Alison B. Hamilton

Women Veterans’ Healthcare Delivery Preferences and Use by Military Service Era: Findings from the National Survey of Women Veterans

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDThe number of women Veterans (WVs) utilizing the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has doubled over the past decade, heightening the importance of understanding their healthcare delivery preferences and utilization patterns. Other studies have identified healthcare issues and behaviors of WVs in specific military service eras (e.g., Vietnam), but delivery preferences and utilization have not been examined within and across eras on a population basis.OBJECTIVETo identify healthcare delivery preferences and healthcare use of WVs by military service era to inform program design and patient-centeredness.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTSCross-sectional 2008–2009 survey of a nationally representative sample of 3,611 WVs, weighted to the population.MAIN MEASURESHealthcare delivery preferences measured as importance of selected healthcare features; types of healthcare services and number of visits used; use of VA or non-VA; all by military service era.KEY RESULTSMilitary service era differences were present in types of healthcare used, with World War II and Korea era WVs using more specialty care, and Vietnam era-to-present WVs using more women’s health and mental health care. Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) WVs made more healthcare visits than WVs of earlier military eras. The greatest healthcare delivery concerns were location convenience for Vietnam and earlier WVs, and cost for Gulf War 1 and OEF/OIF/OND WVs. Co-located gynecology with general healthcare was also rated important by a sizable proportion of WVs from all military service eras.CONCLUSIONSOur findings point to the importance of ensuring access to specialty services closer to home for WVs, which may require technology-supported care. Younger WVs’ higher mental health care use reinforces the need for integration and coordination of primary care, reproductive health and mental health care.

Implementation of a Family Intervention for Individuals with Schizophrenia

BACKGROUNDFamilies are rarely included in clinical care despite research showing that family involvement has a positive effect on individuals with schizophrenia by reducing relapse, improving work functioning, and social adjustment.OBJECTIVESThe VA QUERI study, EQUIP (Enhancing QUality of care In Psychosis), implemented family services for this population.DESIGNAt two VA medical centers, veterans with schizophrenia and their clinicians were interviewed separately at baseline and 15 months. A family intervention was implemented, and a process evaluation of the implementation was conducted.PARTICIPANTSVeterans with schizophrenia (n = 173) and their clinicians (n = 29).INTERVENTIONConsent to contact family was obtained, mailers to engage families were sent, families were prioritized as high need for family services, and staff volunteers were trained in a brief three-session family intervention.MAIN RESULTSOf those enrolled, 100 provided consent for family involvement. Seventy-three of the 100 were sent a mailer to engage them in care; none became involved. Clinicians were provided assessment data on their patients and notified of 50 patients needing family services. Of those 50, 6 families were already involved, 34 were never contacted, and 10 were contacted; 7 new families became involved in care. No families were referred to the family psychoeducational program.CONCLUSIONSUptake of the family intervention failed due to barriers from all stakeholders. Families did not respond to the mailer, patients were concerned about privacy and burdening family, clinicians had misperceptions of family-patient contact, and organizations did not free up time or offer incentives to provide the service. If a full partnership with patients and families is to be achieved, these barriers will need to be addressed, and a family-friendly environment will need to be supported by clinicians and their organizations. Applicability to family involvement in other disorders is discussed.

Organizational Readiness in Specialty Mental Health Care

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDImplementing quality improvement efforts in clinics is challenging. Assessment of organizational “readiness” for change can set the stage for implementation by providing information regarding existing strengths and deficiencies, thereby increasing the chance of a successful improvement effort. This paper discusses organizational assessment in specialty mental health, in preparation for improving care for individuals with schizophrenia.OBJECTIVETo assess organizational readiness for change in specialty mental health in order to facilitate locally tailored implementation strategies.DESIGNEQUIP-2 is a site-level controlled trial at nine VA medical centers (four intervention, five control). Providers at all sites completed an organizational readiness for change (ORC) measure, and key stakeholders at the intervention sites completed a semi-structured interview at baseline.PARTICIPANTSAt the four intervention sites, 16 administrators and 43 clinical staff completed the ORC, and 38 key stakeholders were interviewed.MAIN RESULTSThe readiness domains of training needs, communication, and change were the domains with lower mean scores (i.e., potential deficiencies) ranging from a low of 23.8 to a high of 36.2 on a scale of 10–50, while staff attributes of growth and adaptability had higher mean scores (i.e., potential strengths) ranging from a low of 35.4 to a high of 41.1. Semi-structured interviews revealed that staff perceptions and experiences of change and decision-making are affected by larger structural factors such as change mandates from VA headquarters.CONCLUSIONSMotivation for change, organizational climate, staff perceptions and beliefs, and prior experience with change efforts contribute to readiness for change in specialty mental health. Sites with less readiness for change may require more flexibility in the implementation of a quality improvement intervention. We suggest that uptake of evidence-based practices can be enhanced by tailoring implementation efforts to the strengths and deficiencies of the organizations that are implementing quality improvement changes.

Factors influencing organizational adoption and implementation of clinical genetic services

Purpose:We sought to identify characteristics of genetic services that facilitate or hinder adoption.Methods:We conducted semi-structured key informant interviews in five clinical specialties (primary care, medical oncology, neurology, cardiology, pathology/laboratory medicine) within 13 Veterans Administration facilities.Results:Genetic services (defined as genetic testing and consultation) were not typically characterized by informants (n = 64) as advantageous for their facilities or their patients; compatible with organizational norms of low cost and high clinical impact; or applicable to patient populations or norms of clinical care. Furthermore, genetic services had not been systematically adopted in most facilities because of their complexity: knowledge of and expertise on genetic testing was limited, and organizational barriers to utilization of genetic services were formidable. The few facilities that had some success with implementation of genetic services had knowledgeable clinicians interested in developing services and organizational-level facilitators such as accessible genetic test–ordering processes.Conclusion:Adoption and implementation of genetic services will require a multilevel effort that includes education of providers and administrators, opportunities for observing the benefits of genetic medicine, strategies for reducing the complexity of genomic medicine, expanded strategies for accessing genetics expertise and streamlining utilization, and resources dedicated to assessing the value of genetic information for the outcomes that matter to health-care organizations.Genet Med 2014:16(3):238–245.

The Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity in HIV Risk, Interventions, and Prevention: New Frontiers for Psychology.

This article articulates a contextualized understanding of gender and ethnicity as interacting social determinants of HIV risk and acquisition, with special focus on African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos--2 ethnic groups currently at most risk for HIV/AIDS acquisition in the United States. First, sex and gender are defined. Second, a conceptual model of gender, ethnicity, and HIV risk and resilience is presented. Third, a historical backdrop of gender and ethnic disparities is provided, with attention to key moments in history when notions of the intersections between gender, ethnicity, and HIV have taken important shifts. Finally, new frontiers in psychology are presented, with recommendations as to how psychology as a discipline can better incorporate considerations of gender and ethnicity as not only HIV risk factors but also as potential avenues of resilience in ethnic families and communities. Throughout the article, we promulgate the notion of a syndemic intersectional approach, which provides a critical framework for understanding and building the conditions that create and sustain overall community health by locating gendered lived experiences and expectations within the layered conceptual model ranging from the biological self to broader societal structures that define and constrain personal decisions, behaviors, actions, resources, and consequences. For ethnic individuals and populations, health disparities, stress and depression, substance abuse, and violence and trauma are of considerable concern, especially with regard to HIV risk, infection, and treatment. The conceptual model poses new frontiers for psychology in HIV policy, research, interventions, and training.

Huddle up!: The adoption and use of structured team communication for VA medical home implementation

Background: Daily clinical team meetings (i.e., “huddles”) may be helpful in implementing new roles and responsibilities for patient care because they provide a regular opportunity for member learning and feedback. Purposes: We examined how huddles were implemented in the context of the VA patient-centered medical home (PCMH) transformation, including assessing barriers and facilitators to regular huddling among small teams (“teamlets”). We assessed the extent to which teamlet members that huddled had higher self-efficacy for PCMH changes, reported better teamwork experiences, and perceived more supportive practice environments. Methodology/Approach: We used a convergent mixed-methods approach to analyze 79 teamlet member interviews from six VA primary care practices and 418 clinician and staff PCMH survey responses from the six interviewed practices and 13 additional practices in the same region. Findings: Most members reported participating in teamlet huddles when asked in surveys (85%). A minority of interview participants, however, described routine huddling focused on previsit planning that included all members. When members reported routine teamlet huddling, activities included (a) previsit planning, (b) strategizing treatment plans for patients with special or complex needs, (c) addressing daily workflow and communication issues through collective problem solving, and (d) ensuring awareness of what team members do and what actions are happening on the teamlet and in the practice. Primary care providers (PCPs) were least likely to report routine huddling. PCP huddlers reported greater self-efficacy for implementing PCMH changes. All huddlers, irrespective of role, reported better teamwork and more supportive practice climates. The most common barriers to teamlet huddling were limited time and operational constraints. Practice Implications: In order to improve the impact of huddles on patient care, practice leaders should clearly communicate the goals, requirements, and benefits of huddling and provide adequate time and resources to ensure that frontline teams use huddle time to improve patient care.

Teamlet structure and early experiences of medical home implementation for veterans.

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDHigh functioning interdisciplinary primary care teams are a critical component of the patient-centered medical home. In 2010, the Veterans Administration (VA) implemented a medical home model termed the Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT), with reorganization of staff into small teams (“teamlets”) as a core feature.OBJECTIVETo examine the early experiences of primary care personnel as they assumed new roles through reorganization into teamlets.DESIGNConvergent mixed methods study design involving semi-structured interviews and a survey; data were collected in 2011 and 2012.PARTICIPANTSWe interviewed 41 frontline teamlet members (i.e., primary care physicians and staff) from three practices that were part of a PACT demonstration laboratory and examined clinician and staff survey data from 22 practices.MAIN MEASURESSemi-structured interview guide and clinician and staff survey questions covering the following domains: teamlet formation and structure, within-teamlet communication, cross-coverage, role changes, teamlet training, impact on Veterans, and leadership facilitation and support.KEY RESULTSRespondents had limited input into teamlet structure and indicated limited training on the PACT initiative. Guidelines delineating each teamlet member’s roles and responsibilities were emphasized as important needs. Chronic understaffing also contributed to implementation challenges and territorial attitudes surfaced when cross-coverage was not clear. In addition, several core features of VA’s medical home transformation were not fully implemented by teamlet members. Most also reported limited guidance and feedback from leadership. Despite these challenges, teamlet-based care was perceived to have a positive impact on Veterans’ experiences of primary care and also resulted in improved communication among staff.CONCLUSIONSThe PACT teamlet model holds much promise for improving primary care at the VA. However, more comprehensive training, improving the stability of teamlets, developing clear cross-coverage policies, and better defined teamlet member responsibilities are important areas in need of attention by VA leadership.

Implementation of evidence-based employment services in specialty mental health.

OBJECTIVE Study a quality improvement approach for implementing evidence-based employment services at specialty mental health clinics. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING Semistructured interviews with clinicians and administrators before, during, and after implementation. Qualitative field notes, structured baseline and follow-up interviews with patients, semistructured interviews with patients after implementation, and administrative data. STUDY DESIGN Site-level controlled trial at four implementation and four control sites. Hybrid implementation-effectiveness study with mixed methods intervention evaluation design. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS Site visits, in-person and telephone interviews, patient surveys, patient self-assessment. A total of 801 patients completed baseline surveys and 53 clinicians and other clinical key stakeholders completed longitudinal qualitative interviews. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS At baseline, sites varied in the availability, utilization, and quality of supported employment. Each site needed quality improvement for this service, though for differing reasons, with some needing development of the service itself and others needing increased service capacity. Improvements in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and referral behaviors were evident in mid- and postimplementation interviews, though some barriers persisted. Half of patients expressed an interest in working at baseline. Patients at implementation sites were 2.3 times more likely to receive employment services during the study year. Those who had a service visit were more likely to be employed at follow-up than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS Studies of implementation and effectiveness require mixed methods to both enhance implementation in real time and provide context for interpretation of complex results. In this study, a quality improvement approach resulted in superior patient-level outcomes and improved clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, in the context of substantial variation among sites.

How do low-income urban African Americans and Latinos feel about telemedicine? a diffusion of innovation analysis

Introduction. Telemedicine is promoted as a means to increase access to specialty medical care among the urban underserved, yet little is known about its acceptability among these populations. We used components of a diffusion of innovation conceptual framework to analyze preexperience perceptions about telemedicine to assess its appeal among urban underserved African Americans and Latinos. Methods. Ten focus groups were conducted with African American (n = 43) and Latino participants (n = 44) in both English and Spanish and analyzed for key themes. Results. Both groups perceived increased and immediate access to multiple medical opinions and reduced wait time as relative advantages of telemedicine. However, African Americans expressed more concerns than Latinos about confidentiality, privacy, and the physical absence of the specialist. This difference may reflect lower levels of trust in new health care innovations among African Americans resulting from a legacy of past abuses in the US medical system as compared to immigrant Latinos who do not have this particular historical backdrop. Conclusions. These findings have implications for important issues such as adoption of telemedicine, patient satisfaction, doctor-patient interactions, and the development and tailoring of strategies targeted to each of these populations for the introduction, marketing, and implementation of telemedicine.

A cancer genetics toolkit improves access to genetic services through documentation and use of the family history by primary-care clinicians

Purpose:We developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent cancer genetics toolkit designed to improve recognition and appropriate referral of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes.Methods:We evaluated toolkit implementation in the women’s clinics at a large Veterans Administration medical center using mixed methods, including pre–post semistructured interviews, clinician surveys, and chart reviews, and during implementation, monthly tracking of genetic consultation requests and use of a reminder in the electronic health record. We randomly sampled 10% of progress notes 6 months before (n = 139) and 18 months during implementation (n = 677).Results:The toolkit increased cancer family history documentation by almost 10% (26.6% pre- and 36.3% postimplementation). The reminder was a key component of the toolkit; when used, it was associated with a twofold increase in cancer family history documentation (odds ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.39–3.15), and the history was more complete. Patients whose clinicians completed the reminder were twice as likely to be referred for genetic consultation (4.1–9.6%, P < 0.0001).Conclusion:A multicomponent approach to the systematic collection and use of family history by primary-care clinicians increased access to genetic services.Genet Med 16 1, 60–69.