Program Profile

Hospitalizations related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are potentially avoidable if timely and effective care is provided to the patient. The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality has identified type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, congestive heart failure (CHF), urinary tract infections (UTIs), asthma, dehydration, bacterial pneumonia, angina without an inhospital procedure, and perforated appendix as ACSCs.^1,2 Identifying patients with ACSCs who are at risk for hospitalization is a potential measure to enhance primary care delivery and reduce preventable hospitalizations

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office implemented a guidance statement describing the role and impact of a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) in managing ACSCs.¹ Within the Veterans Health Administration, the CPS may function under a scope of practice within their area of expertise with the ability to prescribe medications, place consults, and order laboratory tests and additional referrals as appropriate. As hospitalizations related to ACSCs are potentially preventable with effective primary care, the CPS can play an essential primary care role to implement interventions targeted at reducing these hospitalizations.

At the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, in Madison, Wisconsin, multiple transitions of care and postdischarge services have been established to capture those patients who are at a high risk of rehospitalization. Studies have been completed regarding implementation of intensive case management programs for high-risk patients.³ Currently though, no standardized process or protocol exists that can identify and optimize primary care for patients with ACSCs who have been hospitalized but are predicted to be at low risk for rehospitalization. Although these patients may not require intensive case management like that of those at high risk, improvements can be made to optimize clinical resources, education, and patient self-monitoring to mitigate risk for hospitalization or rehospitalization. Therefore, this project aimed to evaluate the implementation of offering further referrals and care for patients who have been hospitalized but are considered low risk for hospitalization from ACSCs.

Methods

This quality improvement project to offer further referrals and care to patients considered low risk for hospitalization was implemented to enhance ambulatory-care provided services. All patients identified as being a low risk for hospitalization via a VA dashboard from July through September 2018 were included. Patients were identified based on age, chronic diseases, gender, and other patient-specific factors predetermined by the VA dashboard algorithm. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care and those no longer receiving primary care through the facility were excluded.

A pharmacy resident conducted a baseline chart review using a standardized template in the computerized patient record system (CPRS) to identify additional referrals or interventions a patient may benefit from based on any identified ACSC. Potential referral options included a CPS or nurse care manager disease management, whole health/wellness, educational classes, home monitoring equipment, specialty clinics, nutrition, cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation, social work, and mental health. A pharmacy resident or the patient aligned care team (PACT) CPS reviewed the identified referrals with PACT members at interdisciplinary team meetings and determined which referrals to offer the patient. The pharmacy resident or designated PACT member reached out to the patient via telephone or during a clinic visit to offer and enter the referrals. If the patient agreed to any referrals, a chart review was conducted 3 months later to determine the percentage of initially agreed-upon referrals that the patient completed. Additionally, the number of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations related to an ACSC at 3 months was collected.

Feasibility was assessed to evaluate potential service implementation and was measured by the time in minutes to complete the baseline chart review, time in minutes to offer referrals to the patient, and proportion of referrals that were completed at 3 months.⁴ As this quality improvement project was undertaken for programmatic evaluation, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Health Sciences Institutional Review Board determined that this project did not meet the federal definition of research and therefore review was not required. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 78 veterans who had ≥ 1 ACSC-related hospitalization in the past year and who were categorized as low risk were identified, and 69 veterans were reviewed. Nine patients were not included based on hospice care and no longer receiving primary care through the facility. Eight patients were found to have optimized care with no further action warranted after review. Based on their assigned PACT, there was a range of 0 to 5 patients identified per team. Fifty-one patients were contacted, and 37 accepted ≥ 1 referral. Most of the patients were white and male (Table). The most common ACSCs were hypertension (68%), COPD (46%), and T2DM (30%); additional ACSCs included angina (18%), pneumonia (15%), UTIs (10%), CHF (6%), and asthma, dehydration, and perforated appendix (1.5% for each). Any ACSC listed as a diagnosis for a patient was included, regardless of whether it was related to a hospitalization. Most referrals were offered by pharmacists (pharmacy resident, 41%; CPS, 29%), followed by the nurse care manager (18%) and the primary care provider (12%). One patient passed away related to heart failure complications prior to being contacted to offer additional referrals. Of the 9 patients that were unable to be contacted, 4 did not respond to 3 phone call attempts and 5 had no documentation of referrals being offered after the initial chart review and recommendation was completed.

Most of the initially accepted referrals (n = 68) were for CPS disease management, whole health/wellness, and educational classes (Figure). Of the 28 initially accepted referrals for CPS disease management, most were for COPD (10) and hypertension (8), followed by neuropathic pain (3), vitamin D deficiency (3), hyperlipidemia (2), and T2DM (2). At 3 months, all referrals were completed except for 1 hypertension, 1 vitamin D deficiency, and 2 hyperlipidemia referrals. There were 6 COPD, 4 T2DM self-management, and 1 chronic pain class referrals made with 3 COPD and 1 T2DM referrals completed at 3 months. Two tobacco treatment and 2 palliative care referrals were specialty referrals accepted by patients with 1 palliative care referral completed at 3 months.

In terms of feasibility, the chart review took an average (SD) of 13 (4) minutes, and contacting the patient to offer referrals took an average of 8 (5) minutes. Most of the accepted referrals were completed by 3 months (42/68, 62%).

Comparing the 3 months prior to and the 3 months after offering referrals, there was a cumulative quantitative decrease in the number of ED visits (5 to 1) and hospitalizations (11 to 5). The 1 ED visit was for a patient who was unable to be contacted to offer additional referrals as were 4 of the hospitalizations. One of the hospitalizations was for a patient who was deemed to have optimized care with no additional referrals necessary.

Discussion

Evaluation of the review and referral process for patients at low risk for hospitalization from an ACSC was a proactive approach toward optimizing primary care for veterans, and the process increased patient access to education and primary care. There was a high initial patient acceptance rate of referrals and a high completion rate when offered by PACT members. Based on the number of identified patients, the time spent completing chart reviews and contacting patients to offer referrals for each PACT CPS and team was feasible to conduct.

As there were 69 eligible patients identified over a 3-month period for a single VA facility, including all community-based outpatient clinics serving an estimated 130,000 veterans, the additional time and workload for an individual PACT to reach out to these patients is minimal. Completing the review and outreach process for an average of 21 minutes per patient for at most 5 patients per primary care provider team is feasible to complete during the recommended 4 hours of weekly CPS population health management responsibilities.

Limitations

Several limitations were identified with the implementation of the project. A variety of PACT members completed initial outreach to veterans regarding additional referrals, which may have resulted in a lack of consistency in the approach and discussion of offering referrals to patients. Although there may be a difference in how the team members made referral offers to patients and therefore varying acceptance rates by patients, the process was thought to be more generalizable to the PACT approach for providing care in the VA. In addition, the time to contact patients to offer referrals was not always documented in the electronic health record, making the documented time an estimate. Given that patients identified were managed by a variety of PACT members, there were differences noted among PACTs in terms of acceptability of offering referrals to patients.

While there was a decrease noted in ED visits and hospitalizations when comparing 3 months before and afterward, additional data are needed to provide further insight into this relationship. As the patients identified were at low risk for hospitalization from an ACSC and had 1 or 2 hospitalizations within the year prior, additional time is warranted to compare 12-month ED visits and hospitalization rates postintervention. Finally, these findings may be limited in generalizability to other health care systems as the project was conducted among a specific, veteran patient population with PACT CPSs practicing independently within an established broad scope of practice.

Future Directions

Future directions include incorporating the review and referral process into the PACT CPS population health management responsibilities as a way to use all PACT members to enhance primary care delivered to veterans. To further elucidate the relationship between the referral process and hospitalization rates, a longer data collection period is needed.

Conclusions

Identifying patients at risk for hospitalization from an ACSC via a review and referral process by using the VA PACT structure and team members was feasible and led to increased patient access to primary care and additional services. The PACT CPS would benefit from using a similar approach for population health management for low risk for hospitalization patients or other identified chronic conditions.

Acknowledgments

Presented at the Wisconsin Pharmacy Residency Conference at the Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin Educational Conference April 10, 2019, in Madison, Wisconsin.

Hospitalizations related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are potentially avoidable if timely and effective care is provided to the patient. The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality has identified type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, congestive heart failure (CHF), urinary tract infections (UTIs), asthma, dehydration, bacterial pneumonia, angina without an inhospital procedure, and perforated appendix as ACSCs.^1,2 Identifying patients with ACSCs who are at risk for hospitalization is a potential measure to enhance primary care delivery and reduce preventable hospitalizations

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office implemented a guidance statement describing the role and impact of a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) in managing ACSCs.¹ Within the Veterans Health Administration, the CPS may function under a scope of practice within their area of expertise with the ability to prescribe medications, place consults, and order laboratory tests and additional referrals as appropriate. As hospitalizations related to ACSCs are potentially preventable with effective primary care, the CPS can play an essential primary care role to implement interventions targeted at reducing these hospitalizations.

At the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, in Madison, Wisconsin, multiple transitions of care and postdischarge services have been established to capture those patients who are at a high risk of rehospitalization. Studies have been completed regarding implementation of intensive case management programs for high-risk patients.³ Currently though, no standardized process or protocol exists that can identify and optimize primary care for patients with ACSCs who have been hospitalized but are predicted to be at low risk for rehospitalization. Although these patients may not require intensive case management like that of those at high risk, improvements can be made to optimize clinical resources, education, and patient self-monitoring to mitigate risk for hospitalization or rehospitalization. Therefore, this project aimed to evaluate the implementation of offering further referrals and care for patients who have been hospitalized but are considered low risk for hospitalization from ACSCs.

Methods

This quality improvement project to offer further referrals and care to patients considered low risk for hospitalization was implemented to enhance ambulatory-care provided services. All patients identified as being a low risk for hospitalization via a VA dashboard from July through September 2018 were included. Patients were identified based on age, chronic diseases, gender, and other patient-specific factors predetermined by the VA dashboard algorithm. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care and those no longer receiving primary care through the facility were excluded.

A pharmacy resident conducted a baseline chart review using a standardized template in the computerized patient record system (CPRS) to identify additional referrals or interventions a patient may benefit from based on any identified ACSC. Potential referral options included a CPS or nurse care manager disease management, whole health/wellness, educational classes, home monitoring equipment, specialty clinics, nutrition, cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation, social work, and mental health. A pharmacy resident or the patient aligned care team (PACT) CPS reviewed the identified referrals with PACT members at interdisciplinary team meetings and determined which referrals to offer the patient. The pharmacy resident or designated PACT member reached out to the patient via telephone or during a clinic visit to offer and enter the referrals. If the patient agreed to any referrals, a chart review was conducted 3 months later to determine the percentage of initially agreed-upon referrals that the patient completed. Additionally, the number of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations related to an ACSC at 3 months was collected.

Feasibility was assessed to evaluate potential service implementation and was measured by the time in minutes to complete the baseline chart review, time in minutes to offer referrals to the patient, and proportion of referrals that were completed at 3 months.⁴ As this quality improvement project was undertaken for programmatic evaluation, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Health Sciences Institutional Review Board determined that this project did not meet the federal definition of research and therefore review was not required. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 78 veterans who had ≥ 1 ACSC-related hospitalization in the past year and who were categorized as low risk were identified, and 69 veterans were reviewed. Nine patients were not included based on hospice care and no longer receiving primary care through the facility. Eight patients were found to have optimized care with no further action warranted after review. Based on their assigned PACT, there was a range of 0 to 5 patients identified per team. Fifty-one patients were contacted, and 37 accepted ≥ 1 referral. Most of the patients were white and male (Table). The most common ACSCs were hypertension (68%), COPD (46%), and T2DM (30%); additional ACSCs included angina (18%), pneumonia (15%), UTIs (10%), CHF (6%), and asthma, dehydration, and perforated appendix (1.5% for each). Any ACSC listed as a diagnosis for a patient was included, regardless of whether it was related to a hospitalization. Most referrals were offered by pharmacists (pharmacy resident, 41%; CPS, 29%), followed by the nurse care manager (18%) and the primary care provider (12%). One patient passed away related to heart failure complications prior to being contacted to offer additional referrals. Of the 9 patients that were unable to be contacted, 4 did not respond to 3 phone call attempts and 5 had no documentation of referrals being offered after the initial chart review and recommendation was completed.

Most of the initially accepted referrals (n = 68) were for CPS disease management, whole health/wellness, and educational classes (Figure). Of the 28 initially accepted referrals for CPS disease management, most were for COPD (10) and hypertension (8), followed by neuropathic pain (3), vitamin D deficiency (3), hyperlipidemia (2), and T2DM (2). At 3 months, all referrals were completed except for 1 hypertension, 1 vitamin D deficiency, and 2 hyperlipidemia referrals. There were 6 COPD, 4 T2DM self-management, and 1 chronic pain class referrals made with 3 COPD and 1 T2DM referrals completed at 3 months. Two tobacco treatment and 2 palliative care referrals were specialty referrals accepted by patients with 1 palliative care referral completed at 3 months.

In terms of feasibility, the chart review took an average (SD) of 13 (4) minutes, and contacting the patient to offer referrals took an average of 8 (5) minutes. Most of the accepted referrals were completed by 3 months (42/68, 62%).

Comparing the 3 months prior to and the 3 months after offering referrals, there was a cumulative quantitative decrease in the number of ED visits (5 to 1) and hospitalizations (11 to 5). The 1 ED visit was for a patient who was unable to be contacted to offer additional referrals as were 4 of the hospitalizations. One of the hospitalizations was for a patient who was deemed to have optimized care with no additional referrals necessary.

Discussion

Evaluation of the review and referral process for patients at low risk for hospitalization from an ACSC was a proactive approach toward optimizing primary care for veterans, and the process increased patient access to education and primary care. There was a high initial patient acceptance rate of referrals and a high completion rate when offered by PACT members. Based on the number of identified patients, the time spent completing chart reviews and contacting patients to offer referrals for each PACT CPS and team was feasible to conduct.

As there were 69 eligible patients identified over a 3-month period for a single VA facility, including all community-based outpatient clinics serving an estimated 130,000 veterans, the additional time and workload for an individual PACT to reach out to these patients is minimal. Completing the review and outreach process for an average of 21 minutes per patient for at most 5 patients per primary care provider team is feasible to complete during the recommended 4 hours of weekly CPS population health management responsibilities.

Limitations

Several limitations were identified with the implementation of the project. A variety of PACT members completed initial outreach to veterans regarding additional referrals, which may have resulted in a lack of consistency in the approach and discussion of offering referrals to patients. Although there may be a difference in how the team members made referral offers to patients and therefore varying acceptance rates by patients, the process was thought to be more generalizable to the PACT approach for providing care in the VA. In addition, the time to contact patients to offer referrals was not always documented in the electronic health record, making the documented time an estimate. Given that patients identified were managed by a variety of PACT members, there were differences noted among PACTs in terms of acceptability of offering referrals to patients.

While there was a decrease noted in ED visits and hospitalizations when comparing 3 months before and afterward, additional data are needed to provide further insight into this relationship. As the patients identified were at low risk for hospitalization from an ACSC and had 1 or 2 hospitalizations within the year prior, additional time is warranted to compare 12-month ED visits and hospitalization rates postintervention. Finally, these findings may be limited in generalizability to other health care systems as the project was conducted among a specific, veteran patient population with PACT CPSs practicing independently within an established broad scope of practice.

Future Directions

Future directions include incorporating the review and referral process into the PACT CPS population health management responsibilities as a way to use all PACT members to enhance primary care delivered to veterans. To further elucidate the relationship between the referral process and hospitalization rates, a longer data collection period is needed.

Conclusions

Identifying patients at risk for hospitalization from an ACSC via a review and referral process by using the VA PACT structure and team members was feasible and led to increased patient access to primary care and additional services. The PACT CPS would benefit from using a similar approach for population health management for low risk for hospitalization patients or other identified chronic conditions.

Acknowledgments

Presented at the Wisconsin Pharmacy Residency Conference at the Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin Educational Conference April 10, 2019, in Madison, Wisconsin.

Hospitalizations related to ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are potentially avoidable if timely and effective care is provided to the patient. The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality has identified type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hypertension, congestive heart failure (CHF), urinary tract infections (UTIs), asthma, dehydration, bacterial pneumonia, angina without an inhospital procedure, and perforated appendix as ACSCs.^1,2 Identifying patients with ACSCs who are at risk for hospitalization is a potential measure to enhance primary care delivery and reduce preventable hospitalizations

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office implemented a guidance statement describing the role and impact of a clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) in managing ACSCs.¹ Within the Veterans Health Administration, the CPS may function under a scope of practice within their area of expertise with the ability to prescribe medications, place consults, and order laboratory tests and additional referrals as appropriate. As hospitalizations related to ACSCs are potentially preventable with effective primary care, the CPS can play an essential primary care role to implement interventions targeted at reducing these hospitalizations.

At the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, in Madison, Wisconsin, multiple transitions of care and postdischarge services have been established to capture those patients who are at a high risk of rehospitalization. Studies have been completed regarding implementation of intensive case management programs for high-risk patients.³ Currently though, no standardized process or protocol exists that can identify and optimize primary care for patients with ACSCs who have been hospitalized but are predicted to be at low risk for rehospitalization. Although these patients may not require intensive case management like that of those at high risk, improvements can be made to optimize clinical resources, education, and patient self-monitoring to mitigate risk for hospitalization or rehospitalization. Therefore, this project aimed to evaluate the implementation of offering further referrals and care for patients who have been hospitalized but are considered low risk for hospitalization from ACSCs.

Methods

This quality improvement project to offer further referrals and care to patients considered low risk for hospitalization was implemented to enhance ambulatory-care provided services. All patients identified as being a low risk for hospitalization via a VA dashboard from July through September 2018 were included. Patients were identified based on age, chronic diseases, gender, and other patient-specific factors predetermined by the VA dashboard algorithm. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care and those no longer receiving primary care through the facility were excluded.

A pharmacy resident conducted a baseline chart review using a standardized template in the computerized patient record system (CPRS) to identify additional referrals or interventions a patient may benefit from based on any identified ACSC. Potential referral options included a CPS or nurse care manager disease management, whole health/wellness, educational classes, home monitoring equipment, specialty clinics, nutrition, cardiac or pulmonary rehabilitation, social work, and mental health. A pharmacy resident or the patient aligned care team (PACT) CPS reviewed the identified referrals with PACT members at interdisciplinary team meetings and determined which referrals to offer the patient. The pharmacy resident or designated PACT member reached out to the patient via telephone or during a clinic visit to offer and enter the referrals. If the patient agreed to any referrals, a chart review was conducted 3 months later to determine the percentage of initially agreed-upon referrals that the patient completed. Additionally, the number of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations related to an ACSC at 3 months was collected.

Feasibility was assessed to evaluate potential service implementation and was measured by the time in minutes to complete the baseline chart review, time in minutes to offer referrals to the patient, and proportion of referrals that were completed at 3 months.⁴ As this quality improvement project was undertaken for programmatic evaluation, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Health Sciences Institutional Review Board determined that this project did not meet the federal definition of research and therefore review was not required. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 78 veterans who had ≥ 1 ACSC-related hospitalization in the past year and who were categorized as low risk were identified, and 69 veterans were reviewed. Nine patients were not included based on hospice care and no longer receiving primary care through the facility. Eight patients were found to have optimized care with no further action warranted after review. Based on their assigned PACT, there was a range of 0 to 5 patients identified per team. Fifty-one patients were contacted, and 37 accepted ≥ 1 referral. Most of the patients were white and male (Table). The most common ACSCs were hypertension (68%), COPD (46%), and T2DM (30%); additional ACSCs included angina (18%), pneumonia (15%), UTIs (10%), CHF (6%), and asthma, dehydration, and perforated appendix (1.5% for each). Any ACSC listed as a diagnosis for a patient was included, regardless of whether it was related to a hospitalization. Most referrals were offered by pharmacists (pharmacy resident, 41%; CPS, 29%), followed by the nurse care manager (18%) and the primary care provider (12%). One patient passed away related to heart failure complications prior to being contacted to offer additional referrals. Of the 9 patients that were unable to be contacted, 4 did not respond to 3 phone call attempts and 5 had no documentation of referrals being offered after the initial chart review and recommendation was completed.

Most of the initially accepted referrals (n = 68) were for CPS disease management, whole health/wellness, and educational classes (Figure). Of the 28 initially accepted referrals for CPS disease management, most were for COPD (10) and hypertension (8), followed by neuropathic pain (3), vitamin D deficiency (3), hyperlipidemia (2), and T2DM (2). At 3 months, all referrals were completed except for 1 hypertension, 1 vitamin D deficiency, and 2 hyperlipidemia referrals. There were 6 COPD, 4 T2DM self-management, and 1 chronic pain class referrals made with 3 COPD and 1 T2DM referrals completed at 3 months. Two tobacco treatment and 2 palliative care referrals were specialty referrals accepted by patients with 1 palliative care referral completed at 3 months.

In terms of feasibility, the chart review took an average (SD) of 13 (4) minutes, and contacting the patient to offer referrals took an average of 8 (5) minutes. Most of the accepted referrals were completed by 3 months (42/68, 62%).

Comparing the 3 months prior to and the 3 months after offering referrals, there was a cumulative quantitative decrease in the number of ED visits (5 to 1) and hospitalizations (11 to 5). The 1 ED visit was for a patient who was unable to be contacted to offer additional referrals as were 4 of the hospitalizations. One of the hospitalizations was for a patient who was deemed to have optimized care with no additional referrals necessary.

Discussion

Evaluation of the review and referral process for patients at low risk for hospitalization from an ACSC was a proactive approach toward optimizing primary care for veterans, and the process increased patient access to education and primary care. There was a high initial patient acceptance rate of referrals and a high completion rate when offered by PACT members. Based on the number of identified patients, the time spent completing chart reviews and contacting patients to offer referrals for each PACT CPS and team was feasible to conduct.

As there were 69 eligible patients identified over a 3-month period for a single VA facility, including all community-based outpatient clinics serving an estimated 130,000 veterans, the additional time and workload for an individual PACT to reach out to these patients is minimal. Completing the review and outreach process for an average of 21 minutes per patient for at most 5 patients per primary care provider team is feasible to complete during the recommended 4 hours of weekly CPS population health management responsibilities.

Limitations

Several limitations were identified with the implementation of the project. A variety of PACT members completed initial outreach to veterans regarding additional referrals, which may have resulted in a lack of consistency in the approach and discussion of offering referrals to patients. Although there may be a difference in how the team members made referral offers to patients and therefore varying acceptance rates by patients, the process was thought to be more generalizable to the PACT approach for providing care in the VA. In addition, the time to contact patients to offer referrals was not always documented in the electronic health record, making the documented time an estimate. Given that patients identified were managed by a variety of PACT members, there were differences noted among PACTs in terms of acceptability of offering referrals to patients.

While there was a decrease noted in ED visits and hospitalizations when comparing 3 months before and afterward, additional data are needed to provide further insight into this relationship. As the patients identified were at low risk for hospitalization from an ACSC and had 1 or 2 hospitalizations within the year prior, additional time is warranted to compare 12-month ED visits and hospitalization rates postintervention. Finally, these findings may be limited in generalizability to other health care systems as the project was conducted among a specific, veteran patient population with PACT CPSs practicing independently within an established broad scope of practice.

Future Directions

Future directions include incorporating the review and referral process into the PACT CPS population health management responsibilities as a way to use all PACT members to enhance primary care delivered to veterans. To further elucidate the relationship between the referral process and hospitalization rates, a longer data collection period is needed.

Conclusions

Identifying patients at risk for hospitalization from an ACSC via a review and referral process by using the VA PACT structure and team members was feasible and led to increased patient access to primary care and additional services. The PACT CPS would benefit from using a similar approach for population health management for low risk for hospitalization patients or other identified chronic conditions.

Acknowledgments

Presented at the Wisconsin Pharmacy Residency Conference at the Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin Educational Conference April 10, 2019, in Madison, Wisconsin.

Health care systems are faced with the challenge of meeting increasing patient care demands with finite resources.¹ Advocating for additional capital—specifically, human resources—requires compelling data that accurately capture workload credit. When workload is not captured accurately, clinicians may be tasked with providing care to a high volume of patients without appropriate resource allocation. This understaffing can delay care delivery and increase the risk of diagnostic and treatment errors.² Furthermore, workers in understaffed medical facilities are more likely to experience burnout, which leads to high workforce turnover.

Computer based documentation (CBD) is used often in medical practices to track patient care and clinical workload. However, improperly designed and implemented CBD systems can contribute to cumbersome documentation tasks and inaccurate or incomplete data capture.³ Conversely, CBD can be a useful tool to capture workload credit and can subsequently facilitate justification for medical staff allocation to meet patient care demands. This article uses our experience with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national sleep medicine programs to illustrate the impact of CBD procedures on health care workload assessment and allocation. Specifically, we examine how appropriate workload capture facilitates growth and improves the efficiency of health care programs.

The VA is the largest integrated health care system in the US, serving 9 million veterans at 1,255 facilities, including 170 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs).⁴ As veterans’ demands for VA medical services have outpaced available resources, there have been several media reports of lapses in timely care delivery.^5-7 These lapses have been due, in part, to insufficient workforce resource allocation within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. A 2012 audit of physician staffing levels conducted by the VA Inspector General concluded that the VA did not have an effective staffing methodology to ensure appropriate staffing levels for specialty care services.⁸ The lack of staffing plans and productivity standards limits the ability of medical facility officials to make informed business decisions regarding the appropriate number of specialty physicians required to meet patient care needs.⁸ In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress that stated the “VA’s productivity metrics and efficiency models do not provide complete and accurate information, they may misrepresent the true level of productivity and efficiency across VAMCs and limit the VA’s ability to determine the extent to which its resources are being used effectively.”⁹ To understand how and why many VA medical facilities remain understaffed, and therefore struggle to provide health care to veterans in a timely fashion, a description of VA CBD procedures is provided.

Background

VA Directive 1082 on Patient Care Data requires the capture of all outpatient and inpatient billable encounter data.¹⁰ Accurate capture of workload informs budget allocation models and is necessary for health care provider (HCP) productivity metrics. These data points help identify staff shortages relative to the generated workload. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) model is used to allocate general purpose funds to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) regional network of VHA facilities. The underlying data components of the VERA model rely on comprehensive data systems that track and analyze the many management information systems used in VHA. Historically, at least 90% of the funds allocated by the VERA model have been attributed directly to patient care. All workload that is appropriately documented is accounted for in the VERA patient classification process, which is the official data source for funding patient care in VHA.

VA medical facilities use Stop Codes (formerly known as Decision Support System Identifiers) to identify workload for all outpatient encounters and inpatient professional services. Each code is composed of a 6-character descriptor that includes a primary Stop Code and a credit (secondary) Stop Code. Primary Stop Codes—the first 3 numbers in the sequence—designate the main clinical group responsible for patient care, such as sleep medicine or neurology. Secondary Stop Codes—the last 3 numbers in the sequence—further define the primary workgroup, such as the type of services provided (eg, telehealth) or the type of HCP (eg, nurse practitioner). These codes help ensure that workload and generated revenue are allocated or credited to the proper specialty care service.¹¹ An example of how changes or inaccuracies in Stop Code reporting can affect VHA clinical workload assessment and resource allocation is provided by the VHA sleep medicine program.

The prevalence of sleep disorders—particularly apnea and insomnia—among US military service members and veterans has increased dramatically over the past 2 decades and continues to rise.^12-14 Consequently, demand for sleep care services at VHA facilities also has increased substantially (Figure 1). Unfortunately, this demand has outpaced the VHA’s staffing models, sometimes resulting in long wait times for appointments.¹⁵ In fact, sleep medicine remains one of the most backlogged services in the VHA, despite significant improvements in program efficiency achieved by incorporating telehealth modalities.¹⁶ Untreated sleep disorders are associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety, impaired neurocognitive functions, cardiovascular disease, motor vehicle accidents, and premature death.^17-23

A major contributor to understaffing of VHA sleep medicine programs is the CBD system’s historical inability to accurately track sleep resources and demand for sleep care services. For many years, Stop Codes attributed sleep workload credit primarily to pulmonary medicine, neurology, and internal medicine workgroups. Within these workgroups, few individuals contributed to sleep care, but the entire workgroup received credit for these services, masking the workload of sleep care providers. Additional barriers to accurate sleep medicine workload capture within the VHA included (1) inability to centrally identify personnel, including physicians, as providers of sleep care; (2) limited and variable understanding among VA sleep physicians of the importance of proper encounter form completion (the mechanism by which the cost of a service is calculated); and (3) a lack of awareness that encounter closure is directly linked to productivity measures such as relative value units (RVUs) that support sleep medicine programs and the salaries of those who provide care.

Methods

The critical role of accurate CBD in health care administration is illustrated by the proper use of Stop Codes as a foundational step in tracking services provided to justify adequate resource allocation within VA. A complete redesign of tracking sleep service documentation was initiated in 2014 and resulted in national changes to sleep medicine Stop Codes. The Stop Code initiative was the first step of several to improve CBD for VA sleep services.

Primary Stop Code 349 designates sleep medicine encounters in VA facilities (Table). However, before changes were implemented in fiscal year (FY) 2015, Stop Codes for VHA sleep care did not differentiate between specific services provided, such as laboratory-based sleep testing, at-home sleep testing, education/training sessions, follow-up appointments, equipment consults, telephone or video consults, or administrative tasks. In early FY 2015, several changes were made to Stop Codes used for VHA sleep medicine services nationwide to capture the breadth of services that were being provided; services that had previously been performed but were not documented. A new standardized coding methodology was established for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) clinics (349/116 or 349/117); telephone consults for sleep care (324/349); and store and forward sleep telehealth encounters (349/694, 349/695, or 349/696).

In the VA, store-and-forward telehealth refers to asynchronous telemedicine involving the acquisition and storing of clinical information (eg, data, image, sound, or video) that another site or clinician reviews later for evaluation and interpretation. In sleep medicine, data uploaded from home sleep apnea test units or CPAP devices are examples of this asynchronous telehealth model. The goal of these changes in VA Stop Codes was to accurately assess the volume of sleep care delivered and the demand for sleep care (consult volumes); enable planning for resource allocation and utilization appropriately; provide veterans with consistent access to sleep services across the country; and facilitate reductions in wait times for sleep care appointments. Results of these changes were immediate and dramatic in terms of data capture and reporting.

Results

Figure 1 illustrates an increase in patient encounters in VA sleep clinics by 24,197 (19.6%) in the first quarter of Stop Code change implementation (FY 2015, quarter 2) compared with those of the previous quarter. VHA sleep clinic patient encounters increased in subsequent quarters of FY 2015 by 29,910 (20.2%) and 11,206 (6.3%) respectively. By the end of FY 2015, reported sleep clinic encounters increased by 190,803 compared with the those at the end of FY 2014, an increase of 42.7%.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the additional effects of sleep Stop Code changes that were implemented in FY 2015 for CPAP clinics, telephone encounters, and store-and-forward telehealth encounters, respectively. The large increases in reported sleep patient encounters between FY 2014 and FY 2016 reflect changes in CBD and are not entirely due to actual changes in clinical workloads. These results indicate that workloads in many VHA sleep medicine clinics were grossly underreported or misallocated to other specialty services prior to the changes implemented in FY 2015. This discrepancy in care delivery vs workload capture is a contributing factor to the understaffing that continues to challenge VHA sleep programs. However, the improved accuracy of workload reporting that resulted from Stop Code modifications has resulted in only a small proportional increase in VHA clinical resources allocated to provide adequate services and care for veterans with sleep disorders.

In response to the substantial and increasing demand for sleep services by veterans, the VA Office of Rural Health (ORH) funded an enterprise-wide initiative (EWI) to develop and implement a national TeleSleep Program.¹⁶ The goal of this program is to improve the health and well-being of rural veterans by increasing their access to sleep care and services.

Discussion

Inaccuracies in CBD procedures can adversely affect health care workload assessment and allocation, contributing to ongoing challenges faced by sleep medicine clinics and other VHA programs that have limited staff yet strive to provide timely and high-quality care to veterans. “Not only does inaccurate coding contribute to miscalculations in staffing and resource allocation, it can also contribute to inaccuracies in overall measures of VA healthcare efficiency,” the GAO reported to Congress.⁹ The GAO went on to recommend that the VA should ensure the accuracy of underlying staffing and workload data. VHA sleep medicine programs have made efforts to educate HCPs and administrators on the importance of accurate CBD as a tool for accurate data capture that is necessary to facilitate improvements in health care availability and delivery.

In 2018, the VA Sleep Program Office released an updated set of Stop Code changes, including expansion of telehealth codes and improved designation of laboratory and home sleep testing services. These changes are anticipated to result in accurate documentation of VA sleep clinic workload and services, especially as the VA TeleSleep EWI to reach rural veterans expands.¹⁶ In light of the improved accuracy of reporting of delivered sleep services due to changes in Stop Codes over the past 4 years, VHA sleep medicine providers continue to advocate for allocation of resources commensurate with their clinical workload. An appropriate administrative response to the significant clinical workload performed by disproportionately few providers should include the authorization of increased resources and personnel for sleep medicine as well as providing the tools needed to further streamline workflow efficiency (eg, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and population health management).

Conclusions

Despite the barriers faced by many large integrated health care systems, VHA sleep medicine leadership continues to implement changes in CBD protocols that improve the accuracy of clinical workload tracking and reporting. Ultimately, these changes will support proposals for increased resources necessary to improve the quality and availability of sleep care for veterans. This example from VA illustrates the importance of accurate workload capture and its role in informing administrators of health care systems as they strive to meet the needs of patients. Although some VA sleep medicine programs continue to face challenges imposed by systemwide limitations, the ORH TeleSleep Program is a major initiative that improves veterans’ access to care by disseminating and implementing effective telehealth technologies and strategies.¹⁶

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a VA Office of Rural Health Enterprise-Wide Initiative.

Health care systems are faced with the challenge of meeting increasing patient care demands with finite resources.¹ Advocating for additional capital—specifically, human resources—requires compelling data that accurately capture workload credit. When workload is not captured accurately, clinicians may be tasked with providing care to a high volume of patients without appropriate resource allocation. This understaffing can delay care delivery and increase the risk of diagnostic and treatment errors.² Furthermore, workers in understaffed medical facilities are more likely to experience burnout, which leads to high workforce turnover.

Computer based documentation (CBD) is used often in medical practices to track patient care and clinical workload. However, improperly designed and implemented CBD systems can contribute to cumbersome documentation tasks and inaccurate or incomplete data capture.³ Conversely, CBD can be a useful tool to capture workload credit and can subsequently facilitate justification for medical staff allocation to meet patient care demands. This article uses our experience with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national sleep medicine programs to illustrate the impact of CBD procedures on health care workload assessment and allocation. Specifically, we examine how appropriate workload capture facilitates growth and improves the efficiency of health care programs.

The VA is the largest integrated health care system in the US, serving 9 million veterans at 1,255 facilities, including 170 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs).⁴ As veterans’ demands for VA medical services have outpaced available resources, there have been several media reports of lapses in timely care delivery.^5-7 These lapses have been due, in part, to insufficient workforce resource allocation within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. A 2012 audit of physician staffing levels conducted by the VA Inspector General concluded that the VA did not have an effective staffing methodology to ensure appropriate staffing levels for specialty care services.⁸ The lack of staffing plans and productivity standards limits the ability of medical facility officials to make informed business decisions regarding the appropriate number of specialty physicians required to meet patient care needs.⁸ In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress that stated the “VA’s productivity metrics and efficiency models do not provide complete and accurate information, they may misrepresent the true level of productivity and efficiency across VAMCs and limit the VA’s ability to determine the extent to which its resources are being used effectively.”⁹ To understand how and why many VA medical facilities remain understaffed, and therefore struggle to provide health care to veterans in a timely fashion, a description of VA CBD procedures is provided.

Background

VA Directive 1082 on Patient Care Data requires the capture of all outpatient and inpatient billable encounter data.¹⁰ Accurate capture of workload informs budget allocation models and is necessary for health care provider (HCP) productivity metrics. These data points help identify staff shortages relative to the generated workload. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) model is used to allocate general purpose funds to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) regional network of VHA facilities. The underlying data components of the VERA model rely on comprehensive data systems that track and analyze the many management information systems used in VHA. Historically, at least 90% of the funds allocated by the VERA model have been attributed directly to patient care. All workload that is appropriately documented is accounted for in the VERA patient classification process, which is the official data source for funding patient care in VHA.

VA medical facilities use Stop Codes (formerly known as Decision Support System Identifiers) to identify workload for all outpatient encounters and inpatient professional services. Each code is composed of a 6-character descriptor that includes a primary Stop Code and a credit (secondary) Stop Code. Primary Stop Codes—the first 3 numbers in the sequence—designate the main clinical group responsible for patient care, such as sleep medicine or neurology. Secondary Stop Codes—the last 3 numbers in the sequence—further define the primary workgroup, such as the type of services provided (eg, telehealth) or the type of HCP (eg, nurse practitioner). These codes help ensure that workload and generated revenue are allocated or credited to the proper specialty care service.¹¹ An example of how changes or inaccuracies in Stop Code reporting can affect VHA clinical workload assessment and resource allocation is provided by the VHA sleep medicine program.

The prevalence of sleep disorders—particularly apnea and insomnia—among US military service members and veterans has increased dramatically over the past 2 decades and continues to rise.^12-14 Consequently, demand for sleep care services at VHA facilities also has increased substantially (Figure 1). Unfortunately, this demand has outpaced the VHA’s staffing models, sometimes resulting in long wait times for appointments.¹⁵ In fact, sleep medicine remains one of the most backlogged services in the VHA, despite significant improvements in program efficiency achieved by incorporating telehealth modalities.¹⁶ Untreated sleep disorders are associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety, impaired neurocognitive functions, cardiovascular disease, motor vehicle accidents, and premature death.^17-23

A major contributor to understaffing of VHA sleep medicine programs is the CBD system’s historical inability to accurately track sleep resources and demand for sleep care services. For many years, Stop Codes attributed sleep workload credit primarily to pulmonary medicine, neurology, and internal medicine workgroups. Within these workgroups, few individuals contributed to sleep care, but the entire workgroup received credit for these services, masking the workload of sleep care providers. Additional barriers to accurate sleep medicine workload capture within the VHA included (1) inability to centrally identify personnel, including physicians, as providers of sleep care; (2) limited and variable understanding among VA sleep physicians of the importance of proper encounter form completion (the mechanism by which the cost of a service is calculated); and (3) a lack of awareness that encounter closure is directly linked to productivity measures such as relative value units (RVUs) that support sleep medicine programs and the salaries of those who provide care.

Methods

The critical role of accurate CBD in health care administration is illustrated by the proper use of Stop Codes as a foundational step in tracking services provided to justify adequate resource allocation within VA. A complete redesign of tracking sleep service documentation was initiated in 2014 and resulted in national changes to sleep medicine Stop Codes. The Stop Code initiative was the first step of several to improve CBD for VA sleep services.

Primary Stop Code 349 designates sleep medicine encounters in VA facilities (Table). However, before changes were implemented in fiscal year (FY) 2015, Stop Codes for VHA sleep care did not differentiate between specific services provided, such as laboratory-based sleep testing, at-home sleep testing, education/training sessions, follow-up appointments, equipment consults, telephone or video consults, or administrative tasks. In early FY 2015, several changes were made to Stop Codes used for VHA sleep medicine services nationwide to capture the breadth of services that were being provided; services that had previously been performed but were not documented. A new standardized coding methodology was established for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) clinics (349/116 or 349/117); telephone consults for sleep care (324/349); and store and forward sleep telehealth encounters (349/694, 349/695, or 349/696).

In the VA, store-and-forward telehealth refers to asynchronous telemedicine involving the acquisition and storing of clinical information (eg, data, image, sound, or video) that another site or clinician reviews later for evaluation and interpretation. In sleep medicine, data uploaded from home sleep apnea test units or CPAP devices are examples of this asynchronous telehealth model. The goal of these changes in VA Stop Codes was to accurately assess the volume of sleep care delivered and the demand for sleep care (consult volumes); enable planning for resource allocation and utilization appropriately; provide veterans with consistent access to sleep services across the country; and facilitate reductions in wait times for sleep care appointments. Results of these changes were immediate and dramatic in terms of data capture and reporting.

Results

Figure 1 illustrates an increase in patient encounters in VA sleep clinics by 24,197 (19.6%) in the first quarter of Stop Code change implementation (FY 2015, quarter 2) compared with those of the previous quarter. VHA sleep clinic patient encounters increased in subsequent quarters of FY 2015 by 29,910 (20.2%) and 11,206 (6.3%) respectively. By the end of FY 2015, reported sleep clinic encounters increased by 190,803 compared with the those at the end of FY 2014, an increase of 42.7%.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the additional effects of sleep Stop Code changes that were implemented in FY 2015 for CPAP clinics, telephone encounters, and store-and-forward telehealth encounters, respectively. The large increases in reported sleep patient encounters between FY 2014 and FY 2016 reflect changes in CBD and are not entirely due to actual changes in clinical workloads. These results indicate that workloads in many VHA sleep medicine clinics were grossly underreported or misallocated to other specialty services prior to the changes implemented in FY 2015. This discrepancy in care delivery vs workload capture is a contributing factor to the understaffing that continues to challenge VHA sleep programs. However, the improved accuracy of workload reporting that resulted from Stop Code modifications has resulted in only a small proportional increase in VHA clinical resources allocated to provide adequate services and care for veterans with sleep disorders.

In response to the substantial and increasing demand for sleep services by veterans, the VA Office of Rural Health (ORH) funded an enterprise-wide initiative (EWI) to develop and implement a national TeleSleep Program.¹⁶ The goal of this program is to improve the health and well-being of rural veterans by increasing their access to sleep care and services.

Discussion

Inaccuracies in CBD procedures can adversely affect health care workload assessment and allocation, contributing to ongoing challenges faced by sleep medicine clinics and other VHA programs that have limited staff yet strive to provide timely and high-quality care to veterans. “Not only does inaccurate coding contribute to miscalculations in staffing and resource allocation, it can also contribute to inaccuracies in overall measures of VA healthcare efficiency,” the GAO reported to Congress.⁹ The GAO went on to recommend that the VA should ensure the accuracy of underlying staffing and workload data. VHA sleep medicine programs have made efforts to educate HCPs and administrators on the importance of accurate CBD as a tool for accurate data capture that is necessary to facilitate improvements in health care availability and delivery.

In 2018, the VA Sleep Program Office released an updated set of Stop Code changes, including expansion of telehealth codes and improved designation of laboratory and home sleep testing services. These changes are anticipated to result in accurate documentation of VA sleep clinic workload and services, especially as the VA TeleSleep EWI to reach rural veterans expands.¹⁶ In light of the improved accuracy of reporting of delivered sleep services due to changes in Stop Codes over the past 4 years, VHA sleep medicine providers continue to advocate for allocation of resources commensurate with their clinical workload. An appropriate administrative response to the significant clinical workload performed by disproportionately few providers should include the authorization of increased resources and personnel for sleep medicine as well as providing the tools needed to further streamline workflow efficiency (eg, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and population health management).

Conclusions

Despite the barriers faced by many large integrated health care systems, VHA sleep medicine leadership continues to implement changes in CBD protocols that improve the accuracy of clinical workload tracking and reporting. Ultimately, these changes will support proposals for increased resources necessary to improve the quality and availability of sleep care for veterans. This example from VA illustrates the importance of accurate workload capture and its role in informing administrators of health care systems as they strive to meet the needs of patients. Although some VA sleep medicine programs continue to face challenges imposed by systemwide limitations, the ORH TeleSleep Program is a major initiative that improves veterans’ access to care by disseminating and implementing effective telehealth technologies and strategies.¹⁶

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a VA Office of Rural Health Enterprise-Wide Initiative.

Health care systems are faced with the challenge of meeting increasing patient care demands with finite resources.¹ Advocating for additional capital—specifically, human resources—requires compelling data that accurately capture workload credit. When workload is not captured accurately, clinicians may be tasked with providing care to a high volume of patients without appropriate resource allocation. This understaffing can delay care delivery and increase the risk of diagnostic and treatment errors.² Furthermore, workers in understaffed medical facilities are more likely to experience burnout, which leads to high workforce turnover.

Computer based documentation (CBD) is used often in medical practices to track patient care and clinical workload. However, improperly designed and implemented CBD systems can contribute to cumbersome documentation tasks and inaccurate or incomplete data capture.³ Conversely, CBD can be a useful tool to capture workload credit and can subsequently facilitate justification for medical staff allocation to meet patient care demands. This article uses our experience with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national sleep medicine programs to illustrate the impact of CBD procedures on health care workload assessment and allocation. Specifically, we examine how appropriate workload capture facilitates growth and improves the efficiency of health care programs.

The VA is the largest integrated health care system in the US, serving 9 million veterans at 1,255 facilities, including 170 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs).⁴ As veterans’ demands for VA medical services have outpaced available resources, there have been several media reports of lapses in timely care delivery.^5-7 These lapses have been due, in part, to insufficient workforce resource allocation within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities. A 2012 audit of physician staffing levels conducted by the VA Inspector General concluded that the VA did not have an effective staffing methodology to ensure appropriate staffing levels for specialty care services.⁸ The lack of staffing plans and productivity standards limits the ability of medical facility officials to make informed business decisions regarding the appropriate number of specialty physicians required to meet patient care needs.⁸ In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report to Congress that stated the “VA’s productivity metrics and efficiency models do not provide complete and accurate information, they may misrepresent the true level of productivity and efficiency across VAMCs and limit the VA’s ability to determine the extent to which its resources are being used effectively.”⁹ To understand how and why many VA medical facilities remain understaffed, and therefore struggle to provide health care to veterans in a timely fashion, a description of VA CBD procedures is provided.

Background

VA Directive 1082 on Patient Care Data requires the capture of all outpatient and inpatient billable encounter data.¹⁰ Accurate capture of workload informs budget allocation models and is necessary for health care provider (HCP) productivity metrics. These data points help identify staff shortages relative to the generated workload. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) model is used to allocate general purpose funds to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) regional network of VHA facilities. The underlying data components of the VERA model rely on comprehensive data systems that track and analyze the many management information systems used in VHA. Historically, at least 90% of the funds allocated by the VERA model have been attributed directly to patient care. All workload that is appropriately documented is accounted for in the VERA patient classification process, which is the official data source for funding patient care in VHA.

VA medical facilities use Stop Codes (formerly known as Decision Support System Identifiers) to identify workload for all outpatient encounters and inpatient professional services. Each code is composed of a 6-character descriptor that includes a primary Stop Code and a credit (secondary) Stop Code. Primary Stop Codes—the first 3 numbers in the sequence—designate the main clinical group responsible for patient care, such as sleep medicine or neurology. Secondary Stop Codes—the last 3 numbers in the sequence—further define the primary workgroup, such as the type of services provided (eg, telehealth) or the type of HCP (eg, nurse practitioner). These codes help ensure that workload and generated revenue are allocated or credited to the proper specialty care service.¹¹ An example of how changes or inaccuracies in Stop Code reporting can affect VHA clinical workload assessment and resource allocation is provided by the VHA sleep medicine program.

The prevalence of sleep disorders—particularly apnea and insomnia—among US military service members and veterans has increased dramatically over the past 2 decades and continues to rise.^12-14 Consequently, demand for sleep care services at VHA facilities also has increased substantially (Figure 1). Unfortunately, this demand has outpaced the VHA’s staffing models, sometimes resulting in long wait times for appointments.¹⁵ In fact, sleep medicine remains one of the most backlogged services in the VHA, despite significant improvements in program efficiency achieved by incorporating telehealth modalities.¹⁶ Untreated sleep disorders are associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety, impaired neurocognitive functions, cardiovascular disease, motor vehicle accidents, and premature death.^17-23

A major contributor to understaffing of VHA sleep medicine programs is the CBD system’s historical inability to accurately track sleep resources and demand for sleep care services. For many years, Stop Codes attributed sleep workload credit primarily to pulmonary medicine, neurology, and internal medicine workgroups. Within these workgroups, few individuals contributed to sleep care, but the entire workgroup received credit for these services, masking the workload of sleep care providers. Additional barriers to accurate sleep medicine workload capture within the VHA included (1) inability to centrally identify personnel, including physicians, as providers of sleep care; (2) limited and variable understanding among VA sleep physicians of the importance of proper encounter form completion (the mechanism by which the cost of a service is calculated); and (3) a lack of awareness that encounter closure is directly linked to productivity measures such as relative value units (RVUs) that support sleep medicine programs and the salaries of those who provide care.

Methods

The critical role of accurate CBD in health care administration is illustrated by the proper use of Stop Codes as a foundational step in tracking services provided to justify adequate resource allocation within VA. A complete redesign of tracking sleep service documentation was initiated in 2014 and resulted in national changes to sleep medicine Stop Codes. The Stop Code initiative was the first step of several to improve CBD for VA sleep services.

Primary Stop Code 349 designates sleep medicine encounters in VA facilities (Table). However, before changes were implemented in fiscal year (FY) 2015, Stop Codes for VHA sleep care did not differentiate between specific services provided, such as laboratory-based sleep testing, at-home sleep testing, education/training sessions, follow-up appointments, equipment consults, telephone or video consults, or administrative tasks. In early FY 2015, several changes were made to Stop Codes used for VHA sleep medicine services nationwide to capture the breadth of services that were being provided; services that had previously been performed but were not documented. A new standardized coding methodology was established for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) clinics (349/116 or 349/117); telephone consults for sleep care (324/349); and store and forward sleep telehealth encounters (349/694, 349/695, or 349/696).

In the VA, store-and-forward telehealth refers to asynchronous telemedicine involving the acquisition and storing of clinical information (eg, data, image, sound, or video) that another site or clinician reviews later for evaluation and interpretation. In sleep medicine, data uploaded from home sleep apnea test units or CPAP devices are examples of this asynchronous telehealth model. The goal of these changes in VA Stop Codes was to accurately assess the volume of sleep care delivered and the demand for sleep care (consult volumes); enable planning for resource allocation and utilization appropriately; provide veterans with consistent access to sleep services across the country; and facilitate reductions in wait times for sleep care appointments. Results of these changes were immediate and dramatic in terms of data capture and reporting.

Results

Figure 1 illustrates an increase in patient encounters in VA sleep clinics by 24,197 (19.6%) in the first quarter of Stop Code change implementation (FY 2015, quarter 2) compared with those of the previous quarter. VHA sleep clinic patient encounters increased in subsequent quarters of FY 2015 by 29,910 (20.2%) and 11,206 (6.3%) respectively. By the end of FY 2015, reported sleep clinic encounters increased by 190,803 compared with the those at the end of FY 2014, an increase of 42.7%.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the additional effects of sleep Stop Code changes that were implemented in FY 2015 for CPAP clinics, telephone encounters, and store-and-forward telehealth encounters, respectively. The large increases in reported sleep patient encounters between FY 2014 and FY 2016 reflect changes in CBD and are not entirely due to actual changes in clinical workloads. These results indicate that workloads in many VHA sleep medicine clinics were grossly underreported or misallocated to other specialty services prior to the changes implemented in FY 2015. This discrepancy in care delivery vs workload capture is a contributing factor to the understaffing that continues to challenge VHA sleep programs. However, the improved accuracy of workload reporting that resulted from Stop Code modifications has resulted in only a small proportional increase in VHA clinical resources allocated to provide adequate services and care for veterans with sleep disorders.

In response to the substantial and increasing demand for sleep services by veterans, the VA Office of Rural Health (ORH) funded an enterprise-wide initiative (EWI) to develop and implement a national TeleSleep Program.¹⁶ The goal of this program is to improve the health and well-being of rural veterans by increasing their access to sleep care and services.

Discussion

Inaccuracies in CBD procedures can adversely affect health care workload assessment and allocation, contributing to ongoing challenges faced by sleep medicine clinics and other VHA programs that have limited staff yet strive to provide timely and high-quality care to veterans. “Not only does inaccurate coding contribute to miscalculations in staffing and resource allocation, it can also contribute to inaccuracies in overall measures of VA healthcare efficiency,” the GAO reported to Congress.⁹ The GAO went on to recommend that the VA should ensure the accuracy of underlying staffing and workload data. VHA sleep medicine programs have made efforts to educate HCPs and administrators on the importance of accurate CBD as a tool for accurate data capture that is necessary to facilitate improvements in health care availability and delivery.

In 2018, the VA Sleep Program Office released an updated set of Stop Code changes, including expansion of telehealth codes and improved designation of laboratory and home sleep testing services. These changes are anticipated to result in accurate documentation of VA sleep clinic workload and services, especially as the VA TeleSleep EWI to reach rural veterans expands.¹⁶ In light of the improved accuracy of reporting of delivered sleep services due to changes in Stop Codes over the past 4 years, VHA sleep medicine providers continue to advocate for allocation of resources commensurate with their clinical workload. An appropriate administrative response to the significant clinical workload performed by disproportionately few providers should include the authorization of increased resources and personnel for sleep medicine as well as providing the tools needed to further streamline workflow efficiency (eg, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and population health management).

Conclusions

Despite the barriers faced by many large integrated health care systems, VHA sleep medicine leadership continues to implement changes in CBD protocols that improve the accuracy of clinical workload tracking and reporting. Ultimately, these changes will support proposals for increased resources necessary to improve the quality and availability of sleep care for veterans. This example from VA illustrates the importance of accurate workload capture and its role in informing administrators of health care systems as they strive to meet the needs of patients. Although some VA sleep medicine programs continue to face challenges imposed by systemwide limitations, the ORH TeleSleep Program is a major initiative that improves veterans’ access to care by disseminating and implementing effective telehealth technologies and strategies.¹⁶

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a VA Office of Rural Health Enterprise-Wide Initiative.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established a formal Amputation System of Care (ASoC) in 2008 with the goal of enhancing the quality and consistency of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans with limb loss.^1,2 Throughout its history, the VA has placed a high priority on the care that is provided to veterans with limb amputation.^1,3 Amputations have medical, physical, social, and psychological ramifications for the veteran and his or her family. Therefore, management of veterans with limb loss requires a comprehensive, coordinated, transdisciplinary program of services throughout the continuum of care. This includes offering the latest practices in medical interventions, artificial limbs, assistive technologies, and rehabilitation strategies to restore function and thereby optimize quality of life.

Amputation System of Care

The ASoC is an integrated system within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that provides specialized expertise in amputation rehabilitation incorporating the latest practices in medical management, rehabilitation therapies, artificial limbs, and assistive technologies. The system facilitates patient-centered, gender-sensitive, lifelong care and care coordination across the entire health continuum from acute inpatient hospitalization through a spectrum of inpatient, residential, and outpatient rehabilitation care settings. Through the provision of quality rehabilitation and prosthetic limb care, the ASoC strives to minimize disability and enable the highest level of social, vocational, and recreational success for veterans with an amputation.^1-3

The policy and procedures for the ASoC have been detailed in prior VA Handbooks and in the ASoC Directive.¹ This article highlights the background, population served, and organizational structure of the ASoC by detailing the outcomes and accomplishments of this systems-based approach to longitudinal amputation care between 2009 and 2019. Four core areas of activities and accomplishments are highlighted: (1) learning organization creation; (2) trust in VA care; (3) system modernization; and (4) customer service. This analysis and description of the VA amputation care program serves as a model of amputation care that can be used in the civilian sector. There also is potential for the ASoC to serve as a care model example for other populations within the VA.

Organizational Structure

The ASoC is an integrated, national health care delivery system in which each VA medical center (VAMC) has a specific designation that reflects the level of expertise and accessibility across the system based on an individual veteran’s needs and the specific capabilities of each VAMC.^1-3 The organizational structure for the ASoC is similar to the Polytrauma System of Care in that facilities are divided into 4 tiers.^1,4

For the ASoC, the 4 tiers are Regional Amputation Centers (RAC) at 7 VAMCs, Polytrauma Amputation Network Sites (PANS) at 18 VAMCs, Amputation Clinic Teams (ACT) at 106 VAMCs, and Amputation Points of Contact (APoC) at 22 VAMCs. The RAC locations provide the highest level of specialized expertise in clinical care and prosthetic limb technology and have rehabilitation capabilities to manage the most complicated cases. Like the RAC facilities, PANS provide a full range of clinical and ancillary services to veterans within their catchment area and serve as referral locations for veterans with needs that are more complex. ACT sites have a core amputation specialty team that provides regular follow-up and address ongoing care needs. ACT sites may or may not have full ancillary services, such as surgical subspecialties or an in-house prosthetics laboratory. APoC facilities have at least 1 person on staff who serves as the point of contact for consultation, assessment, and referral of a veteran with an amputation to a facility capable of providing the level of services required.¹

The VA also places a high priority on both primary and secondary amputation prevention. The Preventing Amputations in Veterans Everywhere (PAVE) program and the ASoC coordinate efforts in order to address the prevention of an initial amputation, the rehabilitation of veterans who have had an amputation, and the prevention of a second amputation in those with an amputation.^1,5

Population Served

The ASoC serves veterans with limb loss regardless of the etiology. This includes care of individuals with complex limb trauma and those with other injuries or disease processes resulting in a high likelihood of requiring a limb amputation. In 2019, the VA provided care to 96,519 veterans with amputation, and about half (46,214) had at least 1 major limb amputation, which is defined as an amputation at or proximal to the wrist or ankle.⁶ The majority of veterans with amputation treated within the VA have limb loss resulting from disease processes, such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Amputations caused by these diseases generally occur in the older veteran population and are associated with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and end-stage renal disease. Veterans with amputation due to trauma, including conflict-related injuries, are commonly younger at the time of their amputation. Although the number of conflict-related amputations is small compared with the number of amputations associated with disease processes, both groups require high-quality, comprehensive, lifelong care.

Between 2009 and 2019, the number of veterans with limb loss receiving care in the VA increased 34%.⁶ With advances in vascular surgery and limb-sparing procedures, minor amputations are more common than major limb amputations and more below-knee rather than above-knee amputations have been noted over the same time. However, the high prevalence of DM in the overall veteran population places about 1.8 million veterans at risk for amputation, and it is anticipated that the volume of limb loss in the veteran population will continue to grow and possibly accelerate.⁵

Performance Metrics

Over the past 10 years, the ASoC has focused on ensuring that an amputation specialty care team addresses the needs of veterans with amputation. Between 2009 and 2019, the VA amputation specialty clinics saw a 49% annual increase in the number of unique veterans treated and a 64% annual increase in the number of total clinic encounters (Figure 1).⁶ This growth is attributed to the larger amputation population receiving enhanced access to the specialty team providing consistent, comprehensive, lifelong care.

During this same period, the amputation specialty clinic encounter to unique ratio (a measure of how frequently patients return to the clinic each year) rose from 1.8 in 2009 to 2.3 in 2019 for both the total amputation population and for those with major limb amputation. When looking more specifically at the RAC facilities, the encounter to unique ratio increased from 1.5 to 3.0 over the same time, reflecting the added benefit of having dedicated resources for the amputation specialty program.⁶

Comparing the percentage of veterans with amputation who are seen in the VA for any service with those who also are seen in the amputation specialty clinic in the same year is a performance metric that reflects the penetration of amputation specialty services across the system. Between 2009 and 2019, this increased from 2.9 to 12.7% for the overall amputation population and from 4.8 to 26% for those with major limb amputation (Figure 2). This metric improved to a greater extent in RAC facilities; 44% of veterans with major limb amputation seen at a RAC were also seen in the amputation specialty clinic in 2019.⁶

System Hallmarks

One of the primary hallmarks of the ASoC is the interdisciplinary team approach addressing all aspects of management across the continuum of care (Table). The core team consists of a physician, therapist, and prosthetist, and may include a variety of other disciplines based on a veteran’s individual needs. This model promotes veteran-centric care. Comprehensive management of veterans with limb loss includes addressing medical considerations such as residual limb skin health to the prescription of artificial limbs and the provision of therapy services for prosthetic limb gait training.^1,2

Lifelong care for veterans living with limb loss is another hallmark of the ASoC. The provision of care coordination across the continuum of care from acute hospitalization following an amputation to long-term follow-up in the outpatient setting for veteran’s lifespan is essential. Care coordination is provided across the system of care, which assures that a veteran with limb loss can obtain the required services through consultation or referral to a RAC or PANS as needed. Care coordination for the ASoC is facilitated by amputation rehabilitation coordinators at each of the RAC and PANS designated VAMCs.

Integration of services and resource collaboration are additional key aspects of the ASoC (Figure 3). In order to be successful, care of the veteran facing potential amputation or living with the challenges postamputation must be well-integrated into the broader care of the individual. Many veterans who undergo amputation have significant medical comorbidities, including a high prevalence of DM and peripheral vascular disease. Management of these conditions in collaboration with primary care and other medical specialties promotes the achievement of rehabilitation goals. Integration of surgical services and amputation prevention strategies is critical. Another essential element of the system is maintaining amputation specialty care team contact with all veterans with limb loss on at least an annual basis. A clinical practice guideline published in 2017 on lower Limb amputation rehabilitation emphasizes this need for an annual contact and includes a management and referral algorithm to assist primary care providers in the management of veterans with amputation (Figure 4).⁷

Collaboration with external partners has been an important element in the system of care development. The VA has partnered extensively with the US Department of Defense (DoD) to transition service members with amputation from the military health care system to the VA. The VA and DoD also have collaborated through the development and provision of joint provider trainings, clinical practice guidelines, incentive funding programs, and patient education materials. Congress authorized the Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence (EACE) in 2009 with the mission to serve as the joint DoD and VA lead element focused on the mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations. The EACE has several lines of effort, including clinical affairs, research, and global outreach focused on building partnerships and fostering collaboration to optimize quality of life for those with extremity trauma and amputation. The Amputee Coalition, the largest nonprofit consumer-based amputee advocacy organization in the US, has been an important strategic partner for the dissemination of guideline recommendations and patient education as well as the development and provision of peer support services.

Methods

The ASoC created a learning organization to develop and maintain a knowledgeable and highly skilled clinical workforce through the identification of best practices related to amputation rehabilitation and the use of innovative education delivery models. During the past 10 years, the ASoC conducted 9 national, live health care provider training events in conjunction with the DoD. In conjunction with the EACE, the ASoC holds 6 national Grand Rounds sessions each year. Dissemination of information and trainings across both the VA and DoD has been facilitated through a national listserv referred to as the Federal Amputation Interest Group (FAIG), which has > 800 members. Since 2009, the VA, in collaboration with the DoD, has produced 3 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to amputation care. The Lower Limb Amputation CPG was published in 2007 and updated in 2017, and a CPG and associated clinician resources focused on upper extremity amputation were published in 2014.^7,8 In addition to these formal, comprehensive, and evidence-driven guidelines, the ASoC has developed other clinical support documents covering a range of topics from prosthesis prescription candidacy determination to osseointegration. In conjunction with the EACE, The ASoC also has published guidance for clinical implementation of new technologies such as the Mobius Bionics LUKE arm and Dynamic Response Ankle-Foot Orthoses.

The ASoC strives to improve the psychosocial welfare of veterans with amputation and enhance trust in VA amputation care services through sharing results on the quality and timeliness of care. The Commission on Accreditation for Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) provides an international, independent, peer-reviewed system of accreditation that is widely recognized by federal agencies, state governments, major insurers, and professional organizations.^1,2 CARF offers amputation specialty accreditation for inpatient and outpatient programs that signifies the attainment of a distinguished level of expertise and the provision of a comprehensive spectrum of services related to amputation care and rehabilitation. During its development, the ASoC established the expectation that each of the RAC and PANS designated VAMCs would attain and maintain CARF amputation specialty accreditation. The ASoC has achieved 100% success on this metric.

In addition, the ASoC has completed many other initiatives focused on enhancing trust in VA amputation care services. These include assuring compliance with implementation of the Mission Act as it relates to the provision of amputation care and prosthetic limb delivery so that any services provided in the community are well integrated and at the direction of the amputation specialty team. The ASoC has maintained a strong relationship with the Amputee Coalition to provide veterans with high-quality patient education materials as well as integrated peer support services.

ASoC virtual and face-to-face training events incorporate suicide prevention training for providers. Special focus has been placed on care provision for Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn veterans with conflict-related multiple limb amputations. Although relatively small, this cohort is recognized as a unique and important population due to their unique care needs and increased risk for secondary complications. In 2019, 83% of these individuals were contacted to assure their amputation care needs were being adequately addressed.

Discussion

Over the past 10 years, the ASoC has built a modern, high-performance network of care to best serve veterans with amputation. Maturation of the system has included the addition of 3 new PANS locations to improve access to services as well as to better support geographic regions near large DoD military treatment facilities. The number of ACT designated VAMCs also has grown from 101 to 106 locations. The regional organization of sites has been modified to enhance the availability of referral and consultative services across the system. In addition, the ASoC has supported the development of an upper extremity amputation specialty program for consultation or referral to a highly specialized team of providers well versed in the significant technology advances that have taken place with upper extremity prostheses.⁹

One of the key components to high-performance network development is attaining a clear picture of the clinical demands and service delivery needs of the population served. The Amputee Data Repository was developed with the support of the VHA Support Service Center (VSSC) in order to better understand and track the population of veterans with amputation.⁶ The development and implementation of the Amputee Data Repository took place over several years, and the product was officially released into publication in 2015. The overall goals of this resource are to provide a data system for the ASoC to identify clinical care volumes and patterns of treatment; better understand the demographics of the veteran amputee population; assess the effectiveness of new treatment strategies; and utilize data analysis outcomes to influence clinical practice. The acquisition and analysis of this information will provide justification for the modification of clinical practice and will enhance the quality of care for all veterans with amputation.

Although the ASoC focuses primarily on the provision of clinical services, the system has been leveraged to support research activities and the advancement of artificial limb technologies. For example, ASoC providers and investigators supported the clinical research required to test and optimize the development of the DEKA arm. These research efforts resulted in the US Food and Drug Administration approval and commercialization of this device. Once the device became commercially available as the LUKE arm, the ASoC developed a clinical implementation strategy that assured availability and appropriate prescription and training with the new technology. The VA also has supported research and program development in osseointegration with further investigations and clinical implementation being planned.

Telehealth

The goal of the ASoC is to provide timely access and greater choice to specialty amputation rehabilitation services for veterans as determined by their clinical needs. One key strategy used to achieve this goal has been the expansion of virtual communication tools to enhance access to clinical expertise. Telehealth (Virtual Care) amputation services afford the opportunity to provide specialized clinical expertise to veterans who otherwise may not have access to this level of service or consultation.^1,2 For others, virtual care services reduce the need for travel. The ASoC has leveraged these services effectively to enhance specialty amputation care for veterans in rural areas. Over time, the scope of virtual care services has expanded to provide virtual peer support services as well as care in the veteran’s home.

Another unique example is the use of virtual care to see veterans when they are being provided services by a community prosthetist. This service improves the timeliness of care and reduces the travel burden for the veteran. Between 2009 and 2019, total virtual care encounters to provide amputation-related services grew from 44 encounters to 3,905 encounters (Figure 5). In 2019, 13.8% of veterans seen in a VA outpatient amputation specialty clinic had at least 1 virtual encounter in the same year.⁶

In addition to the expansion of virtual care and building capacity through increasing the number of amputation specialty clinics and providers, the ASoC has used a host of other strategies to improve care access. The development of provider expertise in amputation care has been achieved through the methods of extensive provider training. Implementation of Patient Self-Referral Direct Scheduling allows veterans to access the outpatient amputation specialty clinic without a referral and without having to be seen by their primary care provider. This initiative provides easier and more timely access to amputation specialty services while reducing burden on primary care services. The amputation outpatient specialty clinic was one of a few specialty programs to be an early adopter of national online scheduling. The implementation of this service is still ongoing, but this program gives veterans greater control over scheduling, canceling, and rescheduling appointments.

Conclusions

During the 10 years following its implementation, the VA ASoC has successfully enhanced the quality and consistency of care and rehabilitation services provided to veterans with limb loss through the provision of highly specialized services in the areas of medical care, rehabilitation services, and prosthetic technology. This mission has been accomplished through prioritization and implementation of key strategic initiatives in learning organization creation, trust in VA care, development of a modern, high-performance network, and customer service. Collaborative partnerships both internally within the VA and externally with key stakeholders has facilitated this development, and these will need to be enhanced for future success. Evolving trends in amputation surgery, limb transplantation, artificial limb control and suspension strategies as well as advances in assistive technology also will need to be integrated into best practices and program development.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established a formal Amputation System of Care (ASoC) in 2008 with the goal of enhancing the quality and consistency of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans with limb loss.^1,2 Throughout its history, the VA has placed a high priority on the care that is provided to veterans with limb amputation.^1,3 Amputations have medical, physical, social, and psychological ramifications for the veteran and his or her family. Therefore, management of veterans with limb loss requires a comprehensive, coordinated, transdisciplinary program of services throughout the continuum of care. This includes offering the latest practices in medical interventions, artificial limbs, assistive technologies, and rehabilitation strategies to restore function and thereby optimize quality of life.

Amputation System of Care

The ASoC is an integrated system within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that provides specialized expertise in amputation rehabilitation incorporating the latest practices in medical management, rehabilitation therapies, artificial limbs, and assistive technologies. The system facilitates patient-centered, gender-sensitive, lifelong care and care coordination across the entire health continuum from acute inpatient hospitalization through a spectrum of inpatient, residential, and outpatient rehabilitation care settings. Through the provision of quality rehabilitation and prosthetic limb care, the ASoC strives to minimize disability and enable the highest level of social, vocational, and recreational success for veterans with an amputation.^1-3

The policy and procedures for the ASoC have been detailed in prior VA Handbooks and in the ASoC Directive.¹ This article highlights the background, population served, and organizational structure of the ASoC by detailing the outcomes and accomplishments of this systems-based approach to longitudinal amputation care between 2009 and 2019. Four core areas of activities and accomplishments are highlighted: (1) learning organization creation; (2) trust in VA care; (3) system modernization; and (4) customer service. This analysis and description of the VA amputation care program serves as a model of amputation care that can be used in the civilian sector. There also is potential for the ASoC to serve as a care model example for other populations within the VA.

Organizational Structure

The ASoC is an integrated, national health care delivery system in which each VA medical center (VAMC) has a specific designation that reflects the level of expertise and accessibility across the system based on an individual veteran’s needs and the specific capabilities of each VAMC.^1-3 The organizational structure for the ASoC is similar to the Polytrauma System of Care in that facilities are divided into 4 tiers.^1,4

For the ASoC, the 4 tiers are Regional Amputation Centers (RAC) at 7 VAMCs, Polytrauma Amputation Network Sites (PANS) at 18 VAMCs, Amputation Clinic Teams (ACT) at 106 VAMCs, and Amputation Points of Contact (APoC) at 22 VAMCs. The RAC locations provide the highest level of specialized expertise in clinical care and prosthetic limb technology and have rehabilitation capabilities to manage the most complicated cases. Like the RAC facilities, PANS provide a full range of clinical and ancillary services to veterans within their catchment area and serve as referral locations for veterans with needs that are more complex. ACT sites have a core amputation specialty team that provides regular follow-up and address ongoing care needs. ACT sites may or may not have full ancillary services, such as surgical subspecialties or an in-house prosthetics laboratory. APoC facilities have at least 1 person on staff who serves as the point of contact for consultation, assessment, and referral of a veteran with an amputation to a facility capable of providing the level of services required.¹

The VA also places a high priority on both primary and secondary amputation prevention. The Preventing Amputations in Veterans Everywhere (PAVE) program and the ASoC coordinate efforts in order to address the prevention of an initial amputation, the rehabilitation of veterans who have had an amputation, and the prevention of a second amputation in those with an amputation.^1,5

Population Served

The ASoC serves veterans with limb loss regardless of the etiology. This includes care of individuals with complex limb trauma and those with other injuries or disease processes resulting in a high likelihood of requiring a limb amputation. In 2019, the VA provided care to 96,519 veterans with amputation, and about half (46,214) had at least 1 major limb amputation, which is defined as an amputation at or proximal to the wrist or ankle.⁶ The majority of veterans with amputation treated within the VA have limb loss resulting from disease processes, such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Amputations caused by these diseases generally occur in the older veteran population and are associated with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and end-stage renal disease. Veterans with amputation due to trauma, including conflict-related injuries, are commonly younger at the time of their amputation. Although the number of conflict-related amputations is small compared with the number of amputations associated with disease processes, both groups require high-quality, comprehensive, lifelong care.

Between 2009 and 2019, the number of veterans with limb loss receiving care in the VA increased 34%.⁶ With advances in vascular surgery and limb-sparing procedures, minor amputations are more common than major limb amputations and more below-knee rather than above-knee amputations have been noted over the same time. However, the high prevalence of DM in the overall veteran population places about 1.8 million veterans at risk for amputation, and it is anticipated that the volume of limb loss in the veteran population will continue to grow and possibly accelerate.⁵

Performance Metrics

Over the past 10 years, the ASoC has focused on ensuring that an amputation specialty care team addresses the needs of veterans with amputation. Between 2009 and 2019, the VA amputation specialty clinics saw a 49% annual increase in the number of unique veterans treated and a 64% annual increase in the number of total clinic encounters (Figure 1).⁶ This growth is attributed to the larger amputation population receiving enhanced access to the specialty team providing consistent, comprehensive, lifelong care.

During this same period, the amputation specialty clinic encounter to unique ratio (a measure of how frequently patients return to the clinic each year) rose from 1.8 in 2009 to 2.3 in 2019 for both the total amputation population and for those with major limb amputation. When looking more specifically at the RAC facilities, the encounter to unique ratio increased from 1.5 to 3.0 over the same time, reflecting the added benefit of having dedicated resources for the amputation specialty program.⁶

Comparing the percentage of veterans with amputation who are seen in the VA for any service with those who also are seen in the amputation specialty clinic in the same year is a performance metric that reflects the penetration of amputation specialty services across the system. Between 2009 and 2019, this increased from 2.9 to 12.7% for the overall amputation population and from 4.8 to 26% for those with major limb amputation (Figure 2). This metric improved to a greater extent in RAC facilities; 44% of veterans with major limb amputation seen at a RAC were also seen in the amputation specialty clinic in 2019.⁶

System Hallmarks

One of the primary hallmarks of the ASoC is the interdisciplinary team approach addressing all aspects of management across the continuum of care (Table). The core team consists of a physician, therapist, and prosthetist, and may include a variety of other disciplines based on a veteran’s individual needs. This model promotes veteran-centric care. Comprehensive management of veterans with limb loss includes addressing medical considerations such as residual limb skin health to the prescription of artificial limbs and the provision of therapy services for prosthetic limb gait training.^1,2

Lifelong care for veterans living with limb loss is another hallmark of the ASoC. The provision of care coordination across the continuum of care from acute hospitalization following an amputation to long-term follow-up in the outpatient setting for veteran’s lifespan is essential. Care coordination is provided across the system of care, which assures that a veteran with limb loss can obtain the required services through consultation or referral to a RAC or PANS as needed. Care coordination for the ASoC is facilitated by amputation rehabilitation coordinators at each of the RAC and PANS designated VAMCs.

Integration of services and resource collaboration are additional key aspects of the ASoC (Figure 3). In order to be successful, care of the veteran facing potential amputation or living with the challenges postamputation must be well-integrated into the broader care of the individual. Many veterans who undergo amputation have significant medical comorbidities, including a high prevalence of DM and peripheral vascular disease. Management of these conditions in collaboration with primary care and other medical specialties promotes the achievement of rehabilitation goals. Integration of surgical services and amputation prevention strategies is critical. Another essential element of the system is maintaining amputation specialty care team contact with all veterans with limb loss on at least an annual basis. A clinical practice guideline published in 2017 on lower Limb amputation rehabilitation emphasizes this need for an annual contact and includes a management and referral algorithm to assist primary care providers in the management of veterans with amputation (Figure 4).⁷

Collaboration with external partners has been an important element in the system of care development. The VA has partnered extensively with the US Department of Defense (DoD) to transition service members with amputation from the military health care system to the VA. The VA and DoD also have collaborated through the development and provision of joint provider trainings, clinical practice guidelines, incentive funding programs, and patient education materials. Congress authorized the Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence (EACE) in 2009 with the mission to serve as the joint DoD and VA lead element focused on the mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations. The EACE has several lines of effort, including clinical affairs, research, and global outreach focused on building partnerships and fostering collaboration to optimize quality of life for those with extremity trauma and amputation. The Amputee Coalition, the largest nonprofit consumer-based amputee advocacy organization in the US, has been an important strategic partner for the dissemination of guideline recommendations and patient education as well as the development and provision of peer support services.

Methods

The ASoC created a learning organization to develop and maintain a knowledgeable and highly skilled clinical workforce through the identification of best practices related to amputation rehabilitation and the use of innovative education delivery models. During the past 10 years, the ASoC conducted 9 national, live health care provider training events in conjunction with the DoD. In conjunction with the EACE, the ASoC holds 6 national Grand Rounds sessions each year. Dissemination of information and trainings across both the VA and DoD has been facilitated through a national listserv referred to as the Federal Amputation Interest Group (FAIG), which has > 800 members. Since 2009, the VA, in collaboration with the DoD, has produced 3 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to amputation care. The Lower Limb Amputation CPG was published in 2007 and updated in 2017, and a CPG and associated clinician resources focused on upper extremity amputation were published in 2014.^7,8 In addition to these formal, comprehensive, and evidence-driven guidelines, the ASoC has developed other clinical support documents covering a range of topics from prosthesis prescription candidacy determination to osseointegration. In conjunction with the EACE, The ASoC also has published guidance for clinical implementation of new technologies such as the Mobius Bionics LUKE arm and Dynamic Response Ankle-Foot Orthoses.

The ASoC strives to improve the psychosocial welfare of veterans with amputation and enhance trust in VA amputation care services through sharing results on the quality and timeliness of care. The Commission on Accreditation for Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) provides an international, independent, peer-reviewed system of accreditation that is widely recognized by federal agencies, state governments, major insurers, and professional organizations.^1,2 CARF offers amputation specialty accreditation for inpatient and outpatient programs that signifies the attainment of a distinguished level of expertise and the provision of a comprehensive spectrum of services related to amputation care and rehabilitation. During its development, the ASoC established the expectation that each of the RAC and PANS designated VAMCs would attain and maintain CARF amputation specialty accreditation. The ASoC has achieved 100% success on this metric.

In addition, the ASoC has completed many other initiatives focused on enhancing trust in VA amputation care services. These include assuring compliance with implementation of the Mission Act as it relates to the provision of amputation care and prosthetic limb delivery so that any services provided in the community are well integrated and at the direction of the amputation specialty team. The ASoC has maintained a strong relationship with the Amputee Coalition to provide veterans with high-quality patient education materials as well as integrated peer support services.

ASoC virtual and face-to-face training events incorporate suicide prevention training for providers. Special focus has been placed on care provision for Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn veterans with conflict-related multiple limb amputations. Although relatively small, this cohort is recognized as a unique and important population due to their unique care needs and increased risk for secondary complications. In 2019, 83% of these individuals were contacted to assure their amputation care needs were being adequately addressed.

Discussion

Over the past 10 years, the ASoC has built a modern, high-performance network of care to best serve veterans with amputation. Maturation of the system has included the addition of 3 new PANS locations to improve access to services as well as to better support geographic regions near large DoD military treatment facilities. The number of ACT designated VAMCs also has grown from 101 to 106 locations. The regional organization of sites has been modified to enhance the availability of referral and consultative services across the system. In addition, the ASoC has supported the development of an upper extremity amputation specialty program for consultation or referral to a highly specialized team of providers well versed in the significant technology advances that have taken place with upper extremity prostheses.⁹

One of the key components to high-performance network development is attaining a clear picture of the clinical demands and service delivery needs of the population served. The Amputee Data Repository was developed with the support of the VHA Support Service Center (VSSC) in order to better understand and track the population of veterans with amputation.⁶ The development and implementation of the Amputee Data Repository took place over several years, and the product was officially released into publication in 2015. The overall goals of this resource are to provide a data system for the ASoC to identify clinical care volumes and patterns of treatment; better understand the demographics of the veteran amputee population; assess the effectiveness of new treatment strategies; and utilize data analysis outcomes to influence clinical practice. The acquisition and analysis of this information will provide justification for the modification of clinical practice and will enhance the quality of care for all veterans with amputation.

Although the ASoC focuses primarily on the provision of clinical services, the system has been leveraged to support research activities and the advancement of artificial limb technologies. For example, ASoC providers and investigators supported the clinical research required to test and optimize the development of the DEKA arm. These research efforts resulted in the US Food and Drug Administration approval and commercialization of this device. Once the device became commercially available as the LUKE arm, the ASoC developed a clinical implementation strategy that assured availability and appropriate prescription and training with the new technology. The VA also has supported research and program development in osseointegration with further investigations and clinical implementation being planned.

Telehealth

The goal of the ASoC is to provide timely access and greater choice to specialty amputation rehabilitation services for veterans as determined by their clinical needs. One key strategy used to achieve this goal has been the expansion of virtual communication tools to enhance access to clinical expertise. Telehealth (Virtual Care) amputation services afford the opportunity to provide specialized clinical expertise to veterans who otherwise may not have access to this level of service or consultation.^1,2 For others, virtual care services reduce the need for travel. The ASoC has leveraged these services effectively to enhance specialty amputation care for veterans in rural areas. Over time, the scope of virtual care services has expanded to provide virtual peer support services as well as care in the veteran’s home.

Another unique example is the use of virtual care to see veterans when they are being provided services by a community prosthetist. This service improves the timeliness of care and reduces the travel burden for the veteran. Between 2009 and 2019, total virtual care encounters to provide amputation-related services grew from 44 encounters to 3,905 encounters (Figure 5). In 2019, 13.8% of veterans seen in a VA outpatient amputation specialty clinic had at least 1 virtual encounter in the same year.⁶

In addition to the expansion of virtual care and building capacity through increasing the number of amputation specialty clinics and providers, the ASoC has used a host of other strategies to improve care access. The development of provider expertise in amputation care has been achieved through the methods of extensive provider training. Implementation of Patient Self-Referral Direct Scheduling allows veterans to access the outpatient amputation specialty clinic without a referral and without having to be seen by their primary care provider. This initiative provides easier and more timely access to amputation specialty services while reducing burden on primary care services. The amputation outpatient specialty clinic was one of a few specialty programs to be an early adopter of national online scheduling. The implementation of this service is still ongoing, but this program gives veterans greater control over scheduling, canceling, and rescheduling appointments.

Conclusions

During the 10 years following its implementation, the VA ASoC has successfully enhanced the quality and consistency of care and rehabilitation services provided to veterans with limb loss through the provision of highly specialized services in the areas of medical care, rehabilitation services, and prosthetic technology. This mission has been accomplished through prioritization and implementation of key strategic initiatives in learning organization creation, trust in VA care, development of a modern, high-performance network, and customer service. Collaborative partnerships both internally within the VA and externally with key stakeholders has facilitated this development, and these will need to be enhanced for future success. Evolving trends in amputation surgery, limb transplantation, artificial limb control and suspension strategies as well as advances in assistive technology also will need to be integrated into best practices and program development.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established a formal Amputation System of Care (ASoC) in 2008 with the goal of enhancing the quality and consistency of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans with limb loss.^1,2 Throughout its history, the VA has placed a high priority on the care that is provided to veterans with limb amputation.^1,3 Amputations have medical, physical, social, and psychological ramifications for the veteran and his or her family. Therefore, management of veterans with limb loss requires a comprehensive, coordinated, transdisciplinary program of services throughout the continuum of care. This includes offering the latest practices in medical interventions, artificial limbs, assistive technologies, and rehabilitation strategies to restore function and thereby optimize quality of life.

Amputation System of Care

The ASoC is an integrated system within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that provides specialized expertise in amputation rehabilitation incorporating the latest practices in medical management, rehabilitation therapies, artificial limbs, and assistive technologies. The system facilitates patient-centered, gender-sensitive, lifelong care and care coordination across the entire health continuum from acute inpatient hospitalization through a spectrum of inpatient, residential, and outpatient rehabilitation care settings. Through the provision of quality rehabilitation and prosthetic limb care, the ASoC strives to minimize disability and enable the highest level of social, vocational, and recreational success for veterans with an amputation.^1-3

The policy and procedures for the ASoC have been detailed in prior VA Handbooks and in the ASoC Directive.¹ This article highlights the background, population served, and organizational structure of the ASoC by detailing the outcomes and accomplishments of this systems-based approach to longitudinal amputation care between 2009 and 2019. Four core areas of activities and accomplishments are highlighted: (1) learning organization creation; (2) trust in VA care; (3) system modernization; and (4) customer service. This analysis and description of the VA amputation care program serves as a model of amputation care that can be used in the civilian sector. There also is potential for the ASoC to serve as a care model example for other populations within the VA.

Organizational Structure

The ASoC is an integrated, national health care delivery system in which each VA medical center (VAMC) has a specific designation that reflects the level of expertise and accessibility across the system based on an individual veteran’s needs and the specific capabilities of each VAMC.^1-3 The organizational structure for the ASoC is similar to the Polytrauma System of Care in that facilities are divided into 4 tiers.^1,4

For the ASoC, the 4 tiers are Regional Amputation Centers (RAC) at 7 VAMCs, Polytrauma Amputation Network Sites (PANS) at 18 VAMCs, Amputation Clinic Teams (ACT) at 106 VAMCs, and Amputation Points of Contact (APoC) at 22 VAMCs. The RAC locations provide the highest level of specialized expertise in clinical care and prosthetic limb technology and have rehabilitation capabilities to manage the most complicated cases. Like the RAC facilities, PANS provide a full range of clinical and ancillary services to veterans within their catchment area and serve as referral locations for veterans with needs that are more complex. ACT sites have a core amputation specialty team that provides regular follow-up and address ongoing care needs. ACT sites may or may not have full ancillary services, such as surgical subspecialties or an in-house prosthetics laboratory. APoC facilities have at least 1 person on staff who serves as the point of contact for consultation, assessment, and referral of a veteran with an amputation to a facility capable of providing the level of services required.¹

The VA also places a high priority on both primary and secondary amputation prevention. The Preventing Amputations in Veterans Everywhere (PAVE) program and the ASoC coordinate efforts in order to address the prevention of an initial amputation, the rehabilitation of veterans who have had an amputation, and the prevention of a second amputation in those with an amputation.^1,5

Population Served

The ASoC serves veterans with limb loss regardless of the etiology. This includes care of individuals with complex limb trauma and those with other injuries or disease processes resulting in a high likelihood of requiring a limb amputation. In 2019, the VA provided care to 96,519 veterans with amputation, and about half (46,214) had at least 1 major limb amputation, which is defined as an amputation at or proximal to the wrist or ankle.⁶ The majority of veterans with amputation treated within the VA have limb loss resulting from disease processes, such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Amputations caused by these diseases generally occur in the older veteran population and are associated with comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and end-stage renal disease. Veterans with amputation due to trauma, including conflict-related injuries, are commonly younger at the time of their amputation. Although the number of conflict-related amputations is small compared with the number of amputations associated with disease processes, both groups require high-quality, comprehensive, lifelong care.

Between 2009 and 2019, the number of veterans with limb loss receiving care in the VA increased 34%.⁶ With advances in vascular surgery and limb-sparing procedures, minor amputations are more common than major limb amputations and more below-knee rather than above-knee amputations have been noted over the same time. However, the high prevalence of DM in the overall veteran population places about 1.8 million veterans at risk for amputation, and it is anticipated that the volume of limb loss in the veteran population will continue to grow and possibly accelerate.⁵

Performance Metrics

Over the past 10 years, the ASoC has focused on ensuring that an amputation specialty care team addresses the needs of veterans with amputation. Between 2009 and 2019, the VA amputation specialty clinics saw a 49% annual increase in the number of unique veterans treated and a 64% annual increase in the number of total clinic encounters (Figure 1).⁶ This growth is attributed to the larger amputation population receiving enhanced access to the specialty team providing consistent, comprehensive, lifelong care.

During this same period, the amputation specialty clinic encounter to unique ratio (a measure of how frequently patients return to the clinic each year) rose from 1.8 in 2009 to 2.3 in 2019 for both the total amputation population and for those with major limb amputation. When looking more specifically at the RAC facilities, the encounter to unique ratio increased from 1.5 to 3.0 over the same time, reflecting the added benefit of having dedicated resources for the amputation specialty program.⁶

Comparing the percentage of veterans with amputation who are seen in the VA for any service with those who also are seen in the amputation specialty clinic in the same year is a performance metric that reflects the penetration of amputation specialty services across the system. Between 2009 and 2019, this increased from 2.9 to 12.7% for the overall amputation population and from 4.8 to 26% for those with major limb amputation (Figure 2). This metric improved to a greater extent in RAC facilities; 44% of veterans with major limb amputation seen at a RAC were also seen in the amputation specialty clinic in 2019.⁶

System Hallmarks

One of the primary hallmarks of the ASoC is the interdisciplinary team approach addressing all aspects of management across the continuum of care (Table). The core team consists of a physician, therapist, and prosthetist, and may include a variety of other disciplines based on a veteran’s individual needs. This model promotes veteran-centric care. Comprehensive management of veterans with limb loss includes addressing medical considerations such as residual limb skin health to the prescription of artificial limbs and the provision of therapy services for prosthetic limb gait training.^1,2

Lifelong care for veterans living with limb loss is another hallmark of the ASoC. The provision of care coordination across the continuum of care from acute hospitalization following an amputation to long-term follow-up in the outpatient setting for veteran’s lifespan is essential. Care coordination is provided across the system of care, which assures that a veteran with limb loss can obtain the required services through consultation or referral to a RAC or PANS as needed. Care coordination for the ASoC is facilitated by amputation rehabilitation coordinators at each of the RAC and PANS designated VAMCs.

Integration of services and resource collaboration are additional key aspects of the ASoC (Figure 3). In order to be successful, care of the veteran facing potential amputation or living with the challenges postamputation must be well-integrated into the broader care of the individual. Many veterans who undergo amputation have significant medical comorbidities, including a high prevalence of DM and peripheral vascular disease. Management of these conditions in collaboration with primary care and other medical specialties promotes the achievement of rehabilitation goals. Integration of surgical services and amputation prevention strategies is critical. Another essential element of the system is maintaining amputation specialty care team contact with all veterans with limb loss on at least an annual basis. A clinical practice guideline published in 2017 on lower Limb amputation rehabilitation emphasizes this need for an annual contact and includes a management and referral algorithm to assist primary care providers in the management of veterans with amputation (Figure 4).⁷

Collaboration with external partners has been an important element in the system of care development. The VA has partnered extensively with the US Department of Defense (DoD) to transition service members with amputation from the military health care system to the VA. The VA and DoD also have collaborated through the development and provision of joint provider trainings, clinical practice guidelines, incentive funding programs, and patient education materials. Congress authorized the Extremity Trauma and Amputation Center of Excellence (EACE) in 2009 with the mission to serve as the joint DoD and VA lead element focused on the mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic extremity injuries and amputations. The EACE has several lines of effort, including clinical affairs, research, and global outreach focused on building partnerships and fostering collaboration to optimize quality of life for those with extremity trauma and amputation. The Amputee Coalition, the largest nonprofit consumer-based amputee advocacy organization in the US, has been an important strategic partner for the dissemination of guideline recommendations and patient education as well as the development and provision of peer support services.

Methods

The ASoC created a learning organization to develop and maintain a knowledgeable and highly skilled clinical workforce through the identification of best practices related to amputation rehabilitation and the use of innovative education delivery models. During the past 10 years, the ASoC conducted 9 national, live health care provider training events in conjunction with the DoD. In conjunction with the EACE, the ASoC holds 6 national Grand Rounds sessions each year. Dissemination of information and trainings across both the VA and DoD has been facilitated through a national listserv referred to as the Federal Amputation Interest Group (FAIG), which has > 800 members. Since 2009, the VA, in collaboration with the DoD, has produced 3 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to amputation care. The Lower Limb Amputation CPG was published in 2007 and updated in 2017, and a CPG and associated clinician resources focused on upper extremity amputation were published in 2014.^7,8 In addition to these formal, comprehensive, and evidence-driven guidelines, the ASoC has developed other clinical support documents covering a range of topics from prosthesis prescription candidacy determination to osseointegration. In conjunction with the EACE, The ASoC also has published guidance for clinical implementation of new technologies such as the Mobius Bionics LUKE arm and Dynamic Response Ankle-Foot Orthoses.

The ASoC strives to improve the psychosocial welfare of veterans with amputation and enhance trust in VA amputation care services through sharing results on the quality and timeliness of care. The Commission on Accreditation for Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) provides an international, independent, peer-reviewed system of accreditation that is widely recognized by federal agencies, state governments, major insurers, and professional organizations.^1,2 CARF offers amputation specialty accreditation for inpatient and outpatient programs that signifies the attainment of a distinguished level of expertise and the provision of a comprehensive spectrum of services related to amputation care and rehabilitation. During its development, the ASoC established the expectation that each of the RAC and PANS designated VAMCs would attain and maintain CARF amputation specialty accreditation. The ASoC has achieved 100% success on this metric.

In addition, the ASoC has completed many other initiatives focused on enhancing trust in VA amputation care services. These include assuring compliance with implementation of the Mission Act as it relates to the provision of amputation care and prosthetic limb delivery so that any services provided in the community are well integrated and at the direction of the amputation specialty team. The ASoC has maintained a strong relationship with the Amputee Coalition to provide veterans with high-quality patient education materials as well as integrated peer support services.

ASoC virtual and face-to-face training events incorporate suicide prevention training for providers. Special focus has been placed on care provision for Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn veterans with conflict-related multiple limb amputations. Although relatively small, this cohort is recognized as a unique and important population due to their unique care needs and increased risk for secondary complications. In 2019, 83% of these individuals were contacted to assure their amputation care needs were being adequately addressed.

Discussion

Over the past 10 years, the ASoC has built a modern, high-performance network of care to best serve veterans with amputation. Maturation of the system has included the addition of 3 new PANS locations to improve access to services as well as to better support geographic regions near large DoD military treatment facilities. The number of ACT designated VAMCs also has grown from 101 to 106 locations. The regional organization of sites has been modified to enhance the availability of referral and consultative services across the system. In addition, the ASoC has supported the development of an upper extremity amputation specialty program for consultation or referral to a highly specialized team of providers well versed in the significant technology advances that have taken place with upper extremity prostheses.⁹

One of the key components to high-performance network development is attaining a clear picture of the clinical demands and service delivery needs of the population served. The Amputee Data Repository was developed with the support of the VHA Support Service Center (VSSC) in order to better understand and track the population of veterans with amputation.⁶ The development and implementation of the Amputee Data Repository took place over several years, and the product was officially released into publication in 2015. The overall goals of this resource are to provide a data system for the ASoC to identify clinical care volumes and patterns of treatment; better understand the demographics of the veteran amputee population; assess the effectiveness of new treatment strategies; and utilize data analysis outcomes to influence clinical practice. The acquisition and analysis of this information will provide justification for the modification of clinical practice and will enhance the quality of care for all veterans with amputation.

Although the ASoC focuses primarily on the provision of clinical services, the system has been leveraged to support research activities and the advancement of artificial limb technologies. For example, ASoC providers and investigators supported the clinical research required to test and optimize the development of the DEKA arm. These research efforts resulted in the US Food and Drug Administration approval and commercialization of this device. Once the device became commercially available as the LUKE arm, the ASoC developed a clinical implementation strategy that assured availability and appropriate prescription and training with the new technology. The VA also has supported research and program development in osseointegration with further investigations and clinical implementation being planned.

Telehealth

The goal of the ASoC is to provide timely access and greater choice to specialty amputation rehabilitation services for veterans as determined by their clinical needs. One key strategy used to achieve this goal has been the expansion of virtual communication tools to enhance access to clinical expertise. Telehealth (Virtual Care) amputation services afford the opportunity to provide specialized clinical expertise to veterans who otherwise may not have access to this level of service or consultation.^1,2 For others, virtual care services reduce the need for travel. The ASoC has leveraged these services effectively to enhance specialty amputation care for veterans in rural areas. Over time, the scope of virtual care services has expanded to provide virtual peer support services as well as care in the veteran’s home.

Another unique example is the use of virtual care to see veterans when they are being provided services by a community prosthetist. This service improves the timeliness of care and reduces the travel burden for the veteran. Between 2009 and 2019, total virtual care encounters to provide amputation-related services grew from 44 encounters to 3,905 encounters (Figure 5). In 2019, 13.8% of veterans seen in a VA outpatient amputation specialty clinic had at least 1 virtual encounter in the same year.⁶

In addition to the expansion of virtual care and building capacity through increasing the number of amputation specialty clinics and providers, the ASoC has used a host of other strategies to improve care access. The development of provider expertise in amputation care has been achieved through the methods of extensive provider training. Implementation of Patient Self-Referral Direct Scheduling allows veterans to access the outpatient amputation specialty clinic without a referral and without having to be seen by their primary care provider. This initiative provides easier and more timely access to amputation specialty services while reducing burden on primary care services. The amputation outpatient specialty clinic was one of a few specialty programs to be an early adopter of national online scheduling. The implementation of this service is still ongoing, but this program gives veterans greater control over scheduling, canceling, and rescheduling appointments.

Conclusions

During the 10 years following its implementation, the VA ASoC has successfully enhanced the quality and consistency of care and rehabilitation services provided to veterans with limb loss through the provision of highly specialized services in the areas of medical care, rehabilitation services, and prosthetic technology. This mission has been accomplished through prioritization and implementation of key strategic initiatives in learning organization creation, trust in VA care, development of a modern, high-performance network, and customer service. Collaborative partnerships both internally within the VA and externally with key stakeholders has facilitated this development, and these will need to be enhanced for future success. Evolving trends in amputation surgery, limb transplantation, artificial limb control and suspension strategies as well as advances in assistive technology also will need to be integrated into best practices and program development.

The rise in prevalence of the community spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US in early March 2020 led to hospital systems across the country preparing for an increase in critically ill patients.¹ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) anticipated an increased census of veterans who would need hospital admission for severe COVID-19 as well as the potential need to receive patients from community hospitals in Southeast Michigan, the location of one of the worst outbreaks in the US at that time.²

Through the facility’s incident command center, a hospital operations group identified the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) as a space to convert to an intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with COVID-19 needing mechanical ventilation. Other hospitals throughout the world have created similar makeshift ICUs to help care for the surge of patients with COVID-19, recognizing the high level of monitoring and resources available in the perioperative setting.^3-5 These ICUs have been successfully created in operating rooms,³ recovery rooms,⁵ and procedural settings.⁴

Between March 27, 2020 and April 25, 2020, a great multidisciplinary effort enabled the VAAAHS PACU-ICU to care for critically ill veterans with COVID-19 from Southeast Michigan as well as civilian transfers from overwhelmed neighboring community hospitals. This article will discuss planning considerations, including facility preparation, equipment, and staffing models. The unique challenges faced in managing an open-plan surge-capacity ICU also will be discussed as well as the solutions that were enacted.

Methods

Hospital Preparation

Maintaining a 2-zone model in which patients with COVID-19 and without COVID-19 could be cared for separately was of major importance. The VAAAHS traditional ICU was converted into a 16-bed COVID-19 ICU and staffed by the Pulmonary Critical Care Service. A separate wing of the hospital was converted into a 19-bed non-COVID-19 ICU, which also was staffed by the Pulmonary Critical Care Service that increased its staffing of residents, fellows, and attending physicians to meet the increasing clinical demands. Elective major surgery cases were postponed, and surgeons managed the care of postoperative surgical ICU patients. This arrangement allowed the existing 4 anesthesiologist intensivists to staff the PACU COVID-19 ICU.

Considerations, including space requirements, staffing, equipment, infection control requirements, and ability for facilities to engineer a negative pressure space were factored into the decision to convert the PACU to an additional 12-bed ICU. This effectively tripled the VAAAHS ICU capacity, enabling patient transfers from the John D. Dingell VA Medical Center in Detroit, Michigan, which was being impacted by a surge of cases in Detroit. In addition, this allowed for the opening of the hospital for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ICU transfers from hospitals in Southeast Michigan in order to fulfill the fourth VA mission to provide care and support to state and local communities for emergency management, public health, and safety.

PACU Preparation

PACU was selected as an overflow ICU due to its open floor plan, allowing patients on ventilators to be seen from a central nursing station. This would allow for the safe use of ventilators without central alarm capabilities (especially anesthesia machines). Given the risk of a circuit disconnect, all ventilators without central alarm capabilities needed to be seen and heard within the space to ensure patient safety.

Facilities Management was able to construct temporary barriers with vinyl covered sheetrock and plexiglass to partition the central nursing workstation from the patient area in a U-shape (Figure 1). The patient area was turned into a negative pressure space where strict airborne precautions could be observed. Although the air handling unit serving this space is equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, it was mechanically manipulated to ensure that all air coming from the space was discharged through exhaust and not recirculated into another occupied space within the hospital. Total air exchange rates were measured and calculated for both the positive and negative spaces to ensure they met or exceeded at least 6 air changes per hour, as recommended by Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidance.^6,7 A differential pressure indicator was installed to provide staff with the ability to monitor the pressure relationship between the 2 spaces in real time.

Twelve patient care beds were created. A traditionally engineered airborne infection isolation room in PACU served as a procedure room for aerosol-generating procedures, especially intubation, extubation, use of high-flow nasal cannula, and tracheostomy placement. Strict airborne precautions were taken within the patient area. The area inside the nursing station was positively pressurized to allow for surgical masks only to be required for the comfort of health care workers (Figure 2). A clear donning and doffing workflow was created for movement between the nursing area and the patient care area.

Personal Protective Equipment

Personal protective equipment (PPE) was of paramount importance in this open care unit. Airborne precautions were used in the entire patient care area. Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) were used when possible to conserve the supply of N95 masks. Each health care worker was issued a reusable PAPR hood, which was cleaned by the user after each use by wiping the exterior of the entire hood with virucidal wipes. The brand and active ingredient of the virucidal wipes varied by availability of supplies, but the “virus kill time” was clearly labeled on each container. Each health care worker had a paper bag for storing his or her PAPR hood between usage to allow drying and ventilation. PAPR units were charged in between uses and shared by all clinical staff. Two layers of nonsterile gloves were worn.

Because of the open care area, attention had to be given to adhere to infection control policies if health care workers wanted to care for multiple patients while in the area. A new gown was placed over the existing gown, and the outer layer of gloves was removed. The under layer of gloves was then sanitized with hand sanitizer, and a new pair of outer gloves was then worn.

Equipment

Much of the ICU-level equipment needed was already present within the operating room (OR) area. Existing patient monitors were used and connected to a central monitoring station present in the nurses station. Relevant contents of the ICU storage room were duplicated and placed on shelves in the patient care area. Out-of-use anesthesia carts were used for a dedicated COVID-19 invasive line cart. A designated ultrasound with cardiac and vascular access probes was assigned to the PACU-ICU. Anesthesia machines were brought into the PACU-ICU and prepared with viral filters in line to prevent contamination of the machines, in keeping with national guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists and Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation.⁸

Multidisciplinary Staffing Model

With the reduced surgical and procedural case load due to halting nonemergent operations, the Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care Service was able to staff the PACU-ICU with critical care anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, residents, and PACU and procedural nurses without hindering access to emergent surgeries. A separate preoperative area was maintained with an 8-bed capacity for both preoperative and postoperative management of non-COVID-19 surgical patients.

The staffing model was designed using guidance on the expansion of ICU staffing with non-ICU resources from the Society of Critical Care Medicine as well as local guidance on appropriate nursing ratios (Figure 3).⁹ Given the high acuity and dynamic nature of COVID-19 coupled with the unique considerations that exist using anesthesia machines as long-term ICU ventilators, 24-hour inhospital attending intensivist coverage was provided in the ICU by 4 critical care anesthesiologists who rotated between 12-hour day and night shifts. The critical care anesthesiologists led a team of anesthesiology and surgery residents and ICU advanced practice providers dedicated solely to the PACU-ICU. Non-ICU anesthesiologists helped with procedures such as intubation and invasive line placement and provided coverage of the ICU patients during sign-out and rounding. Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) performed intubations and helped offload respiratory therapists (one of the resources most in shortage) by managing and weaning ventilators and were instrumental in prone positioning of patients. Dedicated ICU nurses were deployed every shift to oversee the unit and act as a resource to the PACU nurses. Fortunately, many PACU nurses had prior ICU training and experience, and nurses from outpatient areas also were recruited to help with patient care. Together, they provided direct patient care. OR nurses assisted with delivering supplies, medications and transporting specimens to the laboratory, as no formal hospital tube station was present in the PACU.

Because of the open-unit setting, nurses practiced bundled care and staggered their turns in the patient care area. For example, a nurse who entered to administer medication to patient A, could then receive communication to check the urine output for patient B and do so without completely doffing and redonning. This allowed preservation of PPE and reduced time in PPE for the health care providers (HCPs).

A scheduled daily meeting included staff from PACU-ICU; Medical ICU (MICU), which also treated patients with COVID-19; and the Palliative Care Service (Figure 4). Patients with single-organ failure were preferentially sent to PACU-ICU, as the ability to do renal replacement therapy (RRT) in an open unit proved difficult. The palliative care team and VAAAHS social workers assisted both MICU and PACU-ICU with communicating with patients’ families, which provided a great help during a clinically demanding time. Physical therapists increased their staffing of the ICU to specifically help with mobilization of patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome, given the prolonged mechanical ventilation courses that were seen. Other consulting services frequently involved included infectious disease and nephrology.

Challenges and Solutions

Communication between staff located within the patient area and staff located in the nursing station was difficult given the loud noise generated by a PAPR and the plexiglass walls that separated the areas. Multiple techniques were attempted to overcome this. Dry erase boards were placed within the space to facilitate requests, but these were found to be time consuming. Two-way radios worked well if the users were wearing N95s but were harder to communicate when users were wearing PAPRs. Baby monitors were purchased to facilitate 2-way communication and were useful at times although quieter than desired. Vocera B3000N Communication Badges, which were already utilized in the perioperative period at the facility, could be utilized underneath PPE and were ultimately the best form of clear communication between staff within the patient care area and outside the negative pressure zone. In accordance with company guidance, these mobile devices were cleaned with virucidal wipes after use.¹⁰

Communication with patients’ families was critically important. The ICU team, palliative care team, or social workers made daily telephone calls to family members. The facility telehealth coordinator provided a designated tablet device to enable the intensivists to video conference with the patients’ families at bedside, utilizing virtual care manager appointments. This allowed families to see and interact with their loved ones despite the prohibition of family visitors. Every effort was made to utilize video calling daily; however, clinical demands as well as Internet and technological constraints from individual family members intermittently precluded video calls.

Clinical Challenges

Patients with severe COVID-19 infections requiring mechanical ventilation have proven to be exceptionally high-acuity patients with myriad organ-based complications reported.¹¹ Specific to our PACU-ICU, we determined that it was impractical to arrange for continuous RRT given the amount of training PACU nursing staff would have required and the limited ICU nursing staff in the PACU-ICU. Intermittent hemodialysis required replumbing for water supply and drainage but was ultimately not required as our facility expanded the number of continuous RRT machines available, allowing all patients in the COVID-19 ICU who required RRT to stay in the 16-bed ICU. Daily communication with the MICU allowed for safe transfer of patients with imminent needs for RRT to the MICU, providing a coordinated strategy for the deployment of scarce resources across our expanded ICU footprint.

Using anesthesia machines as ICU ventilators proved challenging, despite following best practice guidance.⁸ Notably, anesthesia machines are not actively humidified and require very high fresh gas flows, necessitating the addition of heat moisture exchangers (HME) to the circuit. Also, viral filters were placed in the circuit to prevent machine contamination. The addition of the HME and viral filters to each circuit increased the present dead space and led todifficulty in providing adequate ventilation to patients who already may have had a high proportion of physiologic dead space. The high fresh gas flows used still seemed inadequate in preventing moisture buildup in the machine parts, necessitating frequent exchanges of viral filters, HMEs, and circuits to prevent high peak airway pressures. In addition, anesthesia machines directly sample gas from the patient's breathing circuit, creating the risk for contamination of the space. This required a reconfiguration to allow for a suction scavenging system by VAAAHS biomedical engineers. Also, anesthesia machines are not designed for long-term ventilation and have different ventilation modes compared with modern ICU ventilators. Although they were used for several patients when the PACU-ICU opened, the hospital was able to acquire additional ICU ventilators, and extensive or prolonged use of anesthesia machine ventilators was avoided.

Infection Control

The open care setting provided unique infection control issues that had to be addressed.¹² The open setting allowed preservation of PPE and the ability for bundled care to be delivered easily. The VAAAHS infection control team worked closely with the ICU team to develop practices to ensure both patient and health care worker protection. Notable challenges included donning new gowns between patients when a PAPR was already being worn, leading to draping of new gowns over existing gowns when going between patients. True hand hygiene was also difficult, as health care workers did not want to completely remove gloves while in the patient care area. Layering of 2 pairs of gloves allowed the outer gloves to be removed after care of each patient, at which time alcohol gel was applied to the inner gloves, a new gown was placed over the existing gown, and a new pair of gloves was layered on top.

Although patients were intubated for long periods in the PACU-ICU, there was concern for increased risk of exposure of health care workers after extubation given the inability to contain the coughing patients within a private room. If a patient did well, they were transferred to a private room on the general medical floors within 24 hours of extubation to minimize this risk.

Privacy

The open care design meant less privacy for patients than would be provided in a private room. Curtains were drawn around patient beds as much as possible, especially for nursing care, but priority was given to visualization of the ventilator when a HCP was not present to ensure safety at all times. The majority of patients cared for in the PACU-ICU were intubated and sedated on arrival, but thankfully many were extubated. After extubation privacy in the open care area became more of an issue and may have led to more nighttime disturbances and substandard delirium prevention measures. Priority was given to expediting the transfer of these patients to private rooms on the general medical floor once their respiratory status was deemed stable.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic is truly an unprecedented event in our nation’s history, which has led to the first nationwide authorization of the fourth mission of VA to provide support for national, state, and local public health. The PACU-ICU was designed, engineered, built, and staffed by perioperative HCPs through an exceptional multidisciplinary effort in a matter of days. Through this dedication of health care workers and staff, the VAAAHS was able to care for critically ill veterans from Southeast Michigan and serve the community during a time of overwhelming demand on the national health care system.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the outstanding team of administrators, engineers, physical therapists, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, CRNAs, respiratory therapists, and physicians who made it possible to respond to our veterans’ and our community’s needs in a time of unprecedented demand on our health care system. A special thank you to Eric Deters, Chief Strategy Officer; Brittany McClure, ICU Nurse Manager; and Mark Dotson, Chief Supply Chain Officer. It was a privilege to serve on this mission together.

The rise in prevalence of the community spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US in early March 2020 led to hospital systems across the country preparing for an increase in critically ill patients.¹ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) anticipated an increased census of veterans who would need hospital admission for severe COVID-19 as well as the potential need to receive patients from community hospitals in Southeast Michigan, the location of one of the worst outbreaks in the US at that time.²

Through the facility’s incident command center, a hospital operations group identified the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) as a space to convert to an intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with COVID-19 needing mechanical ventilation. Other hospitals throughout the world have created similar makeshift ICUs to help care for the surge of patients with COVID-19, recognizing the high level of monitoring and resources available in the perioperative setting.^3-5 These ICUs have been successfully created in operating rooms,³ recovery rooms,⁵ and procedural settings.⁴

Between March 27, 2020 and April 25, 2020, a great multidisciplinary effort enabled the VAAAHS PACU-ICU to care for critically ill veterans with COVID-19 from Southeast Michigan as well as civilian transfers from overwhelmed neighboring community hospitals. This article will discuss planning considerations, including facility preparation, equipment, and staffing models. The unique challenges faced in managing an open-plan surge-capacity ICU also will be discussed as well as the solutions that were enacted.

Methods

Hospital Preparation

Maintaining a 2-zone model in which patients with COVID-19 and without COVID-19 could be cared for separately was of major importance. The VAAAHS traditional ICU was converted into a 16-bed COVID-19 ICU and staffed by the Pulmonary Critical Care Service. A separate wing of the hospital was converted into a 19-bed non-COVID-19 ICU, which also was staffed by the Pulmonary Critical Care Service that increased its staffing of residents, fellows, and attending physicians to meet the increasing clinical demands. Elective major surgery cases were postponed, and surgeons managed the care of postoperative surgical ICU patients. This arrangement allowed the existing 4 anesthesiologist intensivists to staff the PACU COVID-19 ICU.

Considerations, including space requirements, staffing, equipment, infection control requirements, and ability for facilities to engineer a negative pressure space were factored into the decision to convert the PACU to an additional 12-bed ICU. This effectively tripled the VAAAHS ICU capacity, enabling patient transfers from the John D. Dingell VA Medical Center in Detroit, Michigan, which was being impacted by a surge of cases in Detroit. In addition, this allowed for the opening of the hospital for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ICU transfers from hospitals in Southeast Michigan in order to fulfill the fourth VA mission to provide care and support to state and local communities for emergency management, public health, and safety.

PACU Preparation

PACU was selected as an overflow ICU due to its open floor plan, allowing patients on ventilators to be seen from a central nursing station. This would allow for the safe use of ventilators without central alarm capabilities (especially anesthesia machines). Given the risk of a circuit disconnect, all ventilators without central alarm capabilities needed to be seen and heard within the space to ensure patient safety.

Facilities Management was able to construct temporary barriers with vinyl covered sheetrock and plexiglass to partition the central nursing workstation from the patient area in a U-shape (Figure 1). The patient area was turned into a negative pressure space where strict airborne precautions could be observed. Although the air handling unit serving this space is equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, it was mechanically manipulated to ensure that all air coming from the space was discharged through exhaust and not recirculated into another occupied space within the hospital. Total air exchange rates were measured and calculated for both the positive and negative spaces to ensure they met or exceeded at least 6 air changes per hour, as recommended by Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidance.^6,7 A differential pressure indicator was installed to provide staff with the ability to monitor the pressure relationship between the 2 spaces in real time.

Twelve patient care beds were created. A traditionally engineered airborne infection isolation room in PACU served as a procedure room for aerosol-generating procedures, especially intubation, extubation, use of high-flow nasal cannula, and tracheostomy placement. Strict airborne precautions were taken within the patient area. The area inside the nursing station was positively pressurized to allow for surgical masks only to be required for the comfort of health care workers (Figure 2). A clear donning and doffing workflow was created for movement between the nursing area and the patient care area.

Personal Protective Equipment

Personal protective equipment (PPE) was of paramount importance in this open care unit. Airborne precautions were used in the entire patient care area. Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) were used when possible to conserve the supply of N95 masks. Each health care worker was issued a reusable PAPR hood, which was cleaned by the user after each use by wiping the exterior of the entire hood with virucidal wipes. The brand and active ingredient of the virucidal wipes varied by availability of supplies, but the “virus kill time” was clearly labeled on each container. Each health care worker had a paper bag for storing his or her PAPR hood between usage to allow drying and ventilation. PAPR units were charged in between uses and shared by all clinical staff. Two layers of nonsterile gloves were worn.

Because of the open care area, attention had to be given to adhere to infection control policies if health care workers wanted to care for multiple patients while in the area. A new gown was placed over the existing gown, and the outer layer of gloves was removed. The under layer of gloves was then sanitized with hand sanitizer, and a new pair of outer gloves was then worn.

Equipment

Much of the ICU-level equipment needed was already present within the operating room (OR) area. Existing patient monitors were used and connected to a central monitoring station present in the nurses station. Relevant contents of the ICU storage room were duplicated and placed on shelves in the patient care area. Out-of-use anesthesia carts were used for a dedicated COVID-19 invasive line cart. A designated ultrasound with cardiac and vascular access probes was assigned to the PACU-ICU. Anesthesia machines were brought into the PACU-ICU and prepared with viral filters in line to prevent contamination of the machines, in keeping with national guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists and Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation.⁸

Multidisciplinary Staffing Model

With the reduced surgical and procedural case load due to halting nonemergent operations, the Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care Service was able to staff the PACU-ICU with critical care anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, residents, and PACU and procedural nurses without hindering access to emergent surgeries. A separate preoperative area was maintained with an 8-bed capacity for both preoperative and postoperative management of non-COVID-19 surgical patients.

The staffing model was designed using guidance on the expansion of ICU staffing with non-ICU resources from the Society of Critical Care Medicine as well as local guidance on appropriate nursing ratios (Figure 3).⁹ Given the high acuity and dynamic nature of COVID-19 coupled with the unique considerations that exist using anesthesia machines as long-term ICU ventilators, 24-hour inhospital attending intensivist coverage was provided in the ICU by 4 critical care anesthesiologists who rotated between 12-hour day and night shifts. The critical care anesthesiologists led a team of anesthesiology and surgery residents and ICU advanced practice providers dedicated solely to the PACU-ICU. Non-ICU anesthesiologists helped with procedures such as intubation and invasive line placement and provided coverage of the ICU patients during sign-out and rounding. Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) performed intubations and helped offload respiratory therapists (one of the resources most in shortage) by managing and weaning ventilators and were instrumental in prone positioning of patients. Dedicated ICU nurses were deployed every shift to oversee the unit and act as a resource to the PACU nurses. Fortunately, many PACU nurses had prior ICU training and experience, and nurses from outpatient areas also were recruited to help with patient care. Together, they provided direct patient care. OR nurses assisted with delivering supplies, medications and transporting specimens to the laboratory, as no formal hospital tube station was present in the PACU.

Because of the open-unit setting, nurses practiced bundled care and staggered their turns in the patient care area. For example, a nurse who entered to administer medication to patient A, could then receive communication to check the urine output for patient B and do so without completely doffing and redonning. This allowed preservation of PPE and reduced time in PPE for the health care providers (HCPs).

A scheduled daily meeting included staff from PACU-ICU; Medical ICU (MICU), which also treated patients with COVID-19; and the Palliative Care Service (Figure 4). Patients with single-organ failure were preferentially sent to PACU-ICU, as the ability to do renal replacement therapy (RRT) in an open unit proved difficult. The palliative care team and VAAAHS social workers assisted both MICU and PACU-ICU with communicating with patients’ families, which provided a great help during a clinically demanding time. Physical therapists increased their staffing of the ICU to specifically help with mobilization of patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome, given the prolonged mechanical ventilation courses that were seen. Other consulting services frequently involved included infectious disease and nephrology.

Challenges and Solutions

Communication between staff located within the patient area and staff located in the nursing station was difficult given the loud noise generated by a PAPR and the plexiglass walls that separated the areas. Multiple techniques were attempted to overcome this. Dry erase boards were placed within the space to facilitate requests, but these were found to be time consuming. Two-way radios worked well if the users were wearing N95s but were harder to communicate when users were wearing PAPRs. Baby monitors were purchased to facilitate 2-way communication and were useful at times although quieter than desired. Vocera B3000N Communication Badges, which were already utilized in the perioperative period at the facility, could be utilized underneath PPE and were ultimately the best form of clear communication between staff within the patient care area and outside the negative pressure zone. In accordance with company guidance, these mobile devices were cleaned with virucidal wipes after use.¹⁰

Communication with patients’ families was critically important. The ICU team, palliative care team, or social workers made daily telephone calls to family members. The facility telehealth coordinator provided a designated tablet device to enable the intensivists to video conference with the patients’ families at bedside, utilizing virtual care manager appointments. This allowed families to see and interact with their loved ones despite the prohibition of family visitors. Every effort was made to utilize video calling daily; however, clinical demands as well as Internet and technological constraints from individual family members intermittently precluded video calls.

Clinical Challenges

Patients with severe COVID-19 infections requiring mechanical ventilation have proven to be exceptionally high-acuity patients with myriad organ-based complications reported.¹¹ Specific to our PACU-ICU, we determined that it was impractical to arrange for continuous RRT given the amount of training PACU nursing staff would have required and the limited ICU nursing staff in the PACU-ICU. Intermittent hemodialysis required replumbing for water supply and drainage but was ultimately not required as our facility expanded the number of continuous RRT machines available, allowing all patients in the COVID-19 ICU who required RRT to stay in the 16-bed ICU. Daily communication with the MICU allowed for safe transfer of patients with imminent needs for RRT to the MICU, providing a coordinated strategy for the deployment of scarce resources across our expanded ICU footprint.

Using anesthesia machines as ICU ventilators proved challenging, despite following best practice guidance.⁸ Notably, anesthesia machines are not actively humidified and require very high fresh gas flows, necessitating the addition of heat moisture exchangers (HME) to the circuit. Also, viral filters were placed in the circuit to prevent machine contamination. The addition of the HME and viral filters to each circuit increased the present dead space and led todifficulty in providing adequate ventilation to patients who already may have had a high proportion of physiologic dead space. The high fresh gas flows used still seemed inadequate in preventing moisture buildup in the machine parts, necessitating frequent exchanges of viral filters, HMEs, and circuits to prevent high peak airway pressures. In addition, anesthesia machines directly sample gas from the patient's breathing circuit, creating the risk for contamination of the space. This required a reconfiguration to allow for a suction scavenging system by VAAAHS biomedical engineers. Also, anesthesia machines are not designed for long-term ventilation and have different ventilation modes compared with modern ICU ventilators. Although they were used for several patients when the PACU-ICU opened, the hospital was able to acquire additional ICU ventilators, and extensive or prolonged use of anesthesia machine ventilators was avoided.

Infection Control

The open care setting provided unique infection control issues that had to be addressed.¹² The open setting allowed preservation of PPE and the ability for bundled care to be delivered easily. The VAAAHS infection control team worked closely with the ICU team to develop practices to ensure both patient and health care worker protection. Notable challenges included donning new gowns between patients when a PAPR was already being worn, leading to draping of new gowns over existing gowns when going between patients. True hand hygiene was also difficult, as health care workers did not want to completely remove gloves while in the patient care area. Layering of 2 pairs of gloves allowed the outer gloves to be removed after care of each patient, at which time alcohol gel was applied to the inner gloves, a new gown was placed over the existing gown, and a new pair of gloves was layered on top.

Although patients were intubated for long periods in the PACU-ICU, there was concern for increased risk of exposure of health care workers after extubation given the inability to contain the coughing patients within a private room. If a patient did well, they were transferred to a private room on the general medical floors within 24 hours of extubation to minimize this risk.

Privacy

The open care design meant less privacy for patients than would be provided in a private room. Curtains were drawn around patient beds as much as possible, especially for nursing care, but priority was given to visualization of the ventilator when a HCP was not present to ensure safety at all times. The majority of patients cared for in the PACU-ICU were intubated and sedated on arrival, but thankfully many were extubated. After extubation privacy in the open care area became more of an issue and may have led to more nighttime disturbances and substandard delirium prevention measures. Priority was given to expediting the transfer of these patients to private rooms on the general medical floor once their respiratory status was deemed stable.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic is truly an unprecedented event in our nation’s history, which has led to the first nationwide authorization of the fourth mission of VA to provide support for national, state, and local public health. The PACU-ICU was designed, engineered, built, and staffed by perioperative HCPs through an exceptional multidisciplinary effort in a matter of days. Through this dedication of health care workers and staff, the VAAAHS was able to care for critically ill veterans from Southeast Michigan and serve the community during a time of overwhelming demand on the national health care system.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the outstanding team of administrators, engineers, physical therapists, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, CRNAs, respiratory therapists, and physicians who made it possible to respond to our veterans’ and our community’s needs in a time of unprecedented demand on our health care system. A special thank you to Eric Deters, Chief Strategy Officer; Brittany McClure, ICU Nurse Manager; and Mark Dotson, Chief Supply Chain Officer. It was a privilege to serve on this mission together.

The rise in prevalence of the community spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US in early March 2020 led to hospital systems across the country preparing for an increase in critically ill patients.¹ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) anticipated an increased census of veterans who would need hospital admission for severe COVID-19 as well as the potential need to receive patients from community hospitals in Southeast Michigan, the location of one of the worst outbreaks in the US at that time.²

Through the facility’s incident command center, a hospital operations group identified the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) as a space to convert to an intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with COVID-19 needing mechanical ventilation. Other hospitals throughout the world have created similar makeshift ICUs to help care for the surge of patients with COVID-19, recognizing the high level of monitoring and resources available in the perioperative setting.^3-5 These ICUs have been successfully created in operating rooms,³ recovery rooms,⁵ and procedural settings.⁴

Between March 27, 2020 and April 25, 2020, a great multidisciplinary effort enabled the VAAAHS PACU-ICU to care for critically ill veterans with COVID-19 from Southeast Michigan as well as civilian transfers from overwhelmed neighboring community hospitals. This article will discuss planning considerations, including facility preparation, equipment, and staffing models. The unique challenges faced in managing an open-plan surge-capacity ICU also will be discussed as well as the solutions that were enacted.

Methods

Hospital Preparation

Maintaining a 2-zone model in which patients with COVID-19 and without COVID-19 could be cared for separately was of major importance. The VAAAHS traditional ICU was converted into a 16-bed COVID-19 ICU and staffed by the Pulmonary Critical Care Service. A separate wing of the hospital was converted into a 19-bed non-COVID-19 ICU, which also was staffed by the Pulmonary Critical Care Service that increased its staffing of residents, fellows, and attending physicians to meet the increasing clinical demands. Elective major surgery cases were postponed, and surgeons managed the care of postoperative surgical ICU patients. This arrangement allowed the existing 4 anesthesiologist intensivists to staff the PACU COVID-19 ICU.

Considerations, including space requirements, staffing, equipment, infection control requirements, and ability for facilities to engineer a negative pressure space were factored into the decision to convert the PACU to an additional 12-bed ICU. This effectively tripled the VAAAHS ICU capacity, enabling patient transfers from the John D. Dingell VA Medical Center in Detroit, Michigan, which was being impacted by a surge of cases in Detroit. In addition, this allowed for the opening of the hospital for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ICU transfers from hospitals in Southeast Michigan in order to fulfill the fourth VA mission to provide care and support to state and local communities for emergency management, public health, and safety.

PACU Preparation

PACU was selected as an overflow ICU due to its open floor plan, allowing patients on ventilators to be seen from a central nursing station. This would allow for the safe use of ventilators without central alarm capabilities (especially anesthesia machines). Given the risk of a circuit disconnect, all ventilators without central alarm capabilities needed to be seen and heard within the space to ensure patient safety.

Facilities Management was able to construct temporary barriers with vinyl covered sheetrock and plexiglass to partition the central nursing workstation from the patient area in a U-shape (Figure 1). The patient area was turned into a negative pressure space where strict airborne precautions could be observed. Although the air handling unit serving this space is equipped with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, it was mechanically manipulated to ensure that all air coming from the space was discharged through exhaust and not recirculated into another occupied space within the hospital. Total air exchange rates were measured and calculated for both the positive and negative spaces to ensure they met or exceeded at least 6 air changes per hour, as recommended by Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidance.^6,7 A differential pressure indicator was installed to provide staff with the ability to monitor the pressure relationship between the 2 spaces in real time.

Twelve patient care beds were created. A traditionally engineered airborne infection isolation room in PACU served as a procedure room for aerosol-generating procedures, especially intubation, extubation, use of high-flow nasal cannula, and tracheostomy placement. Strict airborne precautions were taken within the patient area. The area inside the nursing station was positively pressurized to allow for surgical masks only to be required for the comfort of health care workers (Figure 2). A clear donning and doffing workflow was created for movement between the nursing area and the patient care area.

Personal Protective Equipment

Personal protective equipment (PPE) was of paramount importance in this open care unit. Airborne precautions were used in the entire patient care area. Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) were used when possible to conserve the supply of N95 masks. Each health care worker was issued a reusable PAPR hood, which was cleaned by the user after each use by wiping the exterior of the entire hood with virucidal wipes. The brand and active ingredient of the virucidal wipes varied by availability of supplies, but the “virus kill time” was clearly labeled on each container. Each health care worker had a paper bag for storing his or her PAPR hood between usage to allow drying and ventilation. PAPR units were charged in between uses and shared by all clinical staff. Two layers of nonsterile gloves were worn.

Because of the open care area, attention had to be given to adhere to infection control policies if health care workers wanted to care for multiple patients while in the area. A new gown was placed over the existing gown, and the outer layer of gloves was removed. The under layer of gloves was then sanitized with hand sanitizer, and a new pair of outer gloves was then worn.

Equipment

Much of the ICU-level equipment needed was already present within the operating room (OR) area. Existing patient monitors were used and connected to a central monitoring station present in the nurses station. Relevant contents of the ICU storage room were duplicated and placed on shelves in the patient care area. Out-of-use anesthesia carts were used for a dedicated COVID-19 invasive line cart. A designated ultrasound with cardiac and vascular access probes was assigned to the PACU-ICU. Anesthesia machines were brought into the PACU-ICU and prepared with viral filters in line to prevent contamination of the machines, in keeping with national guidance from the American Society of Anesthesiologists and Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation.⁸

Multidisciplinary Staffing Model

With the reduced surgical and procedural case load due to halting nonemergent operations, the Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care Service was able to staff the PACU-ICU with critical care anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, residents, and PACU and procedural nurses without hindering access to emergent surgeries. A separate preoperative area was maintained with an 8-bed capacity for both preoperative and postoperative management of non-COVID-19 surgical patients.

The staffing model was designed using guidance on the expansion of ICU staffing with non-ICU resources from the Society of Critical Care Medicine as well as local guidance on appropriate nursing ratios (Figure 3).⁹ Given the high acuity and dynamic nature of COVID-19 coupled with the unique considerations that exist using anesthesia machines as long-term ICU ventilators, 24-hour inhospital attending intensivist coverage was provided in the ICU by 4 critical care anesthesiologists who rotated between 12-hour day and night shifts. The critical care anesthesiologists led a team of anesthesiology and surgery residents and ICU advanced practice providers dedicated solely to the PACU-ICU. Non-ICU anesthesiologists helped with procedures such as intubation and invasive line placement and provided coverage of the ICU patients during sign-out and rounding. Certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) performed intubations and helped offload respiratory therapists (one of the resources most in shortage) by managing and weaning ventilators and were instrumental in prone positioning of patients. Dedicated ICU nurses were deployed every shift to oversee the unit and act as a resource to the PACU nurses. Fortunately, many PACU nurses had prior ICU training and experience, and nurses from outpatient areas also were recruited to help with patient care. Together, they provided direct patient care. OR nurses assisted with delivering supplies, medications and transporting specimens to the laboratory, as no formal hospital tube station was present in the PACU.

Because of the open-unit setting, nurses practiced bundled care and staggered their turns in the patient care area. For example, a nurse who entered to administer medication to patient A, could then receive communication to check the urine output for patient B and do so without completely doffing and redonning. This allowed preservation of PPE and reduced time in PPE for the health care providers (HCPs).

A scheduled daily meeting included staff from PACU-ICU; Medical ICU (MICU), which also treated patients with COVID-19; and the Palliative Care Service (Figure 4). Patients with single-organ failure were preferentially sent to PACU-ICU, as the ability to do renal replacement therapy (RRT) in an open unit proved difficult. The palliative care team and VAAAHS social workers assisted both MICU and PACU-ICU with communicating with patients’ families, which provided a great help during a clinically demanding time. Physical therapists increased their staffing of the ICU to specifically help with mobilization of patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome, given the prolonged mechanical ventilation courses that were seen. Other consulting services frequently involved included infectious disease and nephrology.

Challenges and Solutions

Communication between staff located within the patient area and staff located in the nursing station was difficult given the loud noise generated by a PAPR and the plexiglass walls that separated the areas. Multiple techniques were attempted to overcome this. Dry erase boards were placed within the space to facilitate requests, but these were found to be time consuming. Two-way radios worked well if the users were wearing N95s but were harder to communicate when users were wearing PAPRs. Baby monitors were purchased to facilitate 2-way communication and were useful at times although quieter than desired. Vocera B3000N Communication Badges, which were already utilized in the perioperative period at the facility, could be utilized underneath PPE and were ultimately the best form of clear communication between staff within the patient care area and outside the negative pressure zone. In accordance with company guidance, these mobile devices were cleaned with virucidal wipes after use.¹⁰

Communication with patients’ families was critically important. The ICU team, palliative care team, or social workers made daily telephone calls to family members. The facility telehealth coordinator provided a designated tablet device to enable the intensivists to video conference with the patients’ families at bedside, utilizing virtual care manager appointments. This allowed families to see and interact with their loved ones despite the prohibition of family visitors. Every effort was made to utilize video calling daily; however, clinical demands as well as Internet and technological constraints from individual family members intermittently precluded video calls.

Clinical Challenges

Patients with severe COVID-19 infections requiring mechanical ventilation have proven to be exceptionally high-acuity patients with myriad organ-based complications reported.¹¹ Specific to our PACU-ICU, we determined that it was impractical to arrange for continuous RRT given the amount of training PACU nursing staff would have required and the limited ICU nursing staff in the PACU-ICU. Intermittent hemodialysis required replumbing for water supply and drainage but was ultimately not required as our facility expanded the number of continuous RRT machines available, allowing all patients in the COVID-19 ICU who required RRT to stay in the 16-bed ICU. Daily communication with the MICU allowed for safe transfer of patients with imminent needs for RRT to the MICU, providing a coordinated strategy for the deployment of scarce resources across our expanded ICU footprint.

Using anesthesia machines as ICU ventilators proved challenging, despite following best practice guidance.⁸ Notably, anesthesia machines are not actively humidified and require very high fresh gas flows, necessitating the addition of heat moisture exchangers (HME) to the circuit. Also, viral filters were placed in the circuit to prevent machine contamination. The addition of the HME and viral filters to each circuit increased the present dead space and led todifficulty in providing adequate ventilation to patients who already may have had a high proportion of physiologic dead space. The high fresh gas flows used still seemed inadequate in preventing moisture buildup in the machine parts, necessitating frequent exchanges of viral filters, HMEs, and circuits to prevent high peak airway pressures. In addition, anesthesia machines directly sample gas from the patient's breathing circuit, creating the risk for contamination of the space. This required a reconfiguration to allow for a suction scavenging system by VAAAHS biomedical engineers. Also, anesthesia machines are not designed for long-term ventilation and have different ventilation modes compared with modern ICU ventilators. Although they were used for several patients when the PACU-ICU opened, the hospital was able to acquire additional ICU ventilators, and extensive or prolonged use of anesthesia machine ventilators was avoided.

Infection Control

The open care setting provided unique infection control issues that had to be addressed.¹² The open setting allowed preservation of PPE and the ability for bundled care to be delivered easily. The VAAAHS infection control team worked closely with the ICU team to develop practices to ensure both patient and health care worker protection. Notable challenges included donning new gowns between patients when a PAPR was already being worn, leading to draping of new gowns over existing gowns when going between patients. True hand hygiene was also difficult, as health care workers did not want to completely remove gloves while in the patient care area. Layering of 2 pairs of gloves allowed the outer gloves to be removed after care of each patient, at which time alcohol gel was applied to the inner gloves, a new gown was placed over the existing gown, and a new pair of gloves was layered on top.

Although patients were intubated for long periods in the PACU-ICU, there was concern for increased risk of exposure of health care workers after extubation given the inability to contain the coughing patients within a private room. If a patient did well, they were transferred to a private room on the general medical floors within 24 hours of extubation to minimize this risk.

Privacy

The open care design meant less privacy for patients than would be provided in a private room. Curtains were drawn around patient beds as much as possible, especially for nursing care, but priority was given to visualization of the ventilator when a HCP was not present to ensure safety at all times. The majority of patients cared for in the PACU-ICU were intubated and sedated on arrival, but thankfully many were extubated. After extubation privacy in the open care area became more of an issue and may have led to more nighttime disturbances and substandard delirium prevention measures. Priority was given to expediting the transfer of these patients to private rooms on the general medical floor once their respiratory status was deemed stable.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic is truly an unprecedented event in our nation’s history, which has led to the first nationwide authorization of the fourth mission of VA to provide support for national, state, and local public health. The PACU-ICU was designed, engineered, built, and staffed by perioperative HCPs through an exceptional multidisciplinary effort in a matter of days. Through this dedication of health care workers and staff, the VAAAHS was able to care for critically ill veterans from Southeast Michigan and serve the community during a time of overwhelming demand on the national health care system.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the outstanding team of administrators, engineers, physical therapists, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, CRNAs, respiratory therapists, and physicians who made it possible to respond to our veterans’ and our community’s needs in a time of unprecedented demand on our health care system. A special thank you to Eric Deters, Chief Strategy Officer; Brittany McClure, ICU Nurse Manager; and Mark Dotson, Chief Supply Chain Officer. It was a privilege to serve on this mission together.

With a rapidly growing older adult population, increased attention has been given to cognitive changes that occur with age, with a focus on optimizing the cognitive health of aging individuals.¹ Given the absence of pharmaceutical treatments to prevent cognitive decline, there is an increased need for health care systems to offer alternative or behavioral interventions that can mitigate the effects of cognitive decline in aging.

Notably, many individuals are able to maintain or even improve cognitive functioning throughout their lifespan, with some research implicating health behaviors as an important factor for promoting brain health with age. Specifically, sleep, exercise, eating habits, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation have been linked to improved cognitive functioning.^2-8 In addition to the potential benefits for brain health, there is evidence that greater investment in attaining health goals is associated with subjective reports of higher well-being, fewer mental health symptoms, lower physical health stresses, decreased caregiver burden, and increased functional independence linked with longer independent living.⁹ The latter has a substantial financial impact, such that the positive consequence of increased independence is likely staving off the need for admission to assisted living and adult family homes, which can be costly.

Despite the role of health behaviors in brain aging and overall health and functioning, research indicates that only a small number of older adults (12.8%) follow recommended guidelines for healthy lifestyle factors.¹⁰ Education has been identified as one factor associated with the likelihood of engaging in positive health behaviors, prompting the delivery of health-education interventions. Most psychoeducational interventions have traditionally focused on one aspect of behavior change at a time (eg, sleep); however, Gross and colleaguesconducted a meta-analysis of cognitive interventions and in addition to the overall positive benefits (effect size 0.38), they also found suggestive evidence that interventions that combined multiple training strategies were associated with larger training gains (P = .04) after adjusting for multiple comparisons.¹¹ For example, Miller and colleagues found a significant improvement on both subjective and objective measures of memory following a multicomponent approach that combined training in memory skills, stress reduction, nutrition, and physical activity.¹²

In addition to the potential positive impacts of health behaviors on brain health, findings suggest that targeted emphasis on health behavior change may have the potential to stave off mild cognitiveimpairment (MCI) or dementia even if for a short time. Given the increasing prevalence rates of MCI with age (6.7% in adults aged 60-64 years, reaching 25.2% in adults aged 80-84 years¹³) and dementia (prevalence of MCI converting to dementia is 18-40%¹⁴), as well as the corresponding emotional, financial, and family-oriented consequences (eg, impact on the well-being of family caregivers), the need for behavioral interventions that seek to optimize brain health is becoming increasingly apparent.

More than 9 million veterans are now aged ≥ 65 years.¹⁵ In addition to representing nearly half of all veterans and a sizable portion of aging adults in the US, older veterans are at increased risk of frailty, mortality, and high rates of chronic medical/mental health conditions that can lead to accelerated cognitive aging.^6-17 Together, these conditions highlight the importance of developing comprehensive psychoeducational and behavioral interventions in this population. To address this need, we developed a novel psychoeducation and behavior change group called the Healthy Aging Project-Brain (HAP-B, pronounced “happy”). The HAP-B intervention was designed to promote healthy brain aging by using empirically supported health behavior change strategies, including education, personalized goal setting, and community support. The primary aim of this project was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable (eg, could be implemented in our setting, was appropriate for a veteran population) and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Methods

We recruited veterans aged ≥ 50 years through primary care clinics and self-referrals via flyers in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division hospital. We targeted the “worried well” and welcomed veterans with MCI and mental health diagnoses. Notably, if there were significant mental health and/or substance use concerns, we encouraged veterans to seek focused care and stabilization prior to or concurrent with group participation. Exclusion criteria included presence of suicidality/homicidality, untreated or unstable substance use disorder, or a diagnosis of dementia. Exclusion criteria were assessed by the referring health care providers (HCPs), when appropriate, and through a health record review. Group facilitators used their clinical judgment to monitor participants if they began experiencing more severe cognitive impairment or acute mental health concerns. Although we did not encounter any of these instances, facilitators were prepared to discuss any concerns with the veteran and their referring HCP. Participants sampled were from 1 of 5 groups offered between January 2018 and March 2019. A waiver from the institutional review board was obtained after meeting criteria for quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) for this study.

Procedures

At the initial stages of development, our team conducted a needs assessment to identify health-related areas where HCPs felt veterans would benefit from additional education and support. The needs assessment was conducted across primary care, geriatric extended care, and the Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) at VAPSHCS. Combining the needs assessment results with the available research base, we identified sleep, physical activity, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation as areas for focus. Notably, although nutrition has been identified as an important factor in cognitive aging, a diet and nutrition class was already available to older veterans at the Seattle VA; hence, we chose to limit overlap by not covering this topic in our group.

The group was offered on a quarterly basis as six 90-minute psychoeducational classes to allow time for didactics, discussion, and practice without overloading participants with information. Each group consisted of 4 to 9 veterans led by 2 cofacilitators. Group structure allowed for feedback and ideas from group members as well as accountability for engaging in behavior change. Cognitive functioning was not formally evaluated. Attendees were asked but not required to complete questionnaires before the classes began and again at completion. In addition at the completion of each group, feedback was collected from veterans and used to modify group content (Figure).

Two pilot groups were implemented in early and mid-2018 with iterative changes after each group. Then we revised the assessment battery and implemented the current version (v1.0), which was first offered in the fall of 2018 and was used with the final 3 groups. Noteworthy changes included weekly check-ins to assess use of health behavior logs and progress toward individual goals, additional pre-and postgroup measures, and in vivo skills practice relevant to the topic being discussed that day.

Each session began with a check-in, which included a review of daily logs and SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant/realistic, and timebound) goals from the previous week.¹⁸ This allowed for praise/reinforcement of health behaviors as well as discussion of potential barriers. Second, an overview of research focusing on the relationship between aging, brain health, and the topic of the day was presented. As an example, in the discussion of social engagement, research was presented about the link between social isolation and cognitive decline; the indirect benefits of social support (eg, social support is linked to improved physical and mental health, which, in turn, is associated with less cognitive decline); and the direct benefits of social support (eg, high levels of emotional support are associated with better cognitive function) (Table 1).⁶

Next, facilitators reviewed skills and strategies to improve functioning in the topic of discussion. During the social engagement group, for example, facilitators discussed tips to improve social skills (eg, asking open-ended questions) and how to build social support into a daily routine (eg, scheduling weekly phone calls with family and friends). Following this discussion of skills, an activity was practiced, reinforcing learned material. During the social engagement group, veterans were invited to use small talk strategies with fellow group members. Finally, group sessions ended with each participant identifying a SMART goal for the coming week and troubleshooting potential barriers to success. SMART goals were kept broad, so veterans could choose a goal related to the topic discussed at the group that day (eg, scheduling a phone call with a friend twice in the coming week during the social engagement-focused group) or choose any other goal to focus on (eg, a sleep-related goal). Similarly, goals could change week to week, or could remain the same throughout the 6-week classes.

Measures

The questionnaires used for QI/QA analyses included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS); Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-S); Social Support Survey Instrument (SSSI); Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (MOS-36 SF); and a self-efficacy scale (adapted from Huckans and colleagues for traumatic brain injury).^19-24 Written feedback was collected at the end of the last group to assess perception of progress, self-perceived behavior change, what was helpful or unhelpful, and how likely the participants were to recommend the group to other veterans (0 to 3, very unlikely to very likely).

To promote consistency with other health and behavior change interventions at the VA, HAP-B used resources from the Whole Health model SMART goals. Research supports the use of self-monitoring techniques like SMART goals for behavior change.²⁵

To facilitate skills practice and self-monitoring between classes, veterans were asked to complete 2 homework assignments. First, at the end of each group, each veteran identified a specific SMART goal to focus on and track in the coming week. Goals were unique to each veteran and allowed to change from week to week. Group discussion around SMART goals involved plans for how to address potential barriers; progress toward goals was discussed at the beginning of the following group. Second, veterans were asked to complete a worksheet used to track progress toward the weekly SMART goal and the specific health behaviors related to the 4 domains targeted by HAP-B. For example, when tracking sleep behaviors, veterans noted bedtime, waketime, number of times they woke up during the night, and length of daytime naps if applicable. Tracking logs were provided at the end of each class for personal purposes only. We asked veterans to rate themselves each week on whether they used the tracking sheet to monitor health behaviors; and how successful they were at accomplishing their previously identified SMART goal. We recorded responses on a 0 to 2 scale (0, not good; 1, fair; 2, good). This rating system was developed and implemented in later groups to promote self-monitoring, accountability, and discussion of potential barriers. However, due to the small sample that completed these ratings and the absence of objective corroborating data, these ratings were not included in the current analyses.

Every participant received a manual in binder format, which provided the didactic information for each group session, skills and strategies discussed in each session, and relevant resources in both the VA and community. For example, social engagement resources included information about volunteer opportunities, VA groups that focus on developing interpersonal skills, and recommendations from past group members on social events (eg, dance lessons at a senior center). We also developed a facilitator version of the manual in which we added comments and guidance on topics for discussion. Materials were developed with the goal of optimizing the ease of dissemination to other sites.

Results

Across the 5 groups, 31 veterans enrolled as participants and completed the initial intake measures, with an average of 6 participants per group (range 4-9). The majority (80%) attended at least 5 of the 6 classes. The mean age was 70.7 years, and 90% of participants were men. Seventy percent of participants self-identified as white, 32% African American, and 3% Native American, which is consistent with VAPSHCS demographics. Of the 31 participants, 16 had a mental health diagnosis, and 6 had a cognitive diagnosis.

At the start of the class, the mean (SD) reports of participants were mild depressive symptoms 5.96 (3.8) on the GDS scale, moderate levels of self-efficacy 3.69 (0.5) on the self-efficacy scale, and moderate levels of satisfaction with life 18.08 (6.8) on the SWLS scale (Table 2). Data from 25 of 31 veterans who completed both pregroup and postgroup surveys were analyzed and paired samples t tests without corrections indicated a reduction in depressive symptoms (P = .01), improved self-efficacy (P = .08), and improved satisfaction with life (P = .03). There were no significant differences in self-reported sleep quality or perceived social support from pregroup to postgroup evaluations. Because the sample size was smaller for the MOS-36, which was not used until group 3, and the subscales are composed of few items each, we conducted exploratory analyses of the 8 MOS-36 subscales and found that well-being, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional functioning, and energy/fatigue significantly improved over time (Ps < .04).

Discussion

The ability and need to promote brain health with age is an emerging priority as our aging population grows. A growing body of evidence supports the role of health behaviors in healthy brain aging. Education and skills training in a group setting provides a supportive, cost-effective approach for increasing overall health in aging adults. Yet older adults are statistically less likely to engage in these behaviors on a regular basis. The current investigation provides preliminary support for a model of care that uses a comprehensive, experiential psychoeducational approach to facilitate behavior change in older adults. Our aim was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable to our older veterans and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Participants indicated that they enjoyed the group, learned new skills (per participant feedback and facilitator observation), and experienced improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction. Given the participants’ positive response to the group and its content, as well as continued referrals by HCPs to this group and low difficulty with ongoing recruitment, this program was deemed both feasible and acceptable in our veteran health care setting. Questions remain about the extent to which participants modified their health behaviors given that we did not collect objective measurements of behaviors (eg, time spent exercising), the duration of behavior change (ie, how long during and after the group were behaviors maintained), and the role of premorbid or concurrent characteristics that may moderate the effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes (eg, sleep quality, perceived social support, overall functioning, concurrent interventions, medications).

Strengths and Limitations

This study had a limited sample size and no control group. However, evidence of significant improvements in depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction in the development groups without a control group is encouraging. This is particularly noteworthy given that older veterans as a group have higher rates of frailty and mortality than do other similarly aged counterparts.¹⁷An additional weakness is the absence of a brief cognitive assessment or other formal assessment as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, this program development project provides data from a realistic condition (recruited broadly and with few exclusions, offered in similar format as other VA classes), thus adding strength to the interpretation and possibly the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusions

Future directions include disseminating HAP-B materials and procedures across a variety of sites, both VA and non-VA. In line with this goal, we hope to increase sample size and sample diversity while optimizing protocol integrity during the exportation phase. With a greater sample size and power, we aim to examine the role of self-efficacy and other premorbid factors (eg, cognitive functioning at baseline) as mediators for observed changes in pre-/postmeasures and outcomes. We also hope to incorporate objective measures of behavior change, such as fitness trackers, heart rate/pulse monitors, and actigraphy for monitoring sleep. Finally, we are interested in conducting follow-up with past and future participants to detect changes that may occur with learning new skills following the completion of the group (eg, changes in sleep behavior that take time to take effect) and the extent to which participants continue to use the health behavior skills and strategies to maintain or enhance progress in behavioral goals. Finally, although this intervention was initially designed for use with older veterans receiving health care through the VA, we believe the concepts and work products described here can be used with older adults across a wide range of health care settings. Providers interested in trialing HAP-B at their local site are encouraged to contact the authors.

With a rapidly growing older adult population, increased attention has been given to cognitive changes that occur with age, with a focus on optimizing the cognitive health of aging individuals.¹ Given the absence of pharmaceutical treatments to prevent cognitive decline, there is an increased need for health care systems to offer alternative or behavioral interventions that can mitigate the effects of cognitive decline in aging.

Notably, many individuals are able to maintain or even improve cognitive functioning throughout their lifespan, with some research implicating health behaviors as an important factor for promoting brain health with age. Specifically, sleep, exercise, eating habits, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation have been linked to improved cognitive functioning.^2-8 In addition to the potential benefits for brain health, there is evidence that greater investment in attaining health goals is associated with subjective reports of higher well-being, fewer mental health symptoms, lower physical health stresses, decreased caregiver burden, and increased functional independence linked with longer independent living.⁹ The latter has a substantial financial impact, such that the positive consequence of increased independence is likely staving off the need for admission to assisted living and adult family homes, which can be costly.

Despite the role of health behaviors in brain aging and overall health and functioning, research indicates that only a small number of older adults (12.8%) follow recommended guidelines for healthy lifestyle factors.¹⁰ Education has been identified as one factor associated with the likelihood of engaging in positive health behaviors, prompting the delivery of health-education interventions. Most psychoeducational interventions have traditionally focused on one aspect of behavior change at a time (eg, sleep); however, Gross and colleaguesconducted a meta-analysis of cognitive interventions and in addition to the overall positive benefits (effect size 0.38), they also found suggestive evidence that interventions that combined multiple training strategies were associated with larger training gains (P = .04) after adjusting for multiple comparisons.¹¹ For example, Miller and colleagues found a significant improvement on both subjective and objective measures of memory following a multicomponent approach that combined training in memory skills, stress reduction, nutrition, and physical activity.¹²

In addition to the potential positive impacts of health behaviors on brain health, findings suggest that targeted emphasis on health behavior change may have the potential to stave off mild cognitiveimpairment (MCI) or dementia even if for a short time. Given the increasing prevalence rates of MCI with age (6.7% in adults aged 60-64 years, reaching 25.2% in adults aged 80-84 years¹³) and dementia (prevalence of MCI converting to dementia is 18-40%¹⁴), as well as the corresponding emotional, financial, and family-oriented consequences (eg, impact on the well-being of family caregivers), the need for behavioral interventions that seek to optimize brain health is becoming increasingly apparent.

More than 9 million veterans are now aged ≥ 65 years.¹⁵ In addition to representing nearly half of all veterans and a sizable portion of aging adults in the US, older veterans are at increased risk of frailty, mortality, and high rates of chronic medical/mental health conditions that can lead to accelerated cognitive aging.^6-17 Together, these conditions highlight the importance of developing comprehensive psychoeducational and behavioral interventions in this population. To address this need, we developed a novel psychoeducation and behavior change group called the Healthy Aging Project-Brain (HAP-B, pronounced “happy”). The HAP-B intervention was designed to promote healthy brain aging by using empirically supported health behavior change strategies, including education, personalized goal setting, and community support. The primary aim of this project was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable (eg, could be implemented in our setting, was appropriate for a veteran population) and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Methods

We recruited veterans aged ≥ 50 years through primary care clinics and self-referrals via flyers in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division hospital. We targeted the “worried well” and welcomed veterans with MCI and mental health diagnoses. Notably, if there were significant mental health and/or substance use concerns, we encouraged veterans to seek focused care and stabilization prior to or concurrent with group participation. Exclusion criteria included presence of suicidality/homicidality, untreated or unstable substance use disorder, or a diagnosis of dementia. Exclusion criteria were assessed by the referring health care providers (HCPs), when appropriate, and through a health record review. Group facilitators used their clinical judgment to monitor participants if they began experiencing more severe cognitive impairment or acute mental health concerns. Although we did not encounter any of these instances, facilitators were prepared to discuss any concerns with the veteran and their referring HCP. Participants sampled were from 1 of 5 groups offered between January 2018 and March 2019. A waiver from the institutional review board was obtained after meeting criteria for quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) for this study.

Procedures

At the initial stages of development, our team conducted a needs assessment to identify health-related areas where HCPs felt veterans would benefit from additional education and support. The needs assessment was conducted across primary care, geriatric extended care, and the Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) at VAPSHCS. Combining the needs assessment results with the available research base, we identified sleep, physical activity, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation as areas for focus. Notably, although nutrition has been identified as an important factor in cognitive aging, a diet and nutrition class was already available to older veterans at the Seattle VA; hence, we chose to limit overlap by not covering this topic in our group.

The group was offered on a quarterly basis as six 90-minute psychoeducational classes to allow time for didactics, discussion, and practice without overloading participants with information. Each group consisted of 4 to 9 veterans led by 2 cofacilitators. Group structure allowed for feedback and ideas from group members as well as accountability for engaging in behavior change. Cognitive functioning was not formally evaluated. Attendees were asked but not required to complete questionnaires before the classes began and again at completion. In addition at the completion of each group, feedback was collected from veterans and used to modify group content (Figure).

Two pilot groups were implemented in early and mid-2018 with iterative changes after each group. Then we revised the assessment battery and implemented the current version (v1.0), which was first offered in the fall of 2018 and was used with the final 3 groups. Noteworthy changes included weekly check-ins to assess use of health behavior logs and progress toward individual goals, additional pre-and postgroup measures, and in vivo skills practice relevant to the topic being discussed that day.

Each session began with a check-in, which included a review of daily logs and SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant/realistic, and timebound) goals from the previous week.¹⁸ This allowed for praise/reinforcement of health behaviors as well as discussion of potential barriers. Second, an overview of research focusing on the relationship between aging, brain health, and the topic of the day was presented. As an example, in the discussion of social engagement, research was presented about the link between social isolation and cognitive decline; the indirect benefits of social support (eg, social support is linked to improved physical and mental health, which, in turn, is associated with less cognitive decline); and the direct benefits of social support (eg, high levels of emotional support are associated with better cognitive function) (Table 1).⁶

Next, facilitators reviewed skills and strategies to improve functioning in the topic of discussion. During the social engagement group, for example, facilitators discussed tips to improve social skills (eg, asking open-ended questions) and how to build social support into a daily routine (eg, scheduling weekly phone calls with family and friends). Following this discussion of skills, an activity was practiced, reinforcing learned material. During the social engagement group, veterans were invited to use small talk strategies with fellow group members. Finally, group sessions ended with each participant identifying a SMART goal for the coming week and troubleshooting potential barriers to success. SMART goals were kept broad, so veterans could choose a goal related to the topic discussed at the group that day (eg, scheduling a phone call with a friend twice in the coming week during the social engagement-focused group) or choose any other goal to focus on (eg, a sleep-related goal). Similarly, goals could change week to week, or could remain the same throughout the 6-week classes.

Measures

The questionnaires used for QI/QA analyses included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS); Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-S); Social Support Survey Instrument (SSSI); Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (MOS-36 SF); and a self-efficacy scale (adapted from Huckans and colleagues for traumatic brain injury).^19-24 Written feedback was collected at the end of the last group to assess perception of progress, self-perceived behavior change, what was helpful or unhelpful, and how likely the participants were to recommend the group to other veterans (0 to 3, very unlikely to very likely).

To promote consistency with other health and behavior change interventions at the VA, HAP-B used resources from the Whole Health model SMART goals. Research supports the use of self-monitoring techniques like SMART goals for behavior change.²⁵

To facilitate skills practice and self-monitoring between classes, veterans were asked to complete 2 homework assignments. First, at the end of each group, each veteran identified a specific SMART goal to focus on and track in the coming week. Goals were unique to each veteran and allowed to change from week to week. Group discussion around SMART goals involved plans for how to address potential barriers; progress toward goals was discussed at the beginning of the following group. Second, veterans were asked to complete a worksheet used to track progress toward the weekly SMART goal and the specific health behaviors related to the 4 domains targeted by HAP-B. For example, when tracking sleep behaviors, veterans noted bedtime, waketime, number of times they woke up during the night, and length of daytime naps if applicable. Tracking logs were provided at the end of each class for personal purposes only. We asked veterans to rate themselves each week on whether they used the tracking sheet to monitor health behaviors; and how successful they were at accomplishing their previously identified SMART goal. We recorded responses on a 0 to 2 scale (0, not good; 1, fair; 2, good). This rating system was developed and implemented in later groups to promote self-monitoring, accountability, and discussion of potential barriers. However, due to the small sample that completed these ratings and the absence of objective corroborating data, these ratings were not included in the current analyses.

Every participant received a manual in binder format, which provided the didactic information for each group session, skills and strategies discussed in each session, and relevant resources in both the VA and community. For example, social engagement resources included information about volunteer opportunities, VA groups that focus on developing interpersonal skills, and recommendations from past group members on social events (eg, dance lessons at a senior center). We also developed a facilitator version of the manual in which we added comments and guidance on topics for discussion. Materials were developed with the goal of optimizing the ease of dissemination to other sites.

Results

Across the 5 groups, 31 veterans enrolled as participants and completed the initial intake measures, with an average of 6 participants per group (range 4-9). The majority (80%) attended at least 5 of the 6 classes. The mean age was 70.7 years, and 90% of participants were men. Seventy percent of participants self-identified as white, 32% African American, and 3% Native American, which is consistent with VAPSHCS demographics. Of the 31 participants, 16 had a mental health diagnosis, and 6 had a cognitive diagnosis.

At the start of the class, the mean (SD) reports of participants were mild depressive symptoms 5.96 (3.8) on the GDS scale, moderate levels of self-efficacy 3.69 (0.5) on the self-efficacy scale, and moderate levels of satisfaction with life 18.08 (6.8) on the SWLS scale (Table 2). Data from 25 of 31 veterans who completed both pregroup and postgroup surveys were analyzed and paired samples t tests without corrections indicated a reduction in depressive symptoms (P = .01), improved self-efficacy (P = .08), and improved satisfaction with life (P = .03). There were no significant differences in self-reported sleep quality or perceived social support from pregroup to postgroup evaluations. Because the sample size was smaller for the MOS-36, which was not used until group 3, and the subscales are composed of few items each, we conducted exploratory analyses of the 8 MOS-36 subscales and found that well-being, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional functioning, and energy/fatigue significantly improved over time (Ps < .04).

Discussion

The ability and need to promote brain health with age is an emerging priority as our aging population grows. A growing body of evidence supports the role of health behaviors in healthy brain aging. Education and skills training in a group setting provides a supportive, cost-effective approach for increasing overall health in aging adults. Yet older adults are statistically less likely to engage in these behaviors on a regular basis. The current investigation provides preliminary support for a model of care that uses a comprehensive, experiential psychoeducational approach to facilitate behavior change in older adults. Our aim was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable to our older veterans and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Participants indicated that they enjoyed the group, learned new skills (per participant feedback and facilitator observation), and experienced improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction. Given the participants’ positive response to the group and its content, as well as continued referrals by HCPs to this group and low difficulty with ongoing recruitment, this program was deemed both feasible and acceptable in our veteran health care setting. Questions remain about the extent to which participants modified their health behaviors given that we did not collect objective measurements of behaviors (eg, time spent exercising), the duration of behavior change (ie, how long during and after the group were behaviors maintained), and the role of premorbid or concurrent characteristics that may moderate the effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes (eg, sleep quality, perceived social support, overall functioning, concurrent interventions, medications).

Strengths and Limitations

This study had a limited sample size and no control group. However, evidence of significant improvements in depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction in the development groups without a control group is encouraging. This is particularly noteworthy given that older veterans as a group have higher rates of frailty and mortality than do other similarly aged counterparts.¹⁷An additional weakness is the absence of a brief cognitive assessment or other formal assessment as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, this program development project provides data from a realistic condition (recruited broadly and with few exclusions, offered in similar format as other VA classes), thus adding strength to the interpretation and possibly the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusions

Future directions include disseminating HAP-B materials and procedures across a variety of sites, both VA and non-VA. In line with this goal, we hope to increase sample size and sample diversity while optimizing protocol integrity during the exportation phase. With a greater sample size and power, we aim to examine the role of self-efficacy and other premorbid factors (eg, cognitive functioning at baseline) as mediators for observed changes in pre-/postmeasures and outcomes. We also hope to incorporate objective measures of behavior change, such as fitness trackers, heart rate/pulse monitors, and actigraphy for monitoring sleep. Finally, we are interested in conducting follow-up with past and future participants to detect changes that may occur with learning new skills following the completion of the group (eg, changes in sleep behavior that take time to take effect) and the extent to which participants continue to use the health behavior skills and strategies to maintain or enhance progress in behavioral goals. Finally, although this intervention was initially designed for use with older veterans receiving health care through the VA, we believe the concepts and work products described here can be used with older adults across a wide range of health care settings. Providers interested in trialing HAP-B at their local site are encouraged to contact the authors.

With a rapidly growing older adult population, increased attention has been given to cognitive changes that occur with age, with a focus on optimizing the cognitive health of aging individuals.¹ Given the absence of pharmaceutical treatments to prevent cognitive decline, there is an increased need for health care systems to offer alternative or behavioral interventions that can mitigate the effects of cognitive decline in aging.

Notably, many individuals are able to maintain or even improve cognitive functioning throughout their lifespan, with some research implicating health behaviors as an important factor for promoting brain health with age. Specifically, sleep, exercise, eating habits, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation have been linked to improved cognitive functioning.^2-8 In addition to the potential benefits for brain health, there is evidence that greater investment in attaining health goals is associated with subjective reports of higher well-being, fewer mental health symptoms, lower physical health stresses, decreased caregiver burden, and increased functional independence linked with longer independent living.⁹ The latter has a substantial financial impact, such that the positive consequence of increased independence is likely staving off the need for admission to assisted living and adult family homes, which can be costly.

Despite the role of health behaviors in brain aging and overall health and functioning, research indicates that only a small number of older adults (12.8%) follow recommended guidelines for healthy lifestyle factors.¹⁰ Education has been identified as one factor associated with the likelihood of engaging in positive health behaviors, prompting the delivery of health-education interventions. Most psychoeducational interventions have traditionally focused on one aspect of behavior change at a time (eg, sleep); however, Gross and colleaguesconducted a meta-analysis of cognitive interventions and in addition to the overall positive benefits (effect size 0.38), they also found suggestive evidence that interventions that combined multiple training strategies were associated with larger training gains (P = .04) after adjusting for multiple comparisons.¹¹ For example, Miller and colleagues found a significant improvement on both subjective and objective measures of memory following a multicomponent approach that combined training in memory skills, stress reduction, nutrition, and physical activity.¹²

In addition to the potential positive impacts of health behaviors on brain health, findings suggest that targeted emphasis on health behavior change may have the potential to stave off mild cognitiveimpairment (MCI) or dementia even if for a short time. Given the increasing prevalence rates of MCI with age (6.7% in adults aged 60-64 years, reaching 25.2% in adults aged 80-84 years¹³) and dementia (prevalence of MCI converting to dementia is 18-40%¹⁴), as well as the corresponding emotional, financial, and family-oriented consequences (eg, impact on the well-being of family caregivers), the need for behavioral interventions that seek to optimize brain health is becoming increasingly apparent.

More than 9 million veterans are now aged ≥ 65 years.¹⁵ In addition to representing nearly half of all veterans and a sizable portion of aging adults in the US, older veterans are at increased risk of frailty, mortality, and high rates of chronic medical/mental health conditions that can lead to accelerated cognitive aging.^6-17 Together, these conditions highlight the importance of developing comprehensive psychoeducational and behavioral interventions in this population. To address this need, we developed a novel psychoeducation and behavior change group called the Healthy Aging Project-Brain (HAP-B, pronounced “happy”). The HAP-B intervention was designed to promote healthy brain aging by using empirically supported health behavior change strategies, including education, personalized goal setting, and community support. The primary aim of this project was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable (eg, could be implemented in our setting, was appropriate for a veteran population) and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Methods

We recruited veterans aged ≥ 50 years through primary care clinics and self-referrals via flyers in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division hospital. We targeted the “worried well” and welcomed veterans with MCI and mental health diagnoses. Notably, if there were significant mental health and/or substance use concerns, we encouraged veterans to seek focused care and stabilization prior to or concurrent with group participation. Exclusion criteria included presence of suicidality/homicidality, untreated or unstable substance use disorder, or a diagnosis of dementia. Exclusion criteria were assessed by the referring health care providers (HCPs), when appropriate, and through a health record review. Group facilitators used their clinical judgment to monitor participants if they began experiencing more severe cognitive impairment or acute mental health concerns. Although we did not encounter any of these instances, facilitators were prepared to discuss any concerns with the veteran and their referring HCP. Participants sampled were from 1 of 5 groups offered between January 2018 and March 2019. A waiver from the institutional review board was obtained after meeting criteria for quality improvement/quality assurance (QI/QA) for this study.

Procedures

At the initial stages of development, our team conducted a needs assessment to identify health-related areas where HCPs felt veterans would benefit from additional education and support. The needs assessment was conducted across primary care, geriatric extended care, and the Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center (GRECC) at VAPSHCS. Combining the needs assessment results with the available research base, we identified sleep, physical activity, social engagement, and cognitive stimulation as areas for focus. Notably, although nutrition has been identified as an important factor in cognitive aging, a diet and nutrition class was already available to older veterans at the Seattle VA; hence, we chose to limit overlap by not covering this topic in our group.

The group was offered on a quarterly basis as six 90-minute psychoeducational classes to allow time for didactics, discussion, and practice without overloading participants with information. Each group consisted of 4 to 9 veterans led by 2 cofacilitators. Group structure allowed for feedback and ideas from group members as well as accountability for engaging in behavior change. Cognitive functioning was not formally evaluated. Attendees were asked but not required to complete questionnaires before the classes began and again at completion. In addition at the completion of each group, feedback was collected from veterans and used to modify group content (Figure).

Two pilot groups were implemented in early and mid-2018 with iterative changes after each group. Then we revised the assessment battery and implemented the current version (v1.0), which was first offered in the fall of 2018 and was used with the final 3 groups. Noteworthy changes included weekly check-ins to assess use of health behavior logs and progress toward individual goals, additional pre-and postgroup measures, and in vivo skills practice relevant to the topic being discussed that day.

Each session began with a check-in, which included a review of daily logs and SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant/realistic, and timebound) goals from the previous week.¹⁸ This allowed for praise/reinforcement of health behaviors as well as discussion of potential barriers. Second, an overview of research focusing on the relationship between aging, brain health, and the topic of the day was presented. As an example, in the discussion of social engagement, research was presented about the link between social isolation and cognitive decline; the indirect benefits of social support (eg, social support is linked to improved physical and mental health, which, in turn, is associated with less cognitive decline); and the direct benefits of social support (eg, high levels of emotional support are associated with better cognitive function) (Table 1).⁶

Next, facilitators reviewed skills and strategies to improve functioning in the topic of discussion. During the social engagement group, for example, facilitators discussed tips to improve social skills (eg, asking open-ended questions) and how to build social support into a daily routine (eg, scheduling weekly phone calls with family and friends). Following this discussion of skills, an activity was practiced, reinforcing learned material. During the social engagement group, veterans were invited to use small talk strategies with fellow group members. Finally, group sessions ended with each participant identifying a SMART goal for the coming week and troubleshooting potential barriers to success. SMART goals were kept broad, so veterans could choose a goal related to the topic discussed at the group that day (eg, scheduling a phone call with a friend twice in the coming week during the social engagement-focused group) or choose any other goal to focus on (eg, a sleep-related goal). Similarly, goals could change week to week, or could remain the same throughout the 6-week classes.

Measures

The questionnaires used for QI/QA analyses included the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS); Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-S); Social Support Survey Instrument (SSSI); Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI); Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form (MOS-36 SF); and a self-efficacy scale (adapted from Huckans and colleagues for traumatic brain injury).^19-24 Written feedback was collected at the end of the last group to assess perception of progress, self-perceived behavior change, what was helpful or unhelpful, and how likely the participants were to recommend the group to other veterans (0 to 3, very unlikely to very likely).

To promote consistency with other health and behavior change interventions at the VA, HAP-B used resources from the Whole Health model SMART goals. Research supports the use of self-monitoring techniques like SMART goals for behavior change.²⁵

To facilitate skills practice and self-monitoring between classes, veterans were asked to complete 2 homework assignments. First, at the end of each group, each veteran identified a specific SMART goal to focus on and track in the coming week. Goals were unique to each veteran and allowed to change from week to week. Group discussion around SMART goals involved plans for how to address potential barriers; progress toward goals was discussed at the beginning of the following group. Second, veterans were asked to complete a worksheet used to track progress toward the weekly SMART goal and the specific health behaviors related to the 4 domains targeted by HAP-B. For example, when tracking sleep behaviors, veterans noted bedtime, waketime, number of times they woke up during the night, and length of daytime naps if applicable. Tracking logs were provided at the end of each class for personal purposes only. We asked veterans to rate themselves each week on whether they used the tracking sheet to monitor health behaviors; and how successful they were at accomplishing their previously identified SMART goal. We recorded responses on a 0 to 2 scale (0, not good; 1, fair; 2, good). This rating system was developed and implemented in later groups to promote self-monitoring, accountability, and discussion of potential barriers. However, due to the small sample that completed these ratings and the absence of objective corroborating data, these ratings were not included in the current analyses.

Every participant received a manual in binder format, which provided the didactic information for each group session, skills and strategies discussed in each session, and relevant resources in both the VA and community. For example, social engagement resources included information about volunteer opportunities, VA groups that focus on developing interpersonal skills, and recommendations from past group members on social events (eg, dance lessons at a senior center). We also developed a facilitator version of the manual in which we added comments and guidance on topics for discussion. Materials were developed with the goal of optimizing the ease of dissemination to other sites.

Results

Across the 5 groups, 31 veterans enrolled as participants and completed the initial intake measures, with an average of 6 participants per group (range 4-9). The majority (80%) attended at least 5 of the 6 classes. The mean age was 70.7 years, and 90% of participants were men. Seventy percent of participants self-identified as white, 32% African American, and 3% Native American, which is consistent with VAPSHCS demographics. Of the 31 participants, 16 had a mental health diagnosis, and 6 had a cognitive diagnosis.

At the start of the class, the mean (SD) reports of participants were mild depressive symptoms 5.96 (3.8) on the GDS scale, moderate levels of self-efficacy 3.69 (0.5) on the self-efficacy scale, and moderate levels of satisfaction with life 18.08 (6.8) on the SWLS scale (Table 2). Data from 25 of 31 veterans who completed both pregroup and postgroup surveys were analyzed and paired samples t tests without corrections indicated a reduction in depressive symptoms (P = .01), improved self-efficacy (P = .08), and improved satisfaction with life (P = .03). There were no significant differences in self-reported sleep quality or perceived social support from pregroup to postgroup evaluations. Because the sample size was smaller for the MOS-36, which was not used until group 3, and the subscales are composed of few items each, we conducted exploratory analyses of the 8 MOS-36 subscales and found that well-being, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical and emotional functioning, and energy/fatigue significantly improved over time (Ps < .04).

Discussion

The ability and need to promote brain health with age is an emerging priority as our aging population grows. A growing body of evidence supports the role of health behaviors in healthy brain aging. Education and skills training in a group setting provides a supportive, cost-effective approach for increasing overall health in aging adults. Yet older adults are statistically less likely to engage in these behaviors on a regular basis. The current investigation provides preliminary support for a model of care that uses a comprehensive, experiential psychoeducational approach to facilitate behavior change in older adults. Our aim was to develop and implement an intervention that was feasible and acceptable to our older veterans and to determine any positive outcomes/preliminary effects on overall health and well-being.

Participants indicated that they enjoyed the group, learned new skills (per participant feedback and facilitator observation), and experienced improvements in mood, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction. Given the participants’ positive response to the group and its content, as well as continued referrals by HCPs to this group and low difficulty with ongoing recruitment, this program was deemed both feasible and acceptable in our veteran health care setting. Questions remain about the extent to which participants modified their health behaviors given that we did not collect objective measurements of behaviors (eg, time spent exercising), the duration of behavior change (ie, how long during and after the group were behaviors maintained), and the role of premorbid or concurrent characteristics that may moderate the effect of the intervention on health-related outcomes (eg, sleep quality, perceived social support, overall functioning, concurrent interventions, medications).

Strengths and Limitations

This study had a limited sample size and no control group. However, evidence of significant improvements in depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction in the development groups without a control group is encouraging. This is particularly noteworthy given that older veterans as a group have higher rates of frailty and mortality than do other similarly aged counterparts.¹⁷An additional weakness is the absence of a brief cognitive assessment or other formal assessment as part of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, this program development project provides data from a realistic condition (recruited broadly and with few exclusions, offered in similar format as other VA classes), thus adding strength to the interpretation and possibly the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusions

Future directions include disseminating HAP-B materials and procedures across a variety of sites, both VA and non-VA. In line with this goal, we hope to increase sample size and sample diversity while optimizing protocol integrity during the exportation phase. With a greater sample size and power, we aim to examine the role of self-efficacy and other premorbid factors (eg, cognitive functioning at baseline) as mediators for observed changes in pre-/postmeasures and outcomes. We also hope to incorporate objective measures of behavior change, such as fitness trackers, heart rate/pulse monitors, and actigraphy for monitoring sleep. Finally, we are interested in conducting follow-up with past and future participants to detect changes that may occur with learning new skills following the completion of the group (eg, changes in sleep behavior that take time to take effect) and the extent to which participants continue to use the health behavior skills and strategies to maintain or enhance progress in behavioral goals. Finally, although this intervention was initially designed for use with older veterans receiving health care through the VA, we believe the concepts and work products described here can be used with older adults across a wide range of health care settings. Providers interested in trialing HAP-B at their local site are encouraged to contact the authors.

Since the beginning of the American Republic, servicemen have been captured and held as prisoners of war (POWs), including > 130,000 in World War II , > 7,100 in the Korean War, > 700 in the Vietnam War, and 37 in Operation Desert Storm and recent conflicts.^1,2 Also, > 80 servicewomen have been held during these conflicts.^1-3 Of those living former POWs (FPOWs), almost all are geriatric (aged > 65 years) with a significant portion aged ≥ 85 years.

The physical hardships and psychological stress endured by FPOWs have lifelong deleterious sequelae on health and social functioning.^3-5 The experiences of FPOWs are associated with higher prevalence of chronic diseases and diminished functional performance in later life as demonstrated by a survey of FPOWs from World War II.⁴ The survey assessed health and functional status in a random sample of 101 FPOWs and a group of 107 non-POW combatants from the same military operations. FPOWs reported a higher mean number of somatic symptoms than did non-POWs (7.2 vs 5.4, respectively; P = .002), a higher mean number of diagnosed health conditions (9.4 vs 7.7, respectively; P < .001), and used a greater mean number of medications (4.5 vs 3.4, respectively; P = .001). Among 15 broad categories of diagnoses, differences were found in gastrointestinal disorders (FPOWs 63% vs non-POWs 49%, P = .032), musculoskeletal disorders (FPOWs 76% vs non-POWs 60%, P = .001), and cognitive disorders (FPOWs 31% vs non-POWs 15%, P = .006). FPOWs had a significantly higher proportion of 7 extrapyramidal signs and 6 signs relating to ataxia. On the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale, FPOWs were more likely to be impaired than were non-POWs (33% vs 17%, respectively; P = .01). In addition, FPOWs have an increased risk of developing dementia, and this risk is doubled in FPOWs with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with non-FPOWs without PTSD.⁵

These data indicate that FPOW status is associated with increased risk of disability and loss of independence. Federal statutes established the presumption of a relationship between FPOW status and many comorbidities for VA disability determinations in recognition of such data and to overcome lack of medical records during POW confinement and to accord benefit of the doubt where medical science cannot conclusively link disease etiology to FPOW status, to FPOWs.

Service-Connected Conditions

The historical development of conditions with a presumption of service connection for adjudication of VA compensation/disability claims began in 1921 with the Act to Establish a Veterans’ Bureau and to Improve the Facilities.¹ The act simplified and streamlined the claims adjudication process by eliminating the need to obtain evidence on the part of the veteran. The presumption of service connection also facilitated increased accuracy and consistency in adjudications by requiring similar treatment for similar claims. This “presumptive” process relieved claimants and VA of the necessity of producing direct evidence when it was impractical to do so.

In 1970, the first presumptives specific to FPOWs were legislatively established and covered 17 diseases for a FPOW who had been confined for ≥ 30 days (Pub. L. 91-376). The 30-day confinement requirement was later relaxed, and additional presumptives were established that related to diseases that were more common among FPOWs than they were among non-FPOWs. These disorders included traumatic arthritis, stroke, heart disease, osteoporosis, peripheral neuropathy, cold injuries, as well as a variety of digestive and neuropsychiatric disorders. If a FPOW is diagnosed as having ≥ 1 of these conditions and it is judged to be ≥ 10% disabling, the condition is presumed to be a sequelae of the POW experience, and it is classified as a service-connected disability (Table).

FPOW Care And Benefits Teams

Several Veterans Health Administration (VHA) directives have been issued, including the recent VHA directive 1650, which requires that each VHA medical facility have a special Care and Benefits Team (CBT) that is charged with the evaluation and treatment of FPOWs to ensure that “FPOWs receive the highest quality care and benefit services.”⁶ CBTs must be composed of a clinician trained in internal medicine or family practice; a clinician who is certified through the VA Office of Disability and Medical Assessment to conduct General Medical Compensation and Pension evaluations; a FPOW advocate who typically is a VHA clinical social worker; and a Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) FPOW coordinator appointed by the local VBA regional office. CBTs can be expanded to include other members as needed. The CBTs are tasked with facilitating interactions between FPOWs, the VHA, and the VBA.

CBTs face several challenges in meeting their responsibilities. For example, the POW experience often results in psychological trauma that foments denial and distrust; hence, thoughtful sensitivity to the sequelae of captivity when approaching FPOWs about personal issues, such as health care, is required. Establishing trusting relationships with FPOWs is necessary if their needs are to be effectively addressed.

While the VHA is mandated to provide priority treatment for FPOWs, including hospital, nursing home, dental, and outpatient treatment, a significant number of FPOWs do not avail themselves of benefits to which they are entitled. Often these FPOWs have not used VA programs and facilities because they are uninformed or confused about VA benefits for FPOWs. As a result, referrals of eligible FPOWs to appropriate programs can be overlooked. Maximizing the service-connected disability rating of FPOWs not only impacts the disability pensions received by these veterans, but also impacts their eligibility for VHA programs, including long-term care and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, a monthly benefit paid to spouses, children, and/or surviving parents.

In 2013, the FPOW Committee of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System (STVHCS) noted that 40% of FPOWs in our region had no VA primary care or clinic assignment. In consideration of the commitment of the VA to care for FPOWs, the unique POW-related medical and psychological issues, the geriatric age of many FPOWs, and the surprising number of FPOWs currently not receiving VA care, we expanded the concept of the CBT team to create a specialized interdisciplinary FPOW Clinic to address the unique needs of this predominantly elderly population and to involve more FPOWs in the VA system.

The main purpose of this clinic was to advise FPOWs of all VA benefits and services to which they may be entitled by identifying overlooked FPOW presumptives. As the number of FPOWs continues to decrease, outreach to FPOWs and family members has become critical, especially as increased benefits and special services might be available to this increasingly dependent older population. An informal survey of FPOW advocates across the nation found that 21% of FPOWs had disability ratings from the VA of ≤ 60%, including some who had no VA disability rating at all. Thus, an additional goal of the project was to develop a clinic model that could be disseminated throughout the VHA.

Design

The design of the FPOW Clinic team is based on an interdisciplinary model that has proven successful in geriatric medicine.⁷ The team comprises a physician, a social worker, and a registered nurse.⁸ All members have expertise in geriatric medicine and specific training in FPOW-related issues by completing a VA employee education training session on FPOW case management. Completion of this training ensured that team members were:

• Familiar with the experiences of FPOWs as well as about the medical, psychosocial, and mental health conditions that affect FPOWs;
• Knowledgeable about FPOW presumptive conditions;
• Familiar with the VBA process for rating FPOW disability claims; and
• Capable of FPOW case coordination, workflow, and communications between the FPOW Clinic team and the VBA to avail FPOWs and their families of all eligible benefits.

In-person FPOW clinic visits and chart reviews helped identify overlooked FPOW benefits. To facilitate case management, a representative of the VBA attended the initial evaluation of each FPOW in the clinic to confirm any overlooked presumptive benefits and to familiarize FPOWs with the claims process. FPOWs were also given the choice to officially enroll in the FPOW clinic for primary care or to remain with their current health care provider. Special efforts were made to enroll those FPOWs who had no STVHCS assigned primary care clinic.

The clinic was scheduled for 4 hours every week. Initial patient visits were 2 hours each and consisted of separate evaluations by each of the 3 FPOW Clinic team members who then met as a team with the addition of the VBA representative. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss overlooked benefits, address any other specific issues noted, and to devise an appropriate interdisciplinary plan. Findings of overlooked benefits and other relevant outcomes then were conveyed to the FPOW. For FPOWs who opted to continue in the clinic for their primary care, subsequent appointments were 1 hour.

Implementation 

STVHCS FPOW advocates identified and sent letters to FPOWs announcing the opening of the clinic and its goals. Phone calls were made to each FPOW to address questions and to ascertain their interest. The FPOW advocates then worked directly with schedulers to make clinic appointments. Forty-one FPOWs responded to this initial invitation and attended the new clinic. Subsequently, this number increased through FPOW consults placed by STVHCS primary care providers.

The service-connected disability rating of clinic patients ranged from none (6% of attendees) to 100% (28% of attendees). For 34% of patients, clinic attendance resulted in identification application for overlooked presumptives. VBA evaluation resulted in increased service-connected disability ratings for nearly one-third of clinic patients. All clinic patients without a service-connected disability prior to FPOW clinic evaluation received an increased service-connected disability rating. Overall, 60% of the FPOWs who attended the clinic opted to receive their primary care at the FPOW clinic.

The FPOW Clinic successfully identified overlooked presumptives and facilitated the determination of appropriate service-connected disabilities. Interestingly, the FPOW Clinic encountered an unanticipated challenge to identifying overlooked FPOW benefits—veterans’ medical conditions that are listed by the VHA as being service-connected in the Computerized Patient Record System did not always reflect those listed officially in VBA records. This led to occasional identification of apparently overlooked FPOW presumptives that were already recognized by the VBA but not reflected in VHA records. This issue was addressed by ensuring that VBA representatives attended postclinic meetings with clinic staff and avoided the need to pursue supposedly unrecognized benefits that were recognized.

Telehealth 

At present, FPOWs from World War II outnumber those of all other conflicts; however, this group is rapidly dwindling in numbers. World War II FPOWs are aged > 85 years, and therefore among the most frail and dependent of veterans. Often they are homebound and unable to physically travel to clinics for assessment. To serve these veterans, we are modifying the FPOW Clinic to utilize telehealth. The Telehealth FPOW Clinic will obtain relevant data from review of the electronic health record and telehealth-based clinic visits. Telehealth also may be used for assessments of Vietnam War veterans (eg, Agent Orange exposure), atomic veterans, and Gulf War veterans. Once fully designed and implemented, we believe that telehealth will prove to be a cost-effective way to provide clinic benefits to rural and older veterans.

Conclusions

The VHA provides priority medical treatment to FPOWs as well as timely and appropriate assessment of their eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The complexities benefit programs established for FPOWs is often beyond the ken of VHA physicians, social workers, and nurses. Because of this unfamiliarity, referrals of eligible FPOWs to appropriate programs can be overlooked. We established a clinic-based interdisciplinary team (FPOW Clinic) that was fully trained in FPOW benefit programs to identify overlooked benefits for FPOWs and were able to increase the disability rating on approximately one-third of the FPOWs seen in the FPOW Clinic. A telehealth-based version of the FPOW clinic is now being developed.

Since the beginning of the American Republic, servicemen have been captured and held as prisoners of war (POWs), including > 130,000 in World War II , > 7,100 in the Korean War, > 700 in the Vietnam War, and 37 in Operation Desert Storm and recent conflicts.^1,2 Also, > 80 servicewomen have been held during these conflicts.^1-3 Of those living former POWs (FPOWs), almost all are geriatric (aged > 65 years) with a significant portion aged ≥ 85 years.

The physical hardships and psychological stress endured by FPOWs have lifelong deleterious sequelae on health and social functioning.^3-5 The experiences of FPOWs are associated with higher prevalence of chronic diseases and diminished functional performance in later life as demonstrated by a survey of FPOWs from World War II.⁴ The survey assessed health and functional status in a random sample of 101 FPOWs and a group of 107 non-POW combatants from the same military operations. FPOWs reported a higher mean number of somatic symptoms than did non-POWs (7.2 vs 5.4, respectively; P = .002), a higher mean number of diagnosed health conditions (9.4 vs 7.7, respectively; P < .001), and used a greater mean number of medications (4.5 vs 3.4, respectively; P = .001). Among 15 broad categories of diagnoses, differences were found in gastrointestinal disorders (FPOWs 63% vs non-POWs 49%, P = .032), musculoskeletal disorders (FPOWs 76% vs non-POWs 60%, P = .001), and cognitive disorders (FPOWs 31% vs non-POWs 15%, P = .006). FPOWs had a significantly higher proportion of 7 extrapyramidal signs and 6 signs relating to ataxia. On the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale, FPOWs were more likely to be impaired than were non-POWs (33% vs 17%, respectively; P = .01). In addition, FPOWs have an increased risk of developing dementia, and this risk is doubled in FPOWs with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with non-FPOWs without PTSD.⁵

These data indicate that FPOW status is associated with increased risk of disability and loss of independence. Federal statutes established the presumption of a relationship between FPOW status and many comorbidities for VA disability determinations in recognition of such data and to overcome lack of medical records during POW confinement and to accord benefit of the doubt where medical science cannot conclusively link disease etiology to FPOW status, to FPOWs.

Service-Connected Conditions

The historical development of conditions with a presumption of service connection for adjudication of VA compensation/disability claims began in 1921 with the Act to Establish a Veterans’ Bureau and to Improve the Facilities.¹ The act simplified and streamlined the claims adjudication process by eliminating the need to obtain evidence on the part of the veteran. The presumption of service connection also facilitated increased accuracy and consistency in adjudications by requiring similar treatment for similar claims. This “presumptive” process relieved claimants and VA of the necessity of producing direct evidence when it was impractical to do so.

In 1970, the first presumptives specific to FPOWs were legislatively established and covered 17 diseases for a FPOW who had been confined for ≥ 30 days (Pub. L. 91-376). The 30-day confinement requirement was later relaxed, and additional presumptives were established that related to diseases that were more common among FPOWs than they were among non-FPOWs. These disorders included traumatic arthritis, stroke, heart disease, osteoporosis, peripheral neuropathy, cold injuries, as well as a variety of digestive and neuropsychiatric disorders. If a FPOW is diagnosed as having ≥ 1 of these conditions and it is judged to be ≥ 10% disabling, the condition is presumed to be a sequelae of the POW experience, and it is classified as a service-connected disability (Table).

FPOW Care And Benefits Teams

Several Veterans Health Administration (VHA) directives have been issued, including the recent VHA directive 1650, which requires that each VHA medical facility have a special Care and Benefits Team (CBT) that is charged with the evaluation and treatment of FPOWs to ensure that “FPOWs receive the highest quality care and benefit services.”⁶ CBTs must be composed of a clinician trained in internal medicine or family practice; a clinician who is certified through the VA Office of Disability and Medical Assessment to conduct General Medical Compensation and Pension evaluations; a FPOW advocate who typically is a VHA clinical social worker; and a Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) FPOW coordinator appointed by the local VBA regional office. CBTs can be expanded to include other members as needed. The CBTs are tasked with facilitating interactions between FPOWs, the VHA, and the VBA.

CBTs face several challenges in meeting their responsibilities. For example, the POW experience often results in psychological trauma that foments denial and distrust; hence, thoughtful sensitivity to the sequelae of captivity when approaching FPOWs about personal issues, such as health care, is required. Establishing trusting relationships with FPOWs is necessary if their needs are to be effectively addressed.

While the VHA is mandated to provide priority treatment for FPOWs, including hospital, nursing home, dental, and outpatient treatment, a significant number of FPOWs do not avail themselves of benefits to which they are entitled. Often these FPOWs have not used VA programs and facilities because they are uninformed or confused about VA benefits for FPOWs. As a result, referrals of eligible FPOWs to appropriate programs can be overlooked. Maximizing the service-connected disability rating of FPOWs not only impacts the disability pensions received by these veterans, but also impacts their eligibility for VHA programs, including long-term care and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, a monthly benefit paid to spouses, children, and/or surviving parents.

In 2013, the FPOW Committee of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System (STVHCS) noted that 40% of FPOWs in our region had no VA primary care or clinic assignment. In consideration of the commitment of the VA to care for FPOWs, the unique POW-related medical and psychological issues, the geriatric age of many FPOWs, and the surprising number of FPOWs currently not receiving VA care, we expanded the concept of the CBT team to create a specialized interdisciplinary FPOW Clinic to address the unique needs of this predominantly elderly population and to involve more FPOWs in the VA system.

The main purpose of this clinic was to advise FPOWs of all VA benefits and services to which they may be entitled by identifying overlooked FPOW presumptives. As the number of FPOWs continues to decrease, outreach to FPOWs and family members has become critical, especially as increased benefits and special services might be available to this increasingly dependent older population. An informal survey of FPOW advocates across the nation found that 21% of FPOWs had disability ratings from the VA of ≤ 60%, including some who had no VA disability rating at all. Thus, an additional goal of the project was to develop a clinic model that could be disseminated throughout the VHA.

Design

The design of the FPOW Clinic team is based on an interdisciplinary model that has proven successful in geriatric medicine.⁷ The team comprises a physician, a social worker, and a registered nurse.⁸ All members have expertise in geriatric medicine and specific training in FPOW-related issues by completing a VA employee education training session on FPOW case management. Completion of this training ensured that team members were:

• Familiar with the experiences of FPOWs as well as about the medical, psychosocial, and mental health conditions that affect FPOWs;
• Knowledgeable about FPOW presumptive conditions;
• Familiar with the VBA process for rating FPOW disability claims; and
• Capable of FPOW case coordination, workflow, and communications between the FPOW Clinic team and the VBA to avail FPOWs and their families of all eligible benefits.

In-person FPOW clinic visits and chart reviews helped identify overlooked FPOW benefits. To facilitate case management, a representative of the VBA attended the initial evaluation of each FPOW in the clinic to confirm any overlooked presumptive benefits and to familiarize FPOWs with the claims process. FPOWs were also given the choice to officially enroll in the FPOW clinic for primary care or to remain with their current health care provider. Special efforts were made to enroll those FPOWs who had no STVHCS assigned primary care clinic.

The clinic was scheduled for 4 hours every week. Initial patient visits were 2 hours each and consisted of separate evaluations by each of the 3 FPOW Clinic team members who then met as a team with the addition of the VBA representative. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss overlooked benefits, address any other specific issues noted, and to devise an appropriate interdisciplinary plan. Findings of overlooked benefits and other relevant outcomes then were conveyed to the FPOW. For FPOWs who opted to continue in the clinic for their primary care, subsequent appointments were 1 hour.

Implementation 

STVHCS FPOW advocates identified and sent letters to FPOWs announcing the opening of the clinic and its goals. Phone calls were made to each FPOW to address questions and to ascertain their interest. The FPOW advocates then worked directly with schedulers to make clinic appointments. Forty-one FPOWs responded to this initial invitation and attended the new clinic. Subsequently, this number increased through FPOW consults placed by STVHCS primary care providers.

The service-connected disability rating of clinic patients ranged from none (6% of attendees) to 100% (28% of attendees). For 34% of patients, clinic attendance resulted in identification application for overlooked presumptives. VBA evaluation resulted in increased service-connected disability ratings for nearly one-third of clinic patients. All clinic patients without a service-connected disability prior to FPOW clinic evaluation received an increased service-connected disability rating. Overall, 60% of the FPOWs who attended the clinic opted to receive their primary care at the FPOW clinic.

The FPOW Clinic successfully identified overlooked presumptives and facilitated the determination of appropriate service-connected disabilities. Interestingly, the FPOW Clinic encountered an unanticipated challenge to identifying overlooked FPOW benefits—veterans’ medical conditions that are listed by the VHA as being service-connected in the Computerized Patient Record System did not always reflect those listed officially in VBA records. This led to occasional identification of apparently overlooked FPOW presumptives that were already recognized by the VBA but not reflected in VHA records. This issue was addressed by ensuring that VBA representatives attended postclinic meetings with clinic staff and avoided the need to pursue supposedly unrecognized benefits that were recognized.

Telehealth 

At present, FPOWs from World War II outnumber those of all other conflicts; however, this group is rapidly dwindling in numbers. World War II FPOWs are aged > 85 years, and therefore among the most frail and dependent of veterans. Often they are homebound and unable to physically travel to clinics for assessment. To serve these veterans, we are modifying the FPOW Clinic to utilize telehealth. The Telehealth FPOW Clinic will obtain relevant data from review of the electronic health record and telehealth-based clinic visits. Telehealth also may be used for assessments of Vietnam War veterans (eg, Agent Orange exposure), atomic veterans, and Gulf War veterans. Once fully designed and implemented, we believe that telehealth will prove to be a cost-effective way to provide clinic benefits to rural and older veterans.

Conclusions

The VHA provides priority medical treatment to FPOWs as well as timely and appropriate assessment of their eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The complexities benefit programs established for FPOWs is often beyond the ken of VHA physicians, social workers, and nurses. Because of this unfamiliarity, referrals of eligible FPOWs to appropriate programs can be overlooked. We established a clinic-based interdisciplinary team (FPOW Clinic) that was fully trained in FPOW benefit programs to identify overlooked benefits for FPOWs and were able to increase the disability rating on approximately one-third of the FPOWs seen in the FPOW Clinic. A telehealth-based version of the FPOW clinic is now being developed.

Since the beginning of the American Republic, servicemen have been captured and held as prisoners of war (POWs), including > 130,000 in World War II , > 7,100 in the Korean War, > 700 in the Vietnam War, and 37 in Operation Desert Storm and recent conflicts.^1,2 Also, > 80 servicewomen have been held during these conflicts.^1-3 Of those living former POWs (FPOWs), almost all are geriatric (aged > 65 years) with a significant portion aged ≥ 85 years.

The physical hardships and psychological stress endured by FPOWs have lifelong deleterious sequelae on health and social functioning.^3-5 The experiences of FPOWs are associated with higher prevalence of chronic diseases and diminished functional performance in later life as demonstrated by a survey of FPOWs from World War II.⁴ The survey assessed health and functional status in a random sample of 101 FPOWs and a group of 107 non-POW combatants from the same military operations. FPOWs reported a higher mean number of somatic symptoms than did non-POWs (7.2 vs 5.4, respectively; P = .002), a higher mean number of diagnosed health conditions (9.4 vs 7.7, respectively; P < .001), and used a greater mean number of medications (4.5 vs 3.4, respectively; P = .001). Among 15 broad categories of diagnoses, differences were found in gastrointestinal disorders (FPOWs 63% vs non-POWs 49%, P = .032), musculoskeletal disorders (FPOWs 76% vs non-POWs 60%, P = .001), and cognitive disorders (FPOWs 31% vs non-POWs 15%, P = .006). FPOWs had a significantly higher proportion of 7 extrapyramidal signs and 6 signs relating to ataxia. On the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale, FPOWs were more likely to be impaired than were non-POWs (33% vs 17%, respectively; P = .01). In addition, FPOWs have an increased risk of developing dementia, and this risk is doubled in FPOWs with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared with non-FPOWs without PTSD.⁵

These data indicate that FPOW status is associated with increased risk of disability and loss of independence. Federal statutes established the presumption of a relationship between FPOW status and many comorbidities for VA disability determinations in recognition of such data and to overcome lack of medical records during POW confinement and to accord benefit of the doubt where medical science cannot conclusively link disease etiology to FPOW status, to FPOWs.

Service-Connected Conditions

The historical development of conditions with a presumption of service connection for adjudication of VA compensation/disability claims began in 1921 with the Act to Establish a Veterans’ Bureau and to Improve the Facilities.¹ The act simplified and streamlined the claims adjudication process by eliminating the need to obtain evidence on the part of the veteran. The presumption of service connection also facilitated increased accuracy and consistency in adjudications by requiring similar treatment for similar claims. This “presumptive” process relieved claimants and VA of the necessity of producing direct evidence when it was impractical to do so.

In 1970, the first presumptives specific to FPOWs were legislatively established and covered 17 diseases for a FPOW who had been confined for ≥ 30 days (Pub. L. 91-376). The 30-day confinement requirement was later relaxed, and additional presumptives were established that related to diseases that were more common among FPOWs than they were among non-FPOWs. These disorders included traumatic arthritis, stroke, heart disease, osteoporosis, peripheral neuropathy, cold injuries, as well as a variety of digestive and neuropsychiatric disorders. If a FPOW is diagnosed as having ≥ 1 of these conditions and it is judged to be ≥ 10% disabling, the condition is presumed to be a sequelae of the POW experience, and it is classified as a service-connected disability (Table).

FPOW Care And Benefits Teams

Several Veterans Health Administration (VHA) directives have been issued, including the recent VHA directive 1650, which requires that each VHA medical facility have a special Care and Benefits Team (CBT) that is charged with the evaluation and treatment of FPOWs to ensure that “FPOWs receive the highest quality care and benefit services.”⁶ CBTs must be composed of a clinician trained in internal medicine or family practice; a clinician who is certified through the VA Office of Disability and Medical Assessment to conduct General Medical Compensation and Pension evaluations; a FPOW advocate who typically is a VHA clinical social worker; and a Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) FPOW coordinator appointed by the local VBA regional office. CBTs can be expanded to include other members as needed. The CBTs are tasked with facilitating interactions between FPOWs, the VHA, and the VBA.

CBTs face several challenges in meeting their responsibilities. For example, the POW experience often results in psychological trauma that foments denial and distrust; hence, thoughtful sensitivity to the sequelae of captivity when approaching FPOWs about personal issues, such as health care, is required. Establishing trusting relationships with FPOWs is necessary if their needs are to be effectively addressed.

While the VHA is mandated to provide priority treatment for FPOWs, including hospital, nursing home, dental, and outpatient treatment, a significant number of FPOWs do not avail themselves of benefits to which they are entitled. Often these FPOWs have not used VA programs and facilities because they are uninformed or confused about VA benefits for FPOWs. As a result, referrals of eligible FPOWs to appropriate programs can be overlooked. Maximizing the service-connected disability rating of FPOWs not only impacts the disability pensions received by these veterans, but also impacts their eligibility for VHA programs, including long-term care and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, a monthly benefit paid to spouses, children, and/or surviving parents.

In 2013, the FPOW Committee of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System (STVHCS) noted that 40% of FPOWs in our region had no VA primary care or clinic assignment. In consideration of the commitment of the VA to care for FPOWs, the unique POW-related medical and psychological issues, the geriatric age of many FPOWs, and the surprising number of FPOWs currently not receiving VA care, we expanded the concept of the CBT team to create a specialized interdisciplinary FPOW Clinic to address the unique needs of this predominantly elderly population and to involve more FPOWs in the VA system.

The main purpose of this clinic was to advise FPOWs of all VA benefits and services to which they may be entitled by identifying overlooked FPOW presumptives. As the number of FPOWs continues to decrease, outreach to FPOWs and family members has become critical, especially as increased benefits and special services might be available to this increasingly dependent older population. An informal survey of FPOW advocates across the nation found that 21% of FPOWs had disability ratings from the VA of ≤ 60%, including some who had no VA disability rating at all. Thus, an additional goal of the project was to develop a clinic model that could be disseminated throughout the VHA.

Design

The design of the FPOW Clinic team is based on an interdisciplinary model that has proven successful in geriatric medicine.⁷ The team comprises a physician, a social worker, and a registered nurse.⁸ All members have expertise in geriatric medicine and specific training in FPOW-related issues by completing a VA employee education training session on FPOW case management. Completion of this training ensured that team members were:

• Familiar with the experiences of FPOWs as well as about the medical, psychosocial, and mental health conditions that affect FPOWs;
• Knowledgeable about FPOW presumptive conditions;
• Familiar with the VBA process for rating FPOW disability claims; and
• Capable of FPOW case coordination, workflow, and communications between the FPOW Clinic team and the VBA to avail FPOWs and their families of all eligible benefits.

In-person FPOW clinic visits and chart reviews helped identify overlooked FPOW benefits. To facilitate case management, a representative of the VBA attended the initial evaluation of each FPOW in the clinic to confirm any overlooked presumptive benefits and to familiarize FPOWs with the claims process. FPOWs were also given the choice to officially enroll in the FPOW clinic for primary care or to remain with their current health care provider. Special efforts were made to enroll those FPOWs who had no STVHCS assigned primary care clinic.

The clinic was scheduled for 4 hours every week. Initial patient visits were 2 hours each and consisted of separate evaluations by each of the 3 FPOW Clinic team members who then met as a team with the addition of the VBA representative. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss overlooked benefits, address any other specific issues noted, and to devise an appropriate interdisciplinary plan. Findings of overlooked benefits and other relevant outcomes then were conveyed to the FPOW. For FPOWs who opted to continue in the clinic for their primary care, subsequent appointments were 1 hour.

Implementation 

STVHCS FPOW advocates identified and sent letters to FPOWs announcing the opening of the clinic and its goals. Phone calls were made to each FPOW to address questions and to ascertain their interest. The FPOW advocates then worked directly with schedulers to make clinic appointments. Forty-one FPOWs responded to this initial invitation and attended the new clinic. Subsequently, this number increased through FPOW consults placed by STVHCS primary care providers.

The service-connected disability rating of clinic patients ranged from none (6% of attendees) to 100% (28% of attendees). For 34% of patients, clinic attendance resulted in identification application for overlooked presumptives. VBA evaluation resulted in increased service-connected disability ratings for nearly one-third of clinic patients. All clinic patients without a service-connected disability prior to FPOW clinic evaluation received an increased service-connected disability rating. Overall, 60% of the FPOWs who attended the clinic opted to receive their primary care at the FPOW clinic.

The FPOW Clinic successfully identified overlooked presumptives and facilitated the determination of appropriate service-connected disabilities. Interestingly, the FPOW Clinic encountered an unanticipated challenge to identifying overlooked FPOW benefits—veterans’ medical conditions that are listed by the VHA as being service-connected in the Computerized Patient Record System did not always reflect those listed officially in VBA records. This led to occasional identification of apparently overlooked FPOW presumptives that were already recognized by the VBA but not reflected in VHA records. This issue was addressed by ensuring that VBA representatives attended postclinic meetings with clinic staff and avoided the need to pursue supposedly unrecognized benefits that were recognized.

Telehealth 

At present, FPOWs from World War II outnumber those of all other conflicts; however, this group is rapidly dwindling in numbers. World War II FPOWs are aged > 85 years, and therefore among the most frail and dependent of veterans. Often they are homebound and unable to physically travel to clinics for assessment. To serve these veterans, we are modifying the FPOW Clinic to utilize telehealth. The Telehealth FPOW Clinic will obtain relevant data from review of the electronic health record and telehealth-based clinic visits. Telehealth also may be used for assessments of Vietnam War veterans (eg, Agent Orange exposure), atomic veterans, and Gulf War veterans. Once fully designed and implemented, we believe that telehealth will prove to be a cost-effective way to provide clinic benefits to rural and older veterans.

Conclusions

The VHA provides priority medical treatment to FPOWs as well as timely and appropriate assessment of their eligibility for veterans’ benefits. The complexities benefit programs established for FPOWs is often beyond the ken of VHA physicians, social workers, and nurses. Because of this unfamiliarity, referrals of eligible FPOWs to appropriate programs can be overlooked. We established a clinic-based interdisciplinary team (FPOW Clinic) that was fully trained in FPOW benefit programs to identify overlooked benefits for FPOWs and were able to increase the disability rating on approximately one-third of the FPOWs seen in the FPOW Clinic. A telehealth-based version of the FPOW clinic is now being developed.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder in the US and other industrialized countries. The Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study reported prevalence rates as high as 20% to 30% in men and 10% to 15% in women.^1,2 Several studies have shown high prevalence of OSA among veterans. Ancoli-Israel and colleagues reported a OSA rate of 36% in a cohort of elderly patients at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center.³ A study by Kreis and colleagues showed that OSA was present in 27% of patients hospitalized on the medical ward at a VA hospital.⁴ Incidence of sleep apnea among veterans in the US will likely increase over time as obesity is becoming more prevalent. Rates of obesity have increased from 14% in 2000 to 18% in 2010 among both male and female veterans.⁵

Untreated OSA is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accidents, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and other complications. Patients with OSA are less productive, have increased health care utilization, and have a higher risk of motor vehicle accidents.⁶ Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the main form of treatment of OSA. However, despite the adverse outcomes of untreated sleep apnea, suboptimal CPAP adherence remains a major problem in clinical practice. When adherence is defined as > 4 hours of nightly use, 29% to 83% of patients with OSA have been reported to be nonadherent to treatment.⁷ Stepnowsky and colleagues estimated that 50% of patients with OSA for whom CPAP was recommended were no longer using it 1 year later.⁸ CPAP adherence among veterans also has been poor. Wallace and colleagues reported that about one-third of patients with OSA at a VA Miami Healthcare System had mean daily use ≥ 4 hours.⁹ Typical reasons for poor CPAP adherence include pressure intolerance, mask discomfort, nasal and oropharyngeal dryness and irritation.¹⁰ Development and implementation of alternate treatment strategies for OSA is important to reduce disease burden of this widespread and debilitating condition.

Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is a novel therapy for management of OSA that has been gaining popularity and acceptance within the sleep medicine community in the past few years. This treatment option involves implantation of a neurostimulator with a sensing lead and a stimulation lead. The device is similar to a pacemaker and is surgically implanted in chest wall. The sensing lead is placed close to the diaphragm for monitoring of pleural pressure to help assess ventilation. The stimulation lead is placed under the tongue in proximity to the hypoglossal nerve (cranial nerve XII). The neurostimulator delivers electrical pulses to the hypoglossal nerve through the stimulation lead. These stimulating pulses are synchronized with the ventilation detected by the sensing lead. This electrical stimulation results in anterior displacement of the tongue via action of the genioglossus and geniohyoid muscles. Mechanical coupling with the palate also is common and leads to additional airway opening within the oropharynx to prevent apneic episodes. The patient turns on the stimulation through the use of a portable remote control and is turned off in the morning. The patient is able to operate the UAS device by placing the remote control on the skin in proximity of the device. The patient also is able to adjust device voltage within a range set by their physician. The effective voltage range is determined via an overnight sleep study titration performed 1 month after device activation. UAS therapy is not considered first-line treatment for OSA as it requires surgical implantation under general anesthesia; however, it provides an alternative to patients with OSA who are unable to tolerate traditional therapy with CPAP.

The landmark Stimulation Therapy for Apnea Reduction (STAR) trial showed effectiveness of UAS therapy at 12 months postimplantation.¹¹ Follow-up of these participants has proven the sustainability of this effect at 18, 24, 36, and 48 months of therapy.^12-15 Inclusion criteria of the study was moderate-to-severe sleep apnea with predominantly obstructive events. Subjects were excluded if there were anatomical abnormalities of the upper airway or if the pattern of airway collapse was not conducive to UAS on sedated endoscopy evaluation. Participants in the trial were predominantly white males, the average age was 54.5 years, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 28.4. The outcomes measured included Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), percentage of sleep time with oxygen saturation < 90%, and subjective snoring. All of these objective and subjective markers of sleep improved significantly with UAS therapy at 12 months and were maintained at improved levels at 48 months of therapy.

The adverse effects (AEs) associated with device implantation and subsequent UAS therapy have been infrequent and mostly transient. Out of 126 device implantations, there were 2 participants who had serious AEs due to implantation and required repositioning and fixation of the neurostimulator to resolve discomfort. Other AEs related to the procedure, including sore throat and muscle soreness, were considered nonserious and resolved with supportive care. AEs related to subsequent UAS therapy included temporary tongue weakness and tongue soreness/abrasion. These complications also have either resolved spontaneously or with use of supportive strategies such as a mouth guard. Due to the sustained clinical benefit and acceptable AE profile as demonstrated by the STAR trial, UAS has emerged as a realistic alternative for management of OSA.

Development of a successful program that provides and supports all aspects of UAS, including device implantation and follow-up, necessitates a multispecialty team approach. Ideally surgical and nonsurgical sleep physicians as well as clinical and administrative support staff should be part of this group.

This study is based on the experience of the development of the UAS program at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center (CJZ VAMC) in Milwaukee. Currently, there are 25 patients who are part of this UAS program. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were adopted from the STAR trial. The patient population is similar to the population in that trial. They are all white males with average age of 57.2 years and BMI of 31.3. The CJZVAMC UAS Program consists of multidisciplinary group of health care professionals. This article describes the role of a nonsurgical sleep medicine physician that was crucial in the development of this UAS program.

Process

Introduction of this novel alternative therapy has sparked much interest among health care providers (HCPs) at CJZVAMC. However, there has been much misunderstanding among patients and HCPs about what this treatment involves and how it is implemented. For example, many patients that called the sleep clinic to set up an evaluation for UAS did not realize that this is a surgical procedure that requires general anesthesia. One of the most important tasks for a nonsurgical sleep physician is to educate patients and HCPs about this therapy. Most of patient education at CJZVAMC has been done during individual clinic appointments; however, setting up group educational classes for patients is a more efficient strategy to deliver this information. Similarly, giving a lecture on UAS at medicine (or another specialty) grand rounds has been effective in the education of HCPs who refer patients to the sleep clinic. If possible, a combined lecture with a surgical colleague could provide a more balanced and complete depiction of UAS and help to answer a broader range of questions for the audience.

Screening

Screening and identification of appropriate candidates is an important first step in the patient pathway in the UAS therapy. Failure of CPAP therapy is a key starting point in this screening process. When patients present to the sleep clinic with difficulty tolerating CPAP therapy, an extensive and thorough troubleshooting process needs to take place to make sure that all CPAP options have been exhausted. This process would typically include trial of various masks, including different mask interfaces. A dedicated appointment with a registered polysomnographic technologist (RPSGT) or another clinic staff member with vast experience in PAP mask fitting is typically part of this effort.

Adjustment of CPAP pressure settings also may be helpful as high PAP pressure may be another obstacle. Patients frequently have trouble tolerating higher pressure settings especially when they are new to this therapy. Pressure restriction to 4-cm to 7-cm water pressure on auto CPAP has been a helpful technique to allow patients to become more comfortable with this therapy. Once patients are able to use PAP at lower pressures, these settings can be titrated up gradually for optimal effectiveness. Other desensitization techniques, such as use during daytime while distracted by other activities (such as watching TV) can be helpful in adjustment to PAP therapy. Addressing problems with nasal congestion can help improve PAP adherence. Finally, patients should be offered opportunities for education about their PAP machine on an ongoing basis. Lack of proficiency with humidifier use is a very common obstacle and frequently leads to PAP nonadherence. Teaching PAP operation should correspond to the patient’s level of education to be effective. PAP therapy remains the first-line treatment strategy for OSA as it is not invasive and highly effective. Nonsurgical sleep medicine physicians are uniquely positioned to implement and troubleshoot this therapy for sleep apnea patients before considering UAS.

As part of the screening process, it can be helpful to conduct routine multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients who are being evaluated for UAS implantation. These meetings should include the otolaryngologist, nonsurgical sleep medicine physician, as well as additional staff (nurses, respiratory therapists, etc) who are involved in the UAS process. Having a mental health care provider as part of the multidisciplinary team during the screening process also could be a valuable addition as this specialist could evaluate and provide insight into a patient’s emotional status prior to implantation. This is common practice during evaluation for organ transplantation and would help to predict patient’s psychological well-being after this life-changing procedure.¹⁶ Having multidisciplinary agreement on patient’s candidacy for UAS therapy could improve long-term success of this treatment. Additionally, these multidisciplinary meetings as part of the UAS program can improve team camaraderie and prevent miscommunications during this therapy.

Drug-Induced Sedated Endoscopy

Patient pathway to neurostimulator implantation involves evaluation of the upper airway using drug-induced sedated endoscopy (DISE). This procedure helps determine whether the patient’s anatomy is appropriate for UAS. DISE also can evaluate the pattern of airway closure during an apneic episode. Anterior-posterior pattern of closure is associated with greater UAS effectiveness compared with concentric pattern of airway closure. DISE is typically performed by the otolaryngologist scheduled to implant the UAS. However, nonsurgical physicians who are part of the patient’s care team can be trained to perform this procedure especially if they have experience in performing endoscopy of the upper airway (such as a pulmonary specialist). This can make the evaluation process more efficient and dramatically improve access to care.

Coordination of Care

In order for the UAS program to be successful, the patient’s care team has to work closely with the device manufacturer throughout the implantation pathway and for ongoing patient care. The device manufacturer can assist with education of HCPs, surgical physicians, clinical support staff, and the patient. However, an even more essential role for industry support is during UAS device activation and subsequent titration of UAS via an overnight in-laboratory sleep study.

After surgical implantation, the UAS device activation can be performed in the nonsurgical sleep clinic and is done about 1 month later. This period allows for tissue healing after the surgery and for the patient to get accustomed to having this new device in their body. This activation can be done with assistance from an industry technician until the HCP is comfortable with this process. The multidisciplinary UAS team could choose to delegate device activation to a technician with specialized relevant training, such as RPSGT or respiratory therapist (RT).

This procedure involves determination of sensory and functional threshold for UAS. Sensory threshold is minimum voltage required for the patient to feel the stimulation. The functional threshold is the minimum voltage required to move the tongue past the lower front teeth during stimulation. After these thresholds are established, a voltage range is set on the device. The voltage at functional threshold is typically set at the lower level of this range, and the maximum level is set at 1 volt higher. Patients are able to adjust voltage within this range and are instructed to increase the voltage gradually (0.1-volt increments) while maintaining levels that are comfortable during sleep.

About a month after device activation, patients undergo another overnight polysomnogram for titration of UAS device. In order to educate and train the institutional RPSGT on how to perform this type of titration, an industry technician is required for the first few overnight titrations. The goal of this study is to establish appropriate voltage to resolve sleep-disordered breathing and insure patient comfort at this setting. Patients typically leave the study with a new voltage range. They are asked to keep effective voltage in mind and make appropriate adjustments to maintain comfortable therapy.

Successful UAS therapy includes multiple steps, such as implantation, activation, and titration. This protocol requires effective coordination of care that includes communication with surgical staff, patients, support staff, and industry liaison. Nonsurgical sleep medicine physicians can play a vital role by helping to coordinate care at the early stages of UAS therapy and facilitate effective communication among various providers involved in this process.

Follow-Up

After completion of the initial therapeutic pathway, patients continue to follow up regularly, monitoring for AEs from UAS therapy and sleep apnea symptoms. Patients can be followed in the nonsurgical sleep clinic after the initial postoperative appointment with the surgeon. Frequency of follow-up depends on the presence and severity of any AEs and residual symptoms of sleep apnea. Even though most AEs related to UAS therapy reported in the STAR trial were nonserious and transient, 2% of participants required surgical revision.³ Therefore, maintaining open channels of communication among the entire UAS patient care team even months and years after surgical implantation is important. The nonsurgical sleep medicine physician who will continue to monitor the patient’s progress may need to consult with the surgical colleague or industry liaison at any point during treatment.
 

Limitations

This review outlines the UAS therapy pathway and emphasizes the role of the nonsurgical sleep medicine provider. However, the experience describes a UAS program development at a single VA medical center. Since this UAS device and therapy have already been approved by the VA on a national level, we did not face any challenges with authorization and insurance compensation. Therefore, this review does not provide any guidance with these matters. These are certainly common concerns for sleep medicine providers who offer UAS therapy in medical practices outside the VA, and these would hopefully be addressed in the future.

Furthermore, this review is based on the pulmonary sleep medicine provider’s experience and perspective. Therefore, certain aspects of UAS therapy could be better addressed by nonsurgical sleep medicine providers in different fields of expertise. For example, a study by a psychiatrist or psychologist could provide insight into the emotional concerns of patients who are undergoing this novel and life-altering treatment that includes surgical implantation of hardware into the body. A neurologist could explore the long-term effects of recurrent electrical stimulation on the autonomic and somatic nervous system as well as the musculature of the upper airway.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary perspectives are needed to provide guidance for practitioners and institutions looking to set up and improve established UAS programs. As the long-term outcomes of the STAR trial continue to be published and provide more validation for UAS, this novel therapy will likely continue to gain acceptance as a safe and effective treatment for OSA.¹¹

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder in the US and other industrialized countries. The Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study reported prevalence rates as high as 20% to 30% in men and 10% to 15% in women.^1,2 Several studies have shown high prevalence of OSA among veterans. Ancoli-Israel and colleagues reported a OSA rate of 36% in a cohort of elderly patients at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center.³ A study by Kreis and colleagues showed that OSA was present in 27% of patients hospitalized on the medical ward at a VA hospital.⁴ Incidence of sleep apnea among veterans in the US will likely increase over time as obesity is becoming more prevalent. Rates of obesity have increased from 14% in 2000 to 18% in 2010 among both male and female veterans.⁵

Untreated OSA is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accidents, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and other complications. Patients with OSA are less productive, have increased health care utilization, and have a higher risk of motor vehicle accidents.⁶ Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the main form of treatment of OSA. However, despite the adverse outcomes of untreated sleep apnea, suboptimal CPAP adherence remains a major problem in clinical practice. When adherence is defined as > 4 hours of nightly use, 29% to 83% of patients with OSA have been reported to be nonadherent to treatment.⁷ Stepnowsky and colleagues estimated that 50% of patients with OSA for whom CPAP was recommended were no longer using it 1 year later.⁸ CPAP adherence among veterans also has been poor. Wallace and colleagues reported that about one-third of patients with OSA at a VA Miami Healthcare System had mean daily use ≥ 4 hours.⁹ Typical reasons for poor CPAP adherence include pressure intolerance, mask discomfort, nasal and oropharyngeal dryness and irritation.¹⁰ Development and implementation of alternate treatment strategies for OSA is important to reduce disease burden of this widespread and debilitating condition.

Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is a novel therapy for management of OSA that has been gaining popularity and acceptance within the sleep medicine community in the past few years. This treatment option involves implantation of a neurostimulator with a sensing lead and a stimulation lead. The device is similar to a pacemaker and is surgically implanted in chest wall. The sensing lead is placed close to the diaphragm for monitoring of pleural pressure to help assess ventilation. The stimulation lead is placed under the tongue in proximity to the hypoglossal nerve (cranial nerve XII). The neurostimulator delivers electrical pulses to the hypoglossal nerve through the stimulation lead. These stimulating pulses are synchronized with the ventilation detected by the sensing lead. This electrical stimulation results in anterior displacement of the tongue via action of the genioglossus and geniohyoid muscles. Mechanical coupling with the palate also is common and leads to additional airway opening within the oropharynx to prevent apneic episodes. The patient turns on the stimulation through the use of a portable remote control and is turned off in the morning. The patient is able to operate the UAS device by placing the remote control on the skin in proximity of the device. The patient also is able to adjust device voltage within a range set by their physician. The effective voltage range is determined via an overnight sleep study titration performed 1 month after device activation. UAS therapy is not considered first-line treatment for OSA as it requires surgical implantation under general anesthesia; however, it provides an alternative to patients with OSA who are unable to tolerate traditional therapy with CPAP.

The landmark Stimulation Therapy for Apnea Reduction (STAR) trial showed effectiveness of UAS therapy at 12 months postimplantation.¹¹ Follow-up of these participants has proven the sustainability of this effect at 18, 24, 36, and 48 months of therapy.^12-15 Inclusion criteria of the study was moderate-to-severe sleep apnea with predominantly obstructive events. Subjects were excluded if there were anatomical abnormalities of the upper airway or if the pattern of airway collapse was not conducive to UAS on sedated endoscopy evaluation. Participants in the trial were predominantly white males, the average age was 54.5 years, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 28.4. The outcomes measured included Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), percentage of sleep time with oxygen saturation < 90%, and subjective snoring. All of these objective and subjective markers of sleep improved significantly with UAS therapy at 12 months and were maintained at improved levels at 48 months of therapy.

The adverse effects (AEs) associated with device implantation and subsequent UAS therapy have been infrequent and mostly transient. Out of 126 device implantations, there were 2 participants who had serious AEs due to implantation and required repositioning and fixation of the neurostimulator to resolve discomfort. Other AEs related to the procedure, including sore throat and muscle soreness, were considered nonserious and resolved with supportive care. AEs related to subsequent UAS therapy included temporary tongue weakness and tongue soreness/abrasion. These complications also have either resolved spontaneously or with use of supportive strategies such as a mouth guard. Due to the sustained clinical benefit and acceptable AE profile as demonstrated by the STAR trial, UAS has emerged as a realistic alternative for management of OSA.

Development of a successful program that provides and supports all aspects of UAS, including device implantation and follow-up, necessitates a multispecialty team approach. Ideally surgical and nonsurgical sleep physicians as well as clinical and administrative support staff should be part of this group.

This study is based on the experience of the development of the UAS program at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center (CJZ VAMC) in Milwaukee. Currently, there are 25 patients who are part of this UAS program. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were adopted from the STAR trial. The patient population is similar to the population in that trial. They are all white males with average age of 57.2 years and BMI of 31.3. The CJZVAMC UAS Program consists of multidisciplinary group of health care professionals. This article describes the role of a nonsurgical sleep medicine physician that was crucial in the development of this UAS program.

Process

Introduction of this novel alternative therapy has sparked much interest among health care providers (HCPs) at CJZVAMC. However, there has been much misunderstanding among patients and HCPs about what this treatment involves and how it is implemented. For example, many patients that called the sleep clinic to set up an evaluation for UAS did not realize that this is a surgical procedure that requires general anesthesia. One of the most important tasks for a nonsurgical sleep physician is to educate patients and HCPs about this therapy. Most of patient education at CJZVAMC has been done during individual clinic appointments; however, setting up group educational classes for patients is a more efficient strategy to deliver this information. Similarly, giving a lecture on UAS at medicine (or another specialty) grand rounds has been effective in the education of HCPs who refer patients to the sleep clinic. If possible, a combined lecture with a surgical colleague could provide a more balanced and complete depiction of UAS and help to answer a broader range of questions for the audience.

Screening

Screening and identification of appropriate candidates is an important first step in the patient pathway in the UAS therapy. Failure of CPAP therapy is a key starting point in this screening process. When patients present to the sleep clinic with difficulty tolerating CPAP therapy, an extensive and thorough troubleshooting process needs to take place to make sure that all CPAP options have been exhausted. This process would typically include trial of various masks, including different mask interfaces. A dedicated appointment with a registered polysomnographic technologist (RPSGT) or another clinic staff member with vast experience in PAP mask fitting is typically part of this effort.

Adjustment of CPAP pressure settings also may be helpful as high PAP pressure may be another obstacle. Patients frequently have trouble tolerating higher pressure settings especially when they are new to this therapy. Pressure restriction to 4-cm to 7-cm water pressure on auto CPAP has been a helpful technique to allow patients to become more comfortable with this therapy. Once patients are able to use PAP at lower pressures, these settings can be titrated up gradually for optimal effectiveness. Other desensitization techniques, such as use during daytime while distracted by other activities (such as watching TV) can be helpful in adjustment to PAP therapy. Addressing problems with nasal congestion can help improve PAP adherence. Finally, patients should be offered opportunities for education about their PAP machine on an ongoing basis. Lack of proficiency with humidifier use is a very common obstacle and frequently leads to PAP nonadherence. Teaching PAP operation should correspond to the patient’s level of education to be effective. PAP therapy remains the first-line treatment strategy for OSA as it is not invasive and highly effective. Nonsurgical sleep medicine physicians are uniquely positioned to implement and troubleshoot this therapy for sleep apnea patients before considering UAS.

As part of the screening process, it can be helpful to conduct routine multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients who are being evaluated for UAS implantation. These meetings should include the otolaryngologist, nonsurgical sleep medicine physician, as well as additional staff (nurses, respiratory therapists, etc) who are involved in the UAS process. Having a mental health care provider as part of the multidisciplinary team during the screening process also could be a valuable addition as this specialist could evaluate and provide insight into a patient’s emotional status prior to implantation. This is common practice during evaluation for organ transplantation and would help to predict patient’s psychological well-being after this life-changing procedure.¹⁶ Having multidisciplinary agreement on patient’s candidacy for UAS therapy could improve long-term success of this treatment. Additionally, these multidisciplinary meetings as part of the UAS program can improve team camaraderie and prevent miscommunications during this therapy.

Drug-Induced Sedated Endoscopy

Patient pathway to neurostimulator implantation involves evaluation of the upper airway using drug-induced sedated endoscopy (DISE). This procedure helps determine whether the patient’s anatomy is appropriate for UAS. DISE also can evaluate the pattern of airway closure during an apneic episode. Anterior-posterior pattern of closure is associated with greater UAS effectiveness compared with concentric pattern of airway closure. DISE is typically performed by the otolaryngologist scheduled to implant the UAS. However, nonsurgical physicians who are part of the patient’s care team can be trained to perform this procedure especially if they have experience in performing endoscopy of the upper airway (such as a pulmonary specialist). This can make the evaluation process more efficient and dramatically improve access to care.

Coordination of Care

In order for the UAS program to be successful, the patient’s care team has to work closely with the device manufacturer throughout the implantation pathway and for ongoing patient care. The device manufacturer can assist with education of HCPs, surgical physicians, clinical support staff, and the patient. However, an even more essential role for industry support is during UAS device activation and subsequent titration of UAS via an overnight in-laboratory sleep study.

After surgical implantation, the UAS device activation can be performed in the nonsurgical sleep clinic and is done about 1 month later. This period allows for tissue healing after the surgery and for the patient to get accustomed to having this new device in their body. This activation can be done with assistance from an industry technician until the HCP is comfortable with this process. The multidisciplinary UAS team could choose to delegate device activation to a technician with specialized relevant training, such as RPSGT or respiratory therapist (RT).

This procedure involves determination of sensory and functional threshold for UAS. Sensory threshold is minimum voltage required for the patient to feel the stimulation. The functional threshold is the minimum voltage required to move the tongue past the lower front teeth during stimulation. After these thresholds are established, a voltage range is set on the device. The voltage at functional threshold is typically set at the lower level of this range, and the maximum level is set at 1 volt higher. Patients are able to adjust voltage within this range and are instructed to increase the voltage gradually (0.1-volt increments) while maintaining levels that are comfortable during sleep.

About a month after device activation, patients undergo another overnight polysomnogram for titration of UAS device. In order to educate and train the institutional RPSGT on how to perform this type of titration, an industry technician is required for the first few overnight titrations. The goal of this study is to establish appropriate voltage to resolve sleep-disordered breathing and insure patient comfort at this setting. Patients typically leave the study with a new voltage range. They are asked to keep effective voltage in mind and make appropriate adjustments to maintain comfortable therapy.

Successful UAS therapy includes multiple steps, such as implantation, activation, and titration. This protocol requires effective coordination of care that includes communication with surgical staff, patients, support staff, and industry liaison. Nonsurgical sleep medicine physicians can play a vital role by helping to coordinate care at the early stages of UAS therapy and facilitate effective communication among various providers involved in this process.

Follow-Up

After completion of the initial therapeutic pathway, patients continue to follow up regularly, monitoring for AEs from UAS therapy and sleep apnea symptoms. Patients can be followed in the nonsurgical sleep clinic after the initial postoperative appointment with the surgeon. Frequency of follow-up depends on the presence and severity of any AEs and residual symptoms of sleep apnea. Even though most AEs related to UAS therapy reported in the STAR trial were nonserious and transient, 2% of participants required surgical revision.³ Therefore, maintaining open channels of communication among the entire UAS patient care team even months and years after surgical implantation is important. The nonsurgical sleep medicine physician who will continue to monitor the patient’s progress may need to consult with the surgical colleague or industry liaison at any point during treatment.
 

Limitations

This review outlines the UAS therapy pathway and emphasizes the role of the nonsurgical sleep medicine provider. However, the experience describes a UAS program development at a single VA medical center. Since this UAS device and therapy have already been approved by the VA on a national level, we did not face any challenges with authorization and insurance compensation. Therefore, this review does not provide any guidance with these matters. These are certainly common concerns for sleep medicine providers who offer UAS therapy in medical practices outside the VA, and these would hopefully be addressed in the future.

Furthermore, this review is based on the pulmonary sleep medicine provider’s experience and perspective. Therefore, certain aspects of UAS therapy could be better addressed by nonsurgical sleep medicine providers in different fields of expertise. For example, a study by a psychiatrist or psychologist could provide insight into the emotional concerns of patients who are undergoing this novel and life-altering treatment that includes surgical implantation of hardware into the body. A neurologist could explore the long-term effects of recurrent electrical stimulation on the autonomic and somatic nervous system as well as the musculature of the upper airway.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary perspectives are needed to provide guidance for practitioners and institutions looking to set up and improve established UAS programs. As the long-term outcomes of the STAR trial continue to be published and provide more validation for UAS, this novel therapy will likely continue to gain acceptance as a safe and effective treatment for OSA.¹¹

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common disorder in the US and other industrialized countries. The Wisconsin Sleep Cohort Study reported prevalence rates as high as 20% to 30% in men and 10% to 15% in women.^1,2 Several studies have shown high prevalence of OSA among veterans. Ancoli-Israel and colleagues reported a OSA rate of 36% in a cohort of elderly patients at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center.³ A study by Kreis and colleagues showed that OSA was present in 27% of patients hospitalized on the medical ward at a VA hospital.⁴ Incidence of sleep apnea among veterans in the US will likely increase over time as obesity is becoming more prevalent. Rates of obesity have increased from 14% in 2000 to 18% in 2010 among both male and female veterans.⁵

Untreated OSA is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accidents, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and other complications. Patients with OSA are less productive, have increased health care utilization, and have a higher risk of motor vehicle accidents.⁶ Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the main form of treatment of OSA. However, despite the adverse outcomes of untreated sleep apnea, suboptimal CPAP adherence remains a major problem in clinical practice. When adherence is defined as > 4 hours of nightly use, 29% to 83% of patients with OSA have been reported to be nonadherent to treatment.⁷ Stepnowsky and colleagues estimated that 50% of patients with OSA for whom CPAP was recommended were no longer using it 1 year later.⁸ CPAP adherence among veterans also has been poor. Wallace and colleagues reported that about one-third of patients with OSA at a VA Miami Healthcare System had mean daily use ≥ 4 hours.⁹ Typical reasons for poor CPAP adherence include pressure intolerance, mask discomfort, nasal and oropharyngeal dryness and irritation.¹⁰ Development and implementation of alternate treatment strategies for OSA is important to reduce disease burden of this widespread and debilitating condition.

Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is a novel therapy for management of OSA that has been gaining popularity and acceptance within the sleep medicine community in the past few years. This treatment option involves implantation of a neurostimulator with a sensing lead and a stimulation lead. The device is similar to a pacemaker and is surgically implanted in chest wall. The sensing lead is placed close to the diaphragm for monitoring of pleural pressure to help assess ventilation. The stimulation lead is placed under the tongue in proximity to the hypoglossal nerve (cranial nerve XII). The neurostimulator delivers electrical pulses to the hypoglossal nerve through the stimulation lead. These stimulating pulses are synchronized with the ventilation detected by the sensing lead. This electrical stimulation results in anterior displacement of the tongue via action of the genioglossus and geniohyoid muscles. Mechanical coupling with the palate also is common and leads to additional airway opening within the oropharynx to prevent apneic episodes. The patient turns on the stimulation through the use of a portable remote control and is turned off in the morning. The patient is able to operate the UAS device by placing the remote control on the skin in proximity of the device. The patient also is able to adjust device voltage within a range set by their physician. The effective voltage range is determined via an overnight sleep study titration performed 1 month after device activation. UAS therapy is not considered first-line treatment for OSA as it requires surgical implantation under general anesthesia; however, it provides an alternative to patients with OSA who are unable to tolerate traditional therapy with CPAP.

The landmark Stimulation Therapy for Apnea Reduction (STAR) trial showed effectiveness of UAS therapy at 12 months postimplantation.¹¹ Follow-up of these participants has proven the sustainability of this effect at 18, 24, 36, and 48 months of therapy.^12-15 Inclusion criteria of the study was moderate-to-severe sleep apnea with predominantly obstructive events. Subjects were excluded if there were anatomical abnormalities of the upper airway or if the pattern of airway collapse was not conducive to UAS on sedated endoscopy evaluation. Participants in the trial were predominantly white males, the average age was 54.5 years, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 28.4. The outcomes measured included Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), percentage of sleep time with oxygen saturation < 90%, and subjective snoring. All of these objective and subjective markers of sleep improved significantly with UAS therapy at 12 months and were maintained at improved levels at 48 months of therapy.

The adverse effects (AEs) associated with device implantation and subsequent UAS therapy have been infrequent and mostly transient. Out of 126 device implantations, there were 2 participants who had serious AEs due to implantation and required repositioning and fixation of the neurostimulator to resolve discomfort. Other AEs related to the procedure, including sore throat and muscle soreness, were considered nonserious and resolved with supportive care. AEs related to subsequent UAS therapy included temporary tongue weakness and tongue soreness/abrasion. These complications also have either resolved spontaneously or with use of supportive strategies such as a mouth guard. Due to the sustained clinical benefit and acceptable AE profile as demonstrated by the STAR trial, UAS has emerged as a realistic alternative for management of OSA.

Development of a successful program that provides and supports all aspects of UAS, including device implantation and follow-up, necessitates a multispecialty team approach. Ideally surgical and nonsurgical sleep physicians as well as clinical and administrative support staff should be part of this group.

This study is based on the experience of the development of the UAS program at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center (CJZ VAMC) in Milwaukee. Currently, there are 25 patients who are part of this UAS program. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were adopted from the STAR trial. The patient population is similar to the population in that trial. They are all white males with average age of 57.2 years and BMI of 31.3. The CJZVAMC UAS Program consists of multidisciplinary group of health care professionals. This article describes the role of a nonsurgical sleep medicine physician that was crucial in the development of this UAS program.

Process

Introduction of this novel alternative therapy has sparked much interest among health care providers (HCPs) at CJZVAMC. However, there has been much misunderstanding among patients and HCPs about what this treatment involves and how it is implemented. For example, many patients that called the sleep clinic to set up an evaluation for UAS did not realize that this is a surgical procedure that requires general anesthesia. One of the most important tasks for a nonsurgical sleep physician is to educate patients and HCPs about this therapy. Most of patient education at CJZVAMC has been done during individual clinic appointments; however, setting up group educational classes for patients is a more efficient strategy to deliver this information. Similarly, giving a lecture on UAS at medicine (or another specialty) grand rounds has been effective in the education of HCPs who refer patients to the sleep clinic. If possible, a combined lecture with a surgical colleague could provide a more balanced and complete depiction of UAS and help to answer a broader range of questions for the audience.

Screening

Screening and identification of appropriate candidates is an important first step in the patient pathway in the UAS therapy. Failure of CPAP therapy is a key starting point in this screening process. When patients present to the sleep clinic with difficulty tolerating CPAP therapy, an extensive and thorough troubleshooting process needs to take place to make sure that all CPAP options have been exhausted. This process would typically include trial of various masks, including different mask interfaces. A dedicated appointment with a registered polysomnographic technologist (RPSGT) or another clinic staff member with vast experience in PAP mask fitting is typically part of this effort.

Adjustment of CPAP pressure settings also may be helpful as high PAP pressure may be another obstacle. Patients frequently have trouble tolerating higher pressure settings especially when they are new to this therapy. Pressure restriction to 4-cm to 7-cm water pressure on auto CPAP has been a helpful technique to allow patients to become more comfortable with this therapy. Once patients are able to use PAP at lower pressures, these settings can be titrated up gradually for optimal effectiveness. Other desensitization techniques, such as use during daytime while distracted by other activities (such as watching TV) can be helpful in adjustment to PAP therapy. Addressing problems with nasal congestion can help improve PAP adherence. Finally, patients should be offered opportunities for education about their PAP machine on an ongoing basis. Lack of proficiency with humidifier use is a very common obstacle and frequently leads to PAP nonadherence. Teaching PAP operation should correspond to the patient’s level of education to be effective. PAP therapy remains the first-line treatment strategy for OSA as it is not invasive and highly effective. Nonsurgical sleep medicine physicians are uniquely positioned to implement and troubleshoot this therapy for sleep apnea patients before considering UAS.

As part of the screening process, it can be helpful to conduct routine multidisciplinary meetings to discuss patients who are being evaluated for UAS implantation. These meetings should include the otolaryngologist, nonsurgical sleep medicine physician, as well as additional staff (nurses, respiratory therapists, etc) who are involved in the UAS process. Having a mental health care provider as part of the multidisciplinary team during the screening process also could be a valuable addition as this specialist could evaluate and provide insight into a patient’s emotional status prior to implantation. This is common practice during evaluation for organ transplantation and would help to predict patient’s psychological well-being after this life-changing procedure.¹⁶ Having multidisciplinary agreement on patient’s candidacy for UAS therapy could improve long-term success of this treatment. Additionally, these multidisciplinary meetings as part of the UAS program can improve team camaraderie and prevent miscommunications during this therapy.

Drug-Induced Sedated Endoscopy

Patient pathway to neurostimulator implantation involves evaluation of the upper airway using drug-induced sedated endoscopy (DISE). This procedure helps determine whether the patient’s anatomy is appropriate for UAS. DISE also can evaluate the pattern of airway closure during an apneic episode. Anterior-posterior pattern of closure is associated with greater UAS effectiveness compared with concentric pattern of airway closure. DISE is typically performed by the otolaryngologist scheduled to implant the UAS. However, nonsurgical physicians who are part of the patient’s care team can be trained to perform this procedure especially if they have experience in performing endoscopy of the upper airway (such as a pulmonary specialist). This can make the evaluation process more efficient and dramatically improve access to care.

Coordination of Care

In order for the UAS program to be successful, the patient’s care team has to work closely with the device manufacturer throughout the implantation pathway and for ongoing patient care. The device manufacturer can assist with education of HCPs, surgical physicians, clinical support staff, and the patient. However, an even more essential role for industry support is during UAS device activation and subsequent titration of UAS via an overnight in-laboratory sleep study.

After surgical implantation, the UAS device activation can be performed in the nonsurgical sleep clinic and is done about 1 month later. This period allows for tissue healing after the surgery and for the patient to get accustomed to having this new device in their body. This activation can be done with assistance from an industry technician until the HCP is comfortable with this process. The multidisciplinary UAS team could choose to delegate device activation to a technician with specialized relevant training, such as RPSGT or respiratory therapist (RT).

This procedure involves determination of sensory and functional threshold for UAS. Sensory threshold is minimum voltage required for the patient to feel the stimulation. The functional threshold is the minimum voltage required to move the tongue past the lower front teeth during stimulation. After these thresholds are established, a voltage range is set on the device. The voltage at functional threshold is typically set at the lower level of this range, and the maximum level is set at 1 volt higher. Patients are able to adjust voltage within this range and are instructed to increase the voltage gradually (0.1-volt increments) while maintaining levels that are comfortable during sleep.

About a month after device activation, patients undergo another overnight polysomnogram for titration of UAS device. In order to educate and train the institutional RPSGT on how to perform this type of titration, an industry technician is required for the first few overnight titrations. The goal of this study is to establish appropriate voltage to resolve sleep-disordered breathing and insure patient comfort at this setting. Patients typically leave the study with a new voltage range. They are asked to keep effective voltage in mind and make appropriate adjustments to maintain comfortable therapy.

Successful UAS therapy includes multiple steps, such as implantation, activation, and titration. This protocol requires effective coordination of care that includes communication with surgical staff, patients, support staff, and industry liaison. Nonsurgical sleep medicine physicians can play a vital role by helping to coordinate care at the early stages of UAS therapy and facilitate effective communication among various providers involved in this process.

Follow-Up

After completion of the initial therapeutic pathway, patients continue to follow up regularly, monitoring for AEs from UAS therapy and sleep apnea symptoms. Patients can be followed in the nonsurgical sleep clinic after the initial postoperative appointment with the surgeon. Frequency of follow-up depends on the presence and severity of any AEs and residual symptoms of sleep apnea. Even though most AEs related to UAS therapy reported in the STAR trial were nonserious and transient, 2% of participants required surgical revision.³ Therefore, maintaining open channels of communication among the entire UAS patient care team even months and years after surgical implantation is important. The nonsurgical sleep medicine physician who will continue to monitor the patient’s progress may need to consult with the surgical colleague or industry liaison at any point during treatment.
 

Limitations

This review outlines the UAS therapy pathway and emphasizes the role of the nonsurgical sleep medicine provider. However, the experience describes a UAS program development at a single VA medical center. Since this UAS device and therapy have already been approved by the VA on a national level, we did not face any challenges with authorization and insurance compensation. Therefore, this review does not provide any guidance with these matters. These are certainly common concerns for sleep medicine providers who offer UAS therapy in medical practices outside the VA, and these would hopefully be addressed in the future.

Furthermore, this review is based on the pulmonary sleep medicine provider’s experience and perspective. Therefore, certain aspects of UAS therapy could be better addressed by nonsurgical sleep medicine providers in different fields of expertise. For example, a study by a psychiatrist or psychologist could provide insight into the emotional concerns of patients who are undergoing this novel and life-altering treatment that includes surgical implantation of hardware into the body. A neurologist could explore the long-term effects of recurrent electrical stimulation on the autonomic and somatic nervous system as well as the musculature of the upper airway.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary perspectives are needed to provide guidance for practitioners and institutions looking to set up and improve established UAS programs. As the long-term outcomes of the STAR trial continue to be published and provide more validation for UAS, this novel therapy will likely continue to gain acceptance as a safe and effective treatment for OSA.¹¹

Diseases of the musculoskeletal (MSK) system are common, accounting for some of the most frequent visits to primary care clinics.^1-3 In addition, care for patients with chronic MSK diseases represents a substantial economic burden.^4-6Unfortunately, despite the high prevalence and associated costs of these conditions, numerous reports have concluded that primary care providers (PCPs) are not well prepared to effectively address these problems due to gaps in health professions education (HPE) programs.^7-12 Among other effects, overutilization of high-cost diagnostic tools or specialty care providers are increasingly recognized as important drivers of unnecessary spending.^13-16

In response to this clinical training need, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a portfolio of educational experiences for VHA health care providers and trainees, including both the Salt Lake City and National MSK “mini-residencies.”^17-19 These programs have educated more than 800 individuals. Early observations show a progressive increase in the number of joint injections performed at participant’s VHA clinics as well as a reduction in unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging orders of the knee.^20,21 These findings may be interpreted as markers for improved access to care for veterans as well as cost savings for the health care system.

The success of these early initiatives was recognized by the medical leadership of the VHA Simulation Learning, Education and Research Network (SimLEARN), who requested the Mini-Residency course directors to implement a similar educational program at the National Simulation Center in Orlando, Florida. SimLEARN was created to promote best practices in learning and education and provides a high-tech immersive environment for the development and delivery of simulation-based training curricula to facilitate workforce development.²² This article describes the initial experience of the VHA SimLEARN MSK continuing professional development (CPD) training programs, including curriculum design and educational impact on early learners, and how this informed additional CPD needs to continue advancing MSK education and care.

Methods

The initial vision was inspired by the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative for PCPs, which involved 13 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers; its development, dissemination, and validity evidence for assessment methods have been previously described.^17,18,23 SimLEARN leadership attended a Mini-Residency, observing the educational experience and identifying learning objectives most aligned with national goals. The director and codirector of the MSK Mini-Residency (MJB, AMB) then worked with SimLEARN using its educational platform and train-the-trainer model to create a condensed 2-day course, centered on primary care evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. The course also included elements supporting educational leaders in providing similar trainings at their local facility (Table 1).

Curriculum was introduced through didactics and reinforced in hands-on sessions enhanced by peer-teaching, arthrocentesis task trainers, and simulated patient experiences. At the end of day 1, participants engaged in critical reflection, reviewing knowledge and skills they had acquired.

On day 2, each participant was evaluated using an observed structured clinical examination (OSCE) for the shoulder, followed by an observed structured teaching experience (OSTE). Given the complexity of the physical examination and the greater potential for appropriate interpretation of clinical findings to influence best practice care, the shoulder was emphasized for these experiences. Time constraints of a 2-day program based on SimLEARN format requirements prevented including an additional OSCE for the knee. At the conclusion of the course, faculty and participants discussed strategies for bringing this educational experience to learners at their local facilities as well as for avoiding potential barriers to implementation. The course was accredited through the VHA Employee Education System (EES), and participants received 16 hours of CPD credit.

Participants

Opportunity to attend was communicated through national, regional, and local VHA organizational networks. Participants self-registered online through the VHA Talent Management System, the main learning resource for VHA employee education, and registration was open to both PCPs and clinician educators. Class size was limited to 10 to facilitate detailed faculty observation during skill acquisition experiences, simulations, and assessment exercises.

Program Evaluation

A standard process for evaluating and measuring learning objectives was performed through VHA EES. Self-assessment surveys and OSCEs were used to assess the activity.

Self-assessment surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program. Content was adapted from that used in the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative and revised by experts in survey design.^18,24,25 Pre- and postcourse surveys asked participants to rate how important it was for them to be competent in evaluating shoulder and knee pain and in performing related joint injections, as well as to rate their level of confidence in their ability to evaluate and manage these conditions. The survey used 5 construct-specific response options distributed equally on a visual scale. Participants’ learning goals were collected on the precourse survey.

Participants’ competence in performing and interpreting a systematic and thorough physical examination of the shoulder and in suggesting a reasonable plan of management were assessed using a single-station OSCE. This tool, which presented learners with a simulated case depicting rotator cuff pathology, has been described in multiple educational settings, and validity evidence supporting its use has been published.^18,19,23 Course faculty conducted the OSCE, one as the simulated patient, the other as the rater. Immediately following the examination, both faculty conducted a debriefing session with each participant. The OSCE was scored using the validated checklist for specific elements of the shoulder exam, followed by a structured sequence of questions exploring participants’ interpretation of findings, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations for initial management. Scores for participants’ differential diagnosis were based on the completeness and specificity of diagnoses given; scores for management plans were based on appropriateness and accuracy of both the primary and secondary approach to treatment or further diagnostic efforts. A global rating (range 1 to 9) was assigned, independent of scores in other domains.

Following the OSCE, participants rotated through a 3-cycle OSTE where they practiced the roles of simulated patient, learner, and educator. Faculty observed each OSTE and led focused debriefing sessions immediately following each rotation to facilitate participants’ critical reflection of their involvement in these elements of the course. This exercise was formative without quantitative assessment of performance.

Statistical Analysis

Pre- and postsurvey data were analyzed using a paired Student t test. Comparisons between multiple variables (eg, OSCE scores by years of experience or level of credentials) were analyzed using analysis of variance. Relationships between variables were analyzed with a Pearson correlation. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS, Version 24 (Armonk, NY).

This project was reviewed by the institutional review board of the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City VA and was determined to be exempt from review because the work did not meet the definition of research with human subjects and was considered a quality improvement study.

Results

Twenty-four participants completed the program over 3 course offerings between February and May 2016, and all completed pre- and postcourse self-assessment surveys (Table 2). Self-ratings of the importance of competence in shoulder and knee MSK skills remained high before and after the course, and confidence improved significantly across all learning objectives. Despite the emphasis on the evaluation and management of shoulder pain, participants’ self-confidence still improved significantly with the knee—though these improvements were generally smaller in scale compared with those of the shoulder.

Overall OSCE scores and scores by domain were not found to be statistically different based on either years of experience or by level of credential or specialty (advanced practice registered nurse/physician assistant, PCP, or specialty care physician)(Table 3). However, there was a trend toward higher performance among the specialty care physician group, and a trend toward lower performance among participants with less than 3 years’ experience.

Discussion

Building on the foundation of other successful innovations in MSK education, the first year of the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrated the feasibility of a 2-day centralized national course as a method to increase participants’ confidence and competence in evaluating and managing MSK problems, and to disseminate a portable curriculum to a range of clinician educators. Although this course focused on developing competence for shoulder skills, including an OSCE on day 2, self-perceived improvements in participants’ ability to evaluate and manage knee pain were observed. Future program refinement and follow-up of participants’ experience and needs may lead to increased time allocated to the knee exam as well as objective measures of competence for knee skills.

In comparing our findings to the work that others have previously described, we looked for reports of CPD programs in 2 contexts: those that focused on acquisition of MSK skills relevant to clinical practice, and those designed as clinician educator or faculty development initiatives. Although there are few reports of MSK-themed CPD experiences designed specifically for nurses and allied health professionals, a recent effort to survey members of these disciplines in the United Kingdom was an important contribution to a systematic needs assessment.^26-28 Increased support from leadership, mostly in terms of time allowance and budgetary support, was identified as an important driver to facilitate participation in MSK CPD experiences. Through SimLEARN, the VHA is investing in CPD, providing the MSK Training Programs and other courses at no cost to its employees.

Most published reports on physician education have not evaluated content knowledge or physical examination skills with measures for which validity evidence has been published.^19,29,30 One notable exception is the 2000 Canadian Viscosupplementation Injector Preceptor experience, in which Bellamy and colleagues examined patient outcomes in evaluating their program.³¹

Our experience is congruent with the work of Macedo and colleagues and Sturpe and colleagues, who described the effectiveness and acceptability of an OSTE for faculty development.^32,33 These studies emphasize debriefing, a critical element in faculty development identified by Steinert and colleagues in a 2006 best evidence medical education (BEME) review.³⁴ The shoulder OSTE was one of the most well-received elements of our course, and each debrief was critical to facilitating rich discussions between educators and practitioners playing the role of teacher or student during this simulated experience, gaining insight into each other’s perspectives.

This program has several significant strengths: First, this is the most recent step in the development of a portfolio of innovative MSK CPD programs that were envisioned through a systematic process involving projections of cost-effectiveness, local pilot testing, and national expansion.^17,18,35 Second, the SimLEARN program uses assessment tools for which validity evidence has been published, made available for reflective critique by educational scholars.^19,23 This supports a national consortium of MSK educators, advancing clinical teaching and educational scholarship, and creating opportunities for interprofessional collaboration in congruence with the vision expressed in the 2010 Institute of Medicine report, “Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions,” as well as the 2016 update of the BEME recommendations for faculty development.^36,37

Our experience with the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrates need for 2 distinct courses: (1) the MSK Clinician—serving PCPs seeking to develop their skills in evaluating and managing patients with MSK problems; and (2), the MSK Master Educator—for those with preexisting content expertise who would value the introduction to a national curriculum and connections with other MSK master educators. Both of these are now offered regularly through SimLEARN for VHA and US Department of Defense employees. The MSK Clinician program establishes competence in systematically evaluating and managing shoulder and knee MSK problems in an educational setting and prepares participants for subsequent clinical experiences where they can perform related procedures if desired, under appropriate supervision. The Master Educator program introduces partici pants to the clinician curriculum and provides the opportunity to develop an individualized plan for implementation of an MSK educational program at their home institutions. Participants are selected through a competitive application process, and funding for travel to attend the Master Educator program is provided by SimLEARN for participants who are accepted. Additionally, the Master Educator program serves as a repository for potential future SimLEARN MSK Clinician course faculty.

Limitations

The small number of participants may limit the validity of our conclusions. Although we included an OSCE to measure competence in performing and interpreting the shoulder exam, the durability of these skills is not known. Periodic postcourse OSCEs could help determine this and refresh and preserve accuracy in the performance of specific maneuvers. Second, although this experience was rated highly by participants, we do not know the impact of the program on their daily work or career trajectory. Sustained follow-up of learners, perhaps developed on the model of the Long-Term Career Outcome Study, may increase the value of this experience for future participants.³⁸ This program appealed to a diverse pool of learners, with a broad range of precourse expertise and varied expectations of how course experiences would impact their future work and career development. Some clinical educator attendees came from tertiary care facilities affiliated with academic medical centers, held specialist or subspecialist credentials, and had formal responsibilities as leaders in HPE. Other clinical practitioner participants were solitary PCPs, often in rural or home-based settings; although they may have been eager to apply new knowledge and skills in patient care, they neither anticipated nor desired any role as an educator.

Conclusion

The initial SimLEARN MSK Training Program provides PCPs and clinician educators with rich learning experiences, increasing confidence in addressing MSK problems and competence in performing and interpreting a systematic physical examination of the shoulder. The success of this program has created new opportunities for practitioners seeking to strengthen clinical skills and for leaders in health professions education looking to disseminate similar trainings and connect with a national group of educators.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the faculty and staff at the Veterans Health Administration SimLEARN National Simulation Center, the faculty of the Salt Lake City Musculoskeletal Mini-Residency program, the supportive leadership of the George E. Wahlen Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the efforts of Danielle Blake for logistical support and data entry.

Diseases of the musculoskeletal (MSK) system are common, accounting for some of the most frequent visits to primary care clinics.^1-3 In addition, care for patients with chronic MSK diseases represents a substantial economic burden.^4-6Unfortunately, despite the high prevalence and associated costs of these conditions, numerous reports have concluded that primary care providers (PCPs) are not well prepared to effectively address these problems due to gaps in health professions education (HPE) programs.^7-12 Among other effects, overutilization of high-cost diagnostic tools or specialty care providers are increasingly recognized as important drivers of unnecessary spending.^13-16

In response to this clinical training need, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a portfolio of educational experiences for VHA health care providers and trainees, including both the Salt Lake City and National MSK “mini-residencies.”^17-19 These programs have educated more than 800 individuals. Early observations show a progressive increase in the number of joint injections performed at participant’s VHA clinics as well as a reduction in unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging orders of the knee.^20,21 These findings may be interpreted as markers for improved access to care for veterans as well as cost savings for the health care system.

The success of these early initiatives was recognized by the medical leadership of the VHA Simulation Learning, Education and Research Network (SimLEARN), who requested the Mini-Residency course directors to implement a similar educational program at the National Simulation Center in Orlando, Florida. SimLEARN was created to promote best practices in learning and education and provides a high-tech immersive environment for the development and delivery of simulation-based training curricula to facilitate workforce development.²² This article describes the initial experience of the VHA SimLEARN MSK continuing professional development (CPD) training programs, including curriculum design and educational impact on early learners, and how this informed additional CPD needs to continue advancing MSK education and care.

Methods

The initial vision was inspired by the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative for PCPs, which involved 13 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers; its development, dissemination, and validity evidence for assessment methods have been previously described.^17,18,23 SimLEARN leadership attended a Mini-Residency, observing the educational experience and identifying learning objectives most aligned with national goals. The director and codirector of the MSK Mini-Residency (MJB, AMB) then worked with SimLEARN using its educational platform and train-the-trainer model to create a condensed 2-day course, centered on primary care evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. The course also included elements supporting educational leaders in providing similar trainings at their local facility (Table 1).

Curriculum was introduced through didactics and reinforced in hands-on sessions enhanced by peer-teaching, arthrocentesis task trainers, and simulated patient experiences. At the end of day 1, participants engaged in critical reflection, reviewing knowledge and skills they had acquired.

On day 2, each participant was evaluated using an observed structured clinical examination (OSCE) for the shoulder, followed by an observed structured teaching experience (OSTE). Given the complexity of the physical examination and the greater potential for appropriate interpretation of clinical findings to influence best practice care, the shoulder was emphasized for these experiences. Time constraints of a 2-day program based on SimLEARN format requirements prevented including an additional OSCE for the knee. At the conclusion of the course, faculty and participants discussed strategies for bringing this educational experience to learners at their local facilities as well as for avoiding potential barriers to implementation. The course was accredited through the VHA Employee Education System (EES), and participants received 16 hours of CPD credit.

Participants

Opportunity to attend was communicated through national, regional, and local VHA organizational networks. Participants self-registered online through the VHA Talent Management System, the main learning resource for VHA employee education, and registration was open to both PCPs and clinician educators. Class size was limited to 10 to facilitate detailed faculty observation during skill acquisition experiences, simulations, and assessment exercises.

Program Evaluation

A standard process for evaluating and measuring learning objectives was performed through VHA EES. Self-assessment surveys and OSCEs were used to assess the activity.

Self-assessment surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program. Content was adapted from that used in the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative and revised by experts in survey design.^18,24,25 Pre- and postcourse surveys asked participants to rate how important it was for them to be competent in evaluating shoulder and knee pain and in performing related joint injections, as well as to rate their level of confidence in their ability to evaluate and manage these conditions. The survey used 5 construct-specific response options distributed equally on a visual scale. Participants’ learning goals were collected on the precourse survey.

Participants’ competence in performing and interpreting a systematic and thorough physical examination of the shoulder and in suggesting a reasonable plan of management were assessed using a single-station OSCE. This tool, which presented learners with a simulated case depicting rotator cuff pathology, has been described in multiple educational settings, and validity evidence supporting its use has been published.^18,19,23 Course faculty conducted the OSCE, one as the simulated patient, the other as the rater. Immediately following the examination, both faculty conducted a debriefing session with each participant. The OSCE was scored using the validated checklist for specific elements of the shoulder exam, followed by a structured sequence of questions exploring participants’ interpretation of findings, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations for initial management. Scores for participants’ differential diagnosis were based on the completeness and specificity of diagnoses given; scores for management plans were based on appropriateness and accuracy of both the primary and secondary approach to treatment or further diagnostic efforts. A global rating (range 1 to 9) was assigned, independent of scores in other domains.

Following the OSCE, participants rotated through a 3-cycle OSTE where they practiced the roles of simulated patient, learner, and educator. Faculty observed each OSTE and led focused debriefing sessions immediately following each rotation to facilitate participants’ critical reflection of their involvement in these elements of the course. This exercise was formative without quantitative assessment of performance.

Statistical Analysis

Pre- and postsurvey data were analyzed using a paired Student t test. Comparisons between multiple variables (eg, OSCE scores by years of experience or level of credentials) were analyzed using analysis of variance. Relationships between variables were analyzed with a Pearson correlation. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS, Version 24 (Armonk, NY).

This project was reviewed by the institutional review board of the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City VA and was determined to be exempt from review because the work did not meet the definition of research with human subjects and was considered a quality improvement study.

Results

Twenty-four participants completed the program over 3 course offerings between February and May 2016, and all completed pre- and postcourse self-assessment surveys (Table 2). Self-ratings of the importance of competence in shoulder and knee MSK skills remained high before and after the course, and confidence improved significantly across all learning objectives. Despite the emphasis on the evaluation and management of shoulder pain, participants’ self-confidence still improved significantly with the knee—though these improvements were generally smaller in scale compared with those of the shoulder.

Overall OSCE scores and scores by domain were not found to be statistically different based on either years of experience or by level of credential or specialty (advanced practice registered nurse/physician assistant, PCP, or specialty care physician)(Table 3). However, there was a trend toward higher performance among the specialty care physician group, and a trend toward lower performance among participants with less than 3 years’ experience.

Discussion

Building on the foundation of other successful innovations in MSK education, the first year of the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrated the feasibility of a 2-day centralized national course as a method to increase participants’ confidence and competence in evaluating and managing MSK problems, and to disseminate a portable curriculum to a range of clinician educators. Although this course focused on developing competence for shoulder skills, including an OSCE on day 2, self-perceived improvements in participants’ ability to evaluate and manage knee pain were observed. Future program refinement and follow-up of participants’ experience and needs may lead to increased time allocated to the knee exam as well as objective measures of competence for knee skills.

In comparing our findings to the work that others have previously described, we looked for reports of CPD programs in 2 contexts: those that focused on acquisition of MSK skills relevant to clinical practice, and those designed as clinician educator or faculty development initiatives. Although there are few reports of MSK-themed CPD experiences designed specifically for nurses and allied health professionals, a recent effort to survey members of these disciplines in the United Kingdom was an important contribution to a systematic needs assessment.^26-28 Increased support from leadership, mostly in terms of time allowance and budgetary support, was identified as an important driver to facilitate participation in MSK CPD experiences. Through SimLEARN, the VHA is investing in CPD, providing the MSK Training Programs and other courses at no cost to its employees.

Most published reports on physician education have not evaluated content knowledge or physical examination skills with measures for which validity evidence has been published.^19,29,30 One notable exception is the 2000 Canadian Viscosupplementation Injector Preceptor experience, in which Bellamy and colleagues examined patient outcomes in evaluating their program.³¹

Our experience is congruent with the work of Macedo and colleagues and Sturpe and colleagues, who described the effectiveness and acceptability of an OSTE for faculty development.^32,33 These studies emphasize debriefing, a critical element in faculty development identified by Steinert and colleagues in a 2006 best evidence medical education (BEME) review.³⁴ The shoulder OSTE was one of the most well-received elements of our course, and each debrief was critical to facilitating rich discussions between educators and practitioners playing the role of teacher or student during this simulated experience, gaining insight into each other’s perspectives.

This program has several significant strengths: First, this is the most recent step in the development of a portfolio of innovative MSK CPD programs that were envisioned through a systematic process involving projections of cost-effectiveness, local pilot testing, and national expansion.^17,18,35 Second, the SimLEARN program uses assessment tools for which validity evidence has been published, made available for reflective critique by educational scholars.^19,23 This supports a national consortium of MSK educators, advancing clinical teaching and educational scholarship, and creating opportunities for interprofessional collaboration in congruence with the vision expressed in the 2010 Institute of Medicine report, “Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions,” as well as the 2016 update of the BEME recommendations for faculty development.^36,37

Our experience with the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrates need for 2 distinct courses: (1) the MSK Clinician—serving PCPs seeking to develop their skills in evaluating and managing patients with MSK problems; and (2), the MSK Master Educator—for those with preexisting content expertise who would value the introduction to a national curriculum and connections with other MSK master educators. Both of these are now offered regularly through SimLEARN for VHA and US Department of Defense employees. The MSK Clinician program establishes competence in systematically evaluating and managing shoulder and knee MSK problems in an educational setting and prepares participants for subsequent clinical experiences where they can perform related procedures if desired, under appropriate supervision. The Master Educator program introduces partici pants to the clinician curriculum and provides the opportunity to develop an individualized plan for implementation of an MSK educational program at their home institutions. Participants are selected through a competitive application process, and funding for travel to attend the Master Educator program is provided by SimLEARN for participants who are accepted. Additionally, the Master Educator program serves as a repository for potential future SimLEARN MSK Clinician course faculty.

Limitations

The small number of participants may limit the validity of our conclusions. Although we included an OSCE to measure competence in performing and interpreting the shoulder exam, the durability of these skills is not known. Periodic postcourse OSCEs could help determine this and refresh and preserve accuracy in the performance of specific maneuvers. Second, although this experience was rated highly by participants, we do not know the impact of the program on their daily work or career trajectory. Sustained follow-up of learners, perhaps developed on the model of the Long-Term Career Outcome Study, may increase the value of this experience for future participants.³⁸ This program appealed to a diverse pool of learners, with a broad range of precourse expertise and varied expectations of how course experiences would impact their future work and career development. Some clinical educator attendees came from tertiary care facilities affiliated with academic medical centers, held specialist or subspecialist credentials, and had formal responsibilities as leaders in HPE. Other clinical practitioner participants were solitary PCPs, often in rural or home-based settings; although they may have been eager to apply new knowledge and skills in patient care, they neither anticipated nor desired any role as an educator.

Conclusion

The initial SimLEARN MSK Training Program provides PCPs and clinician educators with rich learning experiences, increasing confidence in addressing MSK problems and competence in performing and interpreting a systematic physical examination of the shoulder. The success of this program has created new opportunities for practitioners seeking to strengthen clinical skills and for leaders in health professions education looking to disseminate similar trainings and connect with a national group of educators.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the faculty and staff at the Veterans Health Administration SimLEARN National Simulation Center, the faculty of the Salt Lake City Musculoskeletal Mini-Residency program, the supportive leadership of the George E. Wahlen Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the efforts of Danielle Blake for logistical support and data entry.

Diseases of the musculoskeletal (MSK) system are common, accounting for some of the most frequent visits to primary care clinics.^1-3 In addition, care for patients with chronic MSK diseases represents a substantial economic burden.^4-6Unfortunately, despite the high prevalence and associated costs of these conditions, numerous reports have concluded that primary care providers (PCPs) are not well prepared to effectively address these problems due to gaps in health professions education (HPE) programs.^7-12 Among other effects, overutilization of high-cost diagnostic tools or specialty care providers are increasingly recognized as important drivers of unnecessary spending.^13-16

In response to this clinical training need, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a portfolio of educational experiences for VHA health care providers and trainees, including both the Salt Lake City and National MSK “mini-residencies.”^17-19 These programs have educated more than 800 individuals. Early observations show a progressive increase in the number of joint injections performed at participant’s VHA clinics as well as a reduction in unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging orders of the knee.^20,21 These findings may be interpreted as markers for improved access to care for veterans as well as cost savings for the health care system.

The success of these early initiatives was recognized by the medical leadership of the VHA Simulation Learning, Education and Research Network (SimLEARN), who requested the Mini-Residency course directors to implement a similar educational program at the National Simulation Center in Orlando, Florida. SimLEARN was created to promote best practices in learning and education and provides a high-tech immersive environment for the development and delivery of simulation-based training curricula to facilitate workforce development.²² This article describes the initial experience of the VHA SimLEARN MSK continuing professional development (CPD) training programs, including curriculum design and educational impact on early learners, and how this informed additional CPD needs to continue advancing MSK education and care.

Methods

The initial vision was inspired by the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative for PCPs, which involved 13 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers; its development, dissemination, and validity evidence for assessment methods have been previously described.^17,18,23 SimLEARN leadership attended a Mini-Residency, observing the educational experience and identifying learning objectives most aligned with national goals. The director and codirector of the MSK Mini-Residency (MJB, AMB) then worked with SimLEARN using its educational platform and train-the-trainer model to create a condensed 2-day course, centered on primary care evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. The course also included elements supporting educational leaders in providing similar trainings at their local facility (Table 1).

Curriculum was introduced through didactics and reinforced in hands-on sessions enhanced by peer-teaching, arthrocentesis task trainers, and simulated patient experiences. At the end of day 1, participants engaged in critical reflection, reviewing knowledge and skills they had acquired.

On day 2, each participant was evaluated using an observed structured clinical examination (OSCE) for the shoulder, followed by an observed structured teaching experience (OSTE). Given the complexity of the physical examination and the greater potential for appropriate interpretation of clinical findings to influence best practice care, the shoulder was emphasized for these experiences. Time constraints of a 2-day program based on SimLEARN format requirements prevented including an additional OSCE for the knee. At the conclusion of the course, faculty and participants discussed strategies for bringing this educational experience to learners at their local facilities as well as for avoiding potential barriers to implementation. The course was accredited through the VHA Employee Education System (EES), and participants received 16 hours of CPD credit.

Participants

Opportunity to attend was communicated through national, regional, and local VHA organizational networks. Participants self-registered online through the VHA Talent Management System, the main learning resource for VHA employee education, and registration was open to both PCPs and clinician educators. Class size was limited to 10 to facilitate detailed faculty observation during skill acquisition experiences, simulations, and assessment exercises.

Program Evaluation

A standard process for evaluating and measuring learning objectives was performed through VHA EES. Self-assessment surveys and OSCEs were used to assess the activity.

Self-assessment surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program. Content was adapted from that used in the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative and revised by experts in survey design.^18,24,25 Pre- and postcourse surveys asked participants to rate how important it was for them to be competent in evaluating shoulder and knee pain and in performing related joint injections, as well as to rate their level of confidence in their ability to evaluate and manage these conditions. The survey used 5 construct-specific response options distributed equally on a visual scale. Participants’ learning goals were collected on the precourse survey.

Participants’ competence in performing and interpreting a systematic and thorough physical examination of the shoulder and in suggesting a reasonable plan of management were assessed using a single-station OSCE. This tool, which presented learners with a simulated case depicting rotator cuff pathology, has been described in multiple educational settings, and validity evidence supporting its use has been published.^18,19,23 Course faculty conducted the OSCE, one as the simulated patient, the other as the rater. Immediately following the examination, both faculty conducted a debriefing session with each participant. The OSCE was scored using the validated checklist for specific elements of the shoulder exam, followed by a structured sequence of questions exploring participants’ interpretation of findings, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations for initial management. Scores for participants’ differential diagnosis were based on the completeness and specificity of diagnoses given; scores for management plans were based on appropriateness and accuracy of both the primary and secondary approach to treatment or further diagnostic efforts. A global rating (range 1 to 9) was assigned, independent of scores in other domains.

Following the OSCE, participants rotated through a 3-cycle OSTE where they practiced the roles of simulated patient, learner, and educator. Faculty observed each OSTE and led focused debriefing sessions immediately following each rotation to facilitate participants’ critical reflection of their involvement in these elements of the course. This exercise was formative without quantitative assessment of performance.

Statistical Analysis

Pre- and postsurvey data were analyzed using a paired Student t test. Comparisons between multiple variables (eg, OSCE scores by years of experience or level of credentials) were analyzed using analysis of variance. Relationships between variables were analyzed with a Pearson correlation. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS, Version 24 (Armonk, NY).

This project was reviewed by the institutional review board of the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City VA and was determined to be exempt from review because the work did not meet the definition of research with human subjects and was considered a quality improvement study.

Results

Twenty-four participants completed the program over 3 course offerings between February and May 2016, and all completed pre- and postcourse self-assessment surveys (Table 2). Self-ratings of the importance of competence in shoulder and knee MSK skills remained high before and after the course, and confidence improved significantly across all learning objectives. Despite the emphasis on the evaluation and management of shoulder pain, participants’ self-confidence still improved significantly with the knee—though these improvements were generally smaller in scale compared with those of the shoulder.

Overall OSCE scores and scores by domain were not found to be statistically different based on either years of experience or by level of credential or specialty (advanced practice registered nurse/physician assistant, PCP, or specialty care physician)(Table 3). However, there was a trend toward higher performance among the specialty care physician group, and a trend toward lower performance among participants with less than 3 years’ experience.

Discussion

Building on the foundation of other successful innovations in MSK education, the first year of the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrated the feasibility of a 2-day centralized national course as a method to increase participants’ confidence and competence in evaluating and managing MSK problems, and to disseminate a portable curriculum to a range of clinician educators. Although this course focused on developing competence for shoulder skills, including an OSCE on day 2, self-perceived improvements in participants’ ability to evaluate and manage knee pain were observed. Future program refinement and follow-up of participants’ experience and needs may lead to increased time allocated to the knee exam as well as objective measures of competence for knee skills.

In comparing our findings to the work that others have previously described, we looked for reports of CPD programs in 2 contexts: those that focused on acquisition of MSK skills relevant to clinical practice, and those designed as clinician educator or faculty development initiatives. Although there are few reports of MSK-themed CPD experiences designed specifically for nurses and allied health professionals, a recent effort to survey members of these disciplines in the United Kingdom was an important contribution to a systematic needs assessment.^26-28 Increased support from leadership, mostly in terms of time allowance and budgetary support, was identified as an important driver to facilitate participation in MSK CPD experiences. Through SimLEARN, the VHA is investing in CPD, providing the MSK Training Programs and other courses at no cost to its employees.

Most published reports on physician education have not evaluated content knowledge or physical examination skills with measures for which validity evidence has been published.^19,29,30 One notable exception is the 2000 Canadian Viscosupplementation Injector Preceptor experience, in which Bellamy and colleagues examined patient outcomes in evaluating their program.³¹

Our experience is congruent with the work of Macedo and colleagues and Sturpe and colleagues, who described the effectiveness and acceptability of an OSTE for faculty development.^32,33 These studies emphasize debriefing, a critical element in faculty development identified by Steinert and colleagues in a 2006 best evidence medical education (BEME) review.³⁴ The shoulder OSTE was one of the most well-received elements of our course, and each debrief was critical to facilitating rich discussions between educators and practitioners playing the role of teacher or student during this simulated experience, gaining insight into each other’s perspectives.

This program has several significant strengths: First, this is the most recent step in the development of a portfolio of innovative MSK CPD programs that were envisioned through a systematic process involving projections of cost-effectiveness, local pilot testing, and national expansion.^17,18,35 Second, the SimLEARN program uses assessment tools for which validity evidence has been published, made available for reflective critique by educational scholars.^19,23 This supports a national consortium of MSK educators, advancing clinical teaching and educational scholarship, and creating opportunities for interprofessional collaboration in congruence with the vision expressed in the 2010 Institute of Medicine report, “Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions,” as well as the 2016 update of the BEME recommendations for faculty development.^36,37

Our experience with the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrates need for 2 distinct courses: (1) the MSK Clinician—serving PCPs seeking to develop their skills in evaluating and managing patients with MSK problems; and (2), the MSK Master Educator—for those with preexisting content expertise who would value the introduction to a national curriculum and connections with other MSK master educators. Both of these are now offered regularly through SimLEARN for VHA and US Department of Defense employees. The MSK Clinician program establishes competence in systematically evaluating and managing shoulder and knee MSK problems in an educational setting and prepares participants for subsequent clinical experiences where they can perform related procedures if desired, under appropriate supervision. The Master Educator program introduces partici pants to the clinician curriculum and provides the opportunity to develop an individualized plan for implementation of an MSK educational program at their home institutions. Participants are selected through a competitive application process, and funding for travel to attend the Master Educator program is provided by SimLEARN for participants who are accepted. Additionally, the Master Educator program serves as a repository for potential future SimLEARN MSK Clinician course faculty.

Limitations

The small number of participants may limit the validity of our conclusions. Although we included an OSCE to measure competence in performing and interpreting the shoulder exam, the durability of these skills is not known. Periodic postcourse OSCEs could help determine this and refresh and preserve accuracy in the performance of specific maneuvers. Second, although this experience was rated highly by participants, we do not know the impact of the program on their daily work or career trajectory. Sustained follow-up of learners, perhaps developed on the model of the Long-Term Career Outcome Study, may increase the value of this experience for future participants.³⁸ This program appealed to a diverse pool of learners, with a broad range of precourse expertise and varied expectations of how course experiences would impact their future work and career development. Some clinical educator attendees came from tertiary care facilities affiliated with academic medical centers, held specialist or subspecialist credentials, and had formal responsibilities as leaders in HPE. Other clinical practitioner participants were solitary PCPs, often in rural or home-based settings; although they may have been eager to apply new knowledge and skills in patient care, they neither anticipated nor desired any role as an educator.

Conclusion

The initial SimLEARN MSK Training Program provides PCPs and clinician educators with rich learning experiences, increasing confidence in addressing MSK problems and competence in performing and interpreting a systematic physical examination of the shoulder. The success of this program has created new opportunities for practitioners seeking to strengthen clinical skills and for leaders in health professions education looking to disseminate similar trainings and connect with a national group of educators.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the faculty and staff at the Veterans Health Administration SimLEARN National Simulation Center, the faculty of the Salt Lake City Musculoskeletal Mini-Residency program, the supportive leadership of the George E. Wahlen Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the efforts of Danielle Blake for logistical support and data entry.