief: Implementation of High Reliability Organization Principles. US Dept of Veterans Affairs; 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542883/
5. Stone RA, Lieberman SL. VHA’s Vision for a High Reliability Organization. US Dept of Veterans Affairs. Summer 2020. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/forum/summer20/default.cfm?ForumMenu=summer20-1
6. Bourgault AM, Upvall MJ, Graham A. Using Gemba boards to facilitate evidence-based practice in critical care. Crit Care Nurse. 2018;38(3):e1-e7. doi:10.4037/ccn2018714
7. Ferro J, Gouveia R. How to create an effective daily management system. Planet Lean. July 7, 2015. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.planet-lean.com/articles/lean-transformation-daily-management
8. Creating a cardiovascular OR huddle board. AORN J. 2020;111(6):687-690. Published 28 May 2020. doi:10.1002/aorn.13057
9. Rakover J, Little K, Scoville R, Holder B. Implementing daily management systems to support sustained quality improvement in ambulatory surgery centers. AORN J. 2020;111(4):415-422. doi:10.1002/aorn.12988
10. Loesche AH. Using huddles to improve communication and teamwork in an instrument-processing department. Nurs Manag (Harrow). 2020;27(6):34-42. doi:10.7748/nm.2020.e1958
11. Zarbo RJ, Varney RC, Copeland JR, D’Angelo R, Sharma G. Daily management system of the Henry Ford production system: QTIPS to focus continuous improvements at the level of the work. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;144(1):122-136. doi:1309/AJCPLQYMOFWU31CK
12. Hung D, Martinez M, Yakir M, Gray C. Implementing a lean management system in primary care: facilitators and barriers from the front lines. Qual Manag Health Care. 2015;24(3):103-108. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000062
13. Croft D. Guide: Impact and Effort Matrix. Learn Lean 6 Sigma. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.learnleansigma.com/guides/impact-effort-matrix/
14. Leis JA, Shojania KG. A primer on PDSA: executing plan-do-study-act cycles in practice, not just in name. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(7):572-577. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006245
1. Winner LE, Reinhardt E, Benishek L, Marsteller JA. Lean management systems in health care: a review of the literature. Qual Manag Health Care. 2022;31(4):221-230. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000353
2. Mann D. Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions. Productivity Press; 2005.
3. Graban M. Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement. 3rd ed. Productivity Press; 2016.
4. Veazie S, Peterson K, Bourne D. Evidence Brief: Implementation of High Reliability Organization Principles. US Dept of Veterans Affairs; 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542883/
5. Stone RA, Lieberman SL. VHA’s Vision for a High Reliability Organization. US Dept of Veterans Affairs. Summer 2020. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/forum/summer20/default.cfm?ForumMenu=summer20-1
6. Bourgault AM, Upvall MJ, Graham A. Using Gemba boards to facilitate evidence-based practice in critical care. Crit Care Nurse. 2018;38(3):e1-e7. doi:10.4037/ccn2018714
7. Ferro J, Gouveia R. How to create an effective daily management system. Planet Lean. July 7, 2015. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.planet-lean.com/articles/lean-transformation-daily-management
8. Creating a cardiovascular OR huddle board. AORN J. 2020;111(6):687-690. Published 28 May 2020. doi:10.1002/aorn.13057
9. Rakover J, Little K, Scoville R, Holder B. Implementing daily management systems to support sustained quality improvement in ambulatory surgery centers. AORN J. 2020;111(4):415-422. doi:10.1002/aorn.12988
10. Loesche AH. Using huddles to improve communication and teamwork in an instrument-processing department. Nurs Manag (Harrow). 2020;27(6):34-42. doi:10.7748/nm.2020.e1958
11. Zarbo RJ, Varney RC, Copeland JR, D’Angelo R, Sharma G. Daily management system of the Henry Ford production system: QTIPS to focus continuous improvements at the level of the work. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015;144(1):122-136. doi:1309/AJCPLQYMOFWU31CK
12. Hung D, Martinez M, Yakir M, Gray C. Implementing a lean management system in primary care: facilitators and barriers from the front lines. Qual Manag Health Care. 2015;24(3):103-108. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000062
13. Croft D. Guide: Impact and Effort Matrix. Learn Lean 6 Sigma. Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.learnleansigma.com/guides/impact-effort-matrix/
14. Leis JA, Shojania KG. A primer on PDSA: executing plan-do-study-act cycles in practice, not just in name. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(7):572-577. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006245