Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 155
7
Implementation and Models of Care
for Veterans Who Have
Chronic Multisymptom Illness
As previously described, nearly all veterans who have chronic multi-
symptom illness (CMI) have comorbid illnesses—illnesses that are them-
selves multisymptomatic and that overlap with CMI in complex and highly
variable ways. The most common chronic condition in the United States,
and probably the world, is multimorbidity (Tinetti et al., 2012), and this
is especially true for patients who have CMI. Even though there may be
evidence-based treatments for one or more of these conditions, the com-
mittee believes that a treatment plan consisting simply of the sum of these
practice guidelines will be altogether inadequate and is ill-advised. An
integrated approach to care is required. There is a fundamental difference
between managing a disease or a condition and caring for a person who has
one or more conditions—just as there is a fundamental difference between
a linical practice guideline (CPG) and a personal care plan. Anecdotal
c
evidence suggests that simply adhering to multiple CPGs often is not effec-
tive for managing chronic conditions with multiple morbidities such as
CMI and can result in incomplete care and decrease patient satisfaction,
and increase the likelihood of overtreatment and adverse side effects. Each
personal care plan will be peculiar to the individual veteran (although
crafted from the therapeutic elements outlined in Chapters 4 and 5), will
change, and will almost always be complex and detailed. A clinician car-
ing for a veteran who has CMI faces a daunting and time-consuming task
that cannot always be accomplished in the course of an ordinary primary
care visit and can hardly be implemented by a single clinician; it generally
takes a team approach and specific expertise. Special consideration must be
155
OCR for page 156
156 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
given to the resources and the organization—the system of care—that are
m
arshaled for the management of CMI patients.
This chapter presents a patient-centered management approach for vet-
erans who have CMI. It begins by describing some of the current capabili-
ties of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for managing the health of
veterans. It identifies inadequacies of existing VA models of care for veter-
ans who have CMI and recommends a general approach to the management
of such veterans. The chapter next describes models of care used by other
organizations to manage CMI patients. Building on information presented
in Chapter 6, it ends with a discussion of how information about managing
CMI might be disseminated to VA clinicians and patients.
MODELS OF CARE FOR CHRONIC MULTISYMPTOM
ILLNESS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Veterans use the full array of health care benefits and systems for their
care: the Veterans Health Administration (VHA); TRICARE, the Depart-
ment of Defense (DOD) health care program for active-duty, reserve, and
retired armed forces personnel; Medicare; and private care. Fewer than
20% of all veterans receive their health care exclusively in VHA facilities,
about one-third of veterans use Medicare benefits, and almost half use
both (Hynes et al., 2007; Petersen et al., 2010; Stroupe et al., 2005; West
et al., 2008). The distribution among the health care system of veterans
who have CMI is not known, nor is there any difference in the pathway
of care between veterans of the 1991 Gulf War and veterans of the Iraq
and Afghanistan wars (Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation New Dawn,
and Operation Enduring Freedom).
More than 8 million veterans are enrolled in VHA (Walters, 2011).
In FY 2009, the number of pre–September 2001 Gulf War–era veterans
receiving health care through VHA was 571,656 (VA, 2011d).1 That num-
ber represents 8.7% of the total Gulf War–era veteran cohort. Of the
pre–September 2001 Gulf War–era veterans receiving care from VHA,
145,832 were deployed to the Persian Gulf and 110,487 of the deployed
personnel were active participants in the Gulf War. Inpatient care in VHA
facilities was used by 24,578 pre–September 2001 Gulf War–era veterans in
FY 2009, and outpatient care was used by 540,802 Gulf War–era veterans
in the same year. About 55% of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
(834,463 veterans) have used VHA health care services since October 2001
1
For this case, Gulf War–era veterans are defined as military personnel who served on
active duty during August 2, 1990–September 10, 2001. Not all Gulf War–era veterans were
deployed to the Persian Gulf or were Gulf War participants.
OCR for page 157
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 157
(VA, 2012a). Among those Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who have
sought care at VHA facilities, about 94% have used only outpatient services
and about 6% have been hospitalized at least once (VA, 2012a).
VHA has substantial experience in treating patients who have chronic
illnesses. Its patients have a higher prevalence of the eight most common
chronic health conditions than do patients who are using TRICARE and
private plans (Gibson et al., 2009), not including CMI. As indicated above,
information is not available on the number of veterans who have CMI and
receive their care from VHA or elsewhere.
Postdeployment Patient-Aligned Care Team Program
Gulf War veterans have begun to enter the VHA system by being
assigned to a postdeployment patient-aligned care team (PD-PACT) (Hunt,
2012). A PD-PACT serves as a veteran’s medical home in VHA. The move
to a medical-home model is relatively recent in VHA and implementation
is ongoing (Reisinger et al., 2012). VHA’s implementation of this model of
care compares favorably with implementation in most civilian practices and
systems, in which the transition to patient-centered medical homes is still
in the early stages of implementation. VHA has established principles and
guidelines for the implementation of PACTs, educated its clinicians about
the principles, and assigned champions to lead the implementation effort
(VA, 2012j). It is important to note that this pathway to care did not exist
when military personnel were returning from the 1991 Gulf War and enter-
ing the VHA system. The 1991 Gulf War veterans are now being served
by PD-PACTs, but their enrollment rates have been highly variable among
settings (VA, 2012e). The plan is for assignment to a PD-PACT to begin
after a postdeployment comprehensive health examination and a post
deployment disability determination. At some sites, the wait time for the
two steps is extremely long, sometimes more than a year. That is frustrat-
ing for veterans, who sometimes seek care elsewhere; it also compromises
PACT primary care clinicians’ ability to render high-quality care.
Each PD-PACT is overseen by a project manager. Other team members
can include primary care clinicians, nursing-care managers, mental health
clinicians, social workers, and others who have expertise in such subjects
as brain injury and physical rehabilitation. The number, specialty types,
relative availability, and extent of integration into the primary care team
of specialty-team members vary widely from clinic to clinic; VHA cur-
rently assigns behavioral-health clinicians to PACTs in VA medical centers
(VAMCs) and outpatient clinics that have more than 5,000 primary care
patients, and many smaller clinics also have behavioral clinicians on PACT
teams. A veteran being cared for is considered a member of the team. The
goal of the PD-PACT model is to provide comprehensive, integrated care,
OCR for page 158
158 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
including follow-up health care, education, and training (Reisinger et al.,
2012). Postdeployment integrated care services are in place in 79% of
VAMCs and 35% of community-based outpatient clinics (Hunt, 2012),
but the extent to which these teams actually function as teams and contain
all the necessary expertise is highly variable. Under ideal circumstances,
PD-PACT members work together as a coherent team, but many PD-PACT
members operate as consultants without a continuing commitment to
patients’ care plans and without close communication with other PACT
members. Some 84% of VAMCs have clinical experts who can provide
clinical guidance for veterans in the context of their continuing primary
care (Hunt, 2012).
Educational Materials
VHA provides extensive educational materials to patients and their
families about such topics as environmental exposures, associated adverse
health outcomes, and techniques for self-management of symptoms. For
example, materials are available on controlled-breathing techniques (VA,
2009a), complementary and integrative medicine (VA, 2011b), using
exercise to manage chronic pain and fatigue (VA, 2011c), and medically
u
nexplained symptoms (VA, 2011e). Materials also are produced for clini-
cians (for example, a resource guide on helping patients self-manage their
symptoms) (VA, 2009c).
Clinical Practice Guidelines
VHA has a CPG for the management of veterans who have symp-
toms that remain unexplained after appropriate medical assessment (VA
and DOD, 2001b).2 In addition, VHA has developed CPGs for a num-
ber of relevant conditions, including postdeployment health and common
c
omorbidities and conditions that have overlapping symptoms, such as
major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury, and chronic pain (Chou et al., 2007; VA and DOD, 2001a, 2009a,b,c,
2010a,b). The CPG on medically unexplained symptoms provides a general
approach for managing CMI patients. For example, the key points made in
the CPG (VA and DOD, 2001b) are to
• Obtain a thorough medical history, physical examination, and
medical record review.
2
VA has plans to update its 2001 CPG on medically unexplained symptoms (personal
communication, C. Cassidy, Office of Quality and Safety, Department of Veterans Affairs,
March 19, 2012).
OCR for page 159
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 159
• Minimize low-yield diagnostic testing.
• Identify treatable causes (conditions) for the patient’s symptoms.
• Determine if the patient can be classified as having chronic multi-
symptom illness (CMI) (that is, has two or more symptom clusters:
pain, fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, or sleep disturbance).
• Negotiate treatment options and establish collaboration with the
patient.
• Provide appropriate patient and family education.
• Maximize the use of nonpharmacologic therapies:
— Graded aerobic exercise with close monitoring.
— Cognitive behavioral therapy.
• Empower patients to take an active role in their recovery.
The guidelines are useful and appropriate, and VHA has published its
method for disseminating and implementing its CPGs in VHA clinics
( icholas et al., 2001; VA and DOD, 2011).
N
VHA has also published a study guide (not a full CPG) for clinicians on
caring for veterans of the 1991 Gulf War (VA, 2011a). It includes information
on exposures of concern to veterans of the 1991 Gulf War and instructions
for conducting an exposure assessment of veterans. It also contains a section
on undiagnosed and unexplained illnesses, including information about CMI.
Specialty Care Access Network
Although VHA has 153 medical centers and more than 900 outpa-
tient clinics nationwide, not all veterans have easy access to VHA facili-
ties ( eisinger et al., 2012). Accordingly, VHA developed a specialty care
R
access network (SCAN) to bring specialty care to veterans who live in rural
and other underserved areas, generally areas that do not have VAMCs
(VA, 2012e). SCAN is modeled after Project ECHO (Extension for Com-
munity Healthcare Outcomes), a program developed by the University of
New Mexico Health System. The mission of Project ECHO is to develop
the capacity to treat chronic, common, and complex diseases in rural and
underserved areas safely and effectively and to monitor outcomes (Arora
et al., 2011). The program works by bringing ECHO network specialists
with the medical expertise necessary for the condition being addressed into
other ise isolated primary care practices. After an initial in-person orien-
w
tation, a team meets weekly via video conference to present and discuss
patients and to formulate care plans. The program fits well into the medical
home model by augmenting comprehensiveness, improving continuity and
coordination of care, and enhancing quality and safety of care. An impor-
tant element of the ECHO program is teaching and implementing concepts
of team management of patients (Katzman, 2012).
OCR for page 160
160 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
VHA adopted the SCAN-ECHO program in 2010 and contracted with
Project ECHO to leverage technology and use case-based learning to educate
its primary care physicians in chronic pain management and other specialty
care topics. Eleven regional VAMCs are using the SCAN-ECHO program.
In addition, VAMCs in Denver, Colorado; Richmond, Virginia; Cleveland,
Ohio; Albuquerque, New Mexico; greater Los Angeles, California; Salem,
Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon; and New Haven, Connecticut, are now
replicating the Project ECHO chronic pain program, and clinicians in their
regions are calling in each week for consultations related to pain manage-
ment (VA, 2012e).
War-Related Illness and Injury Study Centers
Under a congressional mandate, VA established war-related illness and
injury study centers (WRIISCs) in 2001 to serve combat veterans who had
unexplained illnesses (Lincoln et al., 2006). Three WRIISCs are operating
in East Orange, New Jersey; Palo Alto, California; and Washington, DC.
The WRIISCs are multidisciplinary centers of excellence to which veterans
who are severely afflicted with CMI can be referred. They also are charged
with conducting research on CMI and its constituent symptoms and with
creating and disseminating educational materials for veterans, their fami-
lies, and clinicians (Lincoln et al., 2006; VA, 2012l).
Veterans may be referred to a WRIISC by their clinicians. Referrals
generally come about because a veteran has a complex medical history of no
known etiology, treatments have resulted in little or no symptom improve-
ment, deployment-related environmental exposures may have occurred, or the
veteran is not improving and further local expertise is unavailable (Reinhard,
2012). Veterans in a WRIISC are evaluated by a multi isciplinary team that
d
conducts a comprehensive health assessment and formulates a comprehensive
personal care plan aimed at managing symptoms and improving functional
health; the plan is implemented in the WRIISC and given to the referring
clinicians (Lincoln et al., 2006). As of 2012, the WRIISCs’ clinical programs
have conducted health assessments of about 1,000 veterans (Reinhard, 2012).
Patient-Centered Medical Care and the Office of Cultural Transformation
VHA has established an office of Patient Centered Care and Cultural
Transformation (Petzel, 2012; VA, 2012g,h). The goal of the office is to
develop personal, patient-centered models of care for veterans who receive
their health care at VHA facilities. There will be greater focus on providing
team-based care and integrative approaches throughout VHA. The office
seeks to address the “full range of physical, emotional, mental, social, spiri-
tual, and environmental influences” on veterans (VA, 2012g).
OCR for page 161
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 161
Summary of Models of Care in the
Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System
VHA has developed extensive infrastructure and support for veter-
ans who have CMI and the clinicians who care for them: multispecialty
teams, practice guidelines, training and educational materials for clinicians
and patients, access to consultants when they are not available locally,
support for such elements of implementation as practice champions, the
basic structure of a system of stepped care, and more. The infrastructure
is remarkable and far outstrips the corresponding elements of the civil-
ian health care system, which is generally much less developed. All those
efforts notwithstanding, however, veterans who have CMI will remain
seriously underserved, and their clinicians will remain unable to serve them
adequately, until additional measures are put into place. Clinical guidelines
for chronic conditions are extraordinarily difficult to implement, and their
implementation follows a set of rules and principles that are just now
becoming understood. CPGs assume a degree of uniformity of presenta-
tion and severity and the availability of time, training, and personnel that
are not always available even in the most dedicated and highest-quality
settings. But the patients present with highly variable and ever-changing
symptom constellations—with a spectrum of severity ranging from just
barely symptomatic to profoundly disabled—in a highly variable and con-
stantly changing clinical environment. Thus, the treatment burden of and
need for care coordination is not uniform among clinical settings. Finally,
and most important, even in settings where it is possible to bring a high
degree of standardization, the team members themselves—their seniority,
previous experiences, personalities, team “chemistry,” and response to the
particular local leaders—constitute a source of irreducible variation that
must be taken into account in the implementation process. Local practice
coaches and other local resources are almost always necessary for success-
ful implementation. The issue of implementation will be addressed after a
description of the veterans’ experience of care.
GULF WAR VETERANS’ EXPERIENCE OF CARE
Patient Satisfaction
Despite the extensive efforts devoted to improving care for veterans
who have CMI, some Gulf War veterans have expressed frustration and
anger about what they consider to be subpar care from VHA (public com-
ments to the committee, December 17, 2011, and February 1, 2012; Furey,
2012). Often, they do not believe that VHA clinicians take their symptoms
OCR for page 162
162 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
seriously, and they get the impression that the clinicians believe that their
health problems are mental in origin.
Gulf War veterans report less satisfaction with waiting-room time,
copayment or costs, courtesy of office staff, and clinician time than World
War II veterans (Harada et al., 2002). Differences in several other variables
were not significant—number of days waited for an appointment, how easy
it is to get around a facility, clinician skill, and overall satisfaction. Harada
et al. (2002) found that veterans who used both VHA and non-VHA facili-
ties (“dual users”) were less satisfied overall with their outpatient care than
were veterans who used only VHA or only non-VHA facilities.
In a study that compared veterans’ satisfaction with types of clinicians
in VHA facilities, satisfaction scores increased as the numbers of nurse
practitioners increased (Budzi et al., 2010). Veterans are more satisfied with
nurse-practitioners who were trained in particular skills, such as paying
attention to and providing for the patient’s educational needs, individual-
ized care, and active listening.
Health status is significantly associated with patient satisfaction in vet-
erans who use VHA outpatient care (Ren et al., 2001). Mental health status
correlates more strongly with patient satisfaction than does physical health
status. In general, veterans who are healthier are more likely to be satisfied
with their care. Satisfaction can be both a consequence and a determinant
of health status; in the study by Ren et al. (2001), health status seemed to
be more of a determinant of patient satisfaction than the reverse.
Veterans who had chronic illnesses and experienced greater satisfac-
tion with VHA were less likely to seek care elsewhere after discharge from
active duty (Stroupe et al., 2005). Greater dissatisfaction at baseline led to
a greater probability that veterans would later go outside the VHA system,
thereby seeding the civilian primary care sector with unhappy veterans who
had CMI. Veterans older than 65 years old are more likely to use non-VHA
health care facilities than younger veterans; this may be due to the older
veterans’ Medicare eligibility.
Female veterans reported scores similar to those of male veterans on
most dimensions of outpatient satisfaction with VHA facilities after adjust-
ment for a number of demographic attributes (Wright et al., 2006).
Access to Care
On discharge from the active-duty military, a portion of veterans (8.57
million of a total of about 22.23 million in FY 2011) enroll in the VA
health care system (VA, 2012d). To balance demand with resources, VHA
uses health care enrollment priority groups (see Box 7-1). The threshold for
enrollment changes on the basis of available resources.
OCR for page 163
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 163
The amount of time it takes veterans to get an appointment to visit
a VHA clinician varies widely from one clinic to another. Harada et al.
(2002) reported that one of veterans’ highest points of dissatisfaction with
VHA was the wait time for an appointment. In 2010, nearly all primary
care appointments at VHA facilities occurred within 30 days of the desired
date (Walters, 2011). In 2011, the standard for primary care appointments
was changed to 14 days, which was already the standard for mental health
appointments. Data were not available to describe whether VHA has been
able to meet the 14-day standard. However, a review by the VA Office of
the Inspector General (VA-OIG) found that many veterans waited more
than 14 days past their desired appointment date for their mental health
appointments (VA, 2012k). In addition, the VA-OIG determined that the
“VHA overstated its success in providing veterans new and follow-up
appointments for treatment within 14 days.” The principal reasons for
wait times to exceed the established standard were inconsistent application
of procedures by VHA schedulers and too few mental health clinicians on
staff.
Location of VHA facilities affects veterans’ access to care. VHA has
over 1,000 facilities, including VAMCs and outpatient clinics, but they
are geographically dispersed, and not every veteran has easy access to one
(Reisinger et al., 2012). For example, 43% of veterans live in rural areas
that may not be readily served by VHA facilities (Walters, 2011). A VA
review on interventions to improve access to care found that as distance
from a VHA facility increased there was decreased use of outpatient services
and that the greatest decrease occurred for distances up to 60 miles from the
facility (Kehle et al., 2011). The relationship between facility distance from
home and care use was consistent for physical health and mental health
appointments. VHA is developing strategies to bring health care to rural
veterans through such means as mobile health clinics, telehealth programs,
and health care partnerships (Walters, 2011).
In its review, VA evaluated whether integration of primary care and
mental health care would increase veterans’ access to mental health services
(Kehle et al., 2011). Both integrating mental health services into primary
care clinics and offering primary care in mental health clinics showed prom-
ise, but more research on these models is needed.
Veterans have access to their medical records through the VA’s
My HealtheVet system (VA, 2012i). Furthermore, they can download their
medical records and read, print, or save them to a computer using the
Blue Button program (VA, 2012b). Veterans can self-enter several types of
information in My HealtheVet, including personal health indicators (such
as blood pressure, weight, and heart rate), emergency contact information,
names of health care providers, laboratory test results, family health history,
OCR for page 164
164 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
BOX 7-1
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care Enrollment
Priority Groups
Group 1: Veterans with VA-rated service-connected disabilities 50% or
more disabling; and veterans determined by VA to be unemployable due
to service-connected conditions.
Group 2: Veterans with VA-rated service-connected disabilities 30% or
40% disabling.
Group 3: Veterans who are Former Prisoners of War (FPOWs); veterans
awarded a Purple Heart medal; veterans whose discharge was for a dis-
ability that was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; veterans with
VA-rated service-connected disabilities 10% or 20% disabling; veterans
awarded special eligibility classification under Title 38, U.S.C. § 1151,
“benefits for individuals disabled by treatment or vocational rehabilita-
tion”; and veterans awarded the Medal of Honor.
Group 4: Veterans who are receiving aid and attendance or housebound
benefits from VA; and veterans who have been determined by VA to be
catastrophically disabled.
Group 5: Non-service-connected veterans and noncompensable service-
connected veterans rated 0% disabled by VA with annual income and/or
net worth below the VA national income threshold and geographically-
adjusted income threshold for their resident location; veterans receiving
VA pension benefits; and veterans eligible for Medicaid programs.
Group 6: World War I veterans; Compensable 0% service-connected vet-
erans; veterans exposed to ionizing radiation during atmospheric testing or
during the occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Project 112/ hipboard
S
Hazard and Defense (SHAD) participants; veterans exposed to the defoli-
ant Agent Orange while serving in the Republic of Vietnam between 1962
and 1975; veterans of the Gulf War that served between August 2, 1990,
and November 11, 1998; veterans who served in a theater of combat
OCR for page 165
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 165
operations after November 11, 1998, as follows: (a) currently enrolled
veterans and new enrollees who were discharged from active duty on or
after January 28, 2003, are eligible for the enhanced benefits for 5-years
post-discharge; (b) veterans discharged from active duty before Janu-
ary 28, 2003, who apply for enrollment on or after January 28, 2008, are
eligible for this enhanced enrollment benefit through January 27, 2011.
Note: At the end of this enhanced enrollment priority group placement time
period, veterans will be assigned to the highest Priority Group their unique
eligibility status at that time qualifies them for.
Group 7: Veterans with gross household income below the geographi-
cally adjusted income threshold for their resident
location and who
agree to pay co-pays.
Group 8: Veterans with gross household income above the VA national
income threshold and the geographically adjusted income threshold for
their resident location and who agree to pay co-pays.
a. eterans eligible for enrollment: Noncompensable 0% service-
V
connected and: Subpriority a: Enrolled as of January 16, 2003, and
who have remained enrolled since that date and/or placed in this sub-
priority due to changed eligibility status; Subpriority b: Enrolled on or
after June 15, 2009, whose income exceeds the current VA National
Income Thresholds or VA National Geographic Income Thresholds by
10% or less.
b. eterans eligible for enrollment: Nonservice-connected and: Sub
V
priority c: Enrolled as of January 16, 2003, and who have remained
e
nrolled since that date and/or placed in this subpriority due to changed
eligibility status; Subpriority d: Enrolled on or after June 15, 2009,
whose income exceeds the current VA National Income hresholds or
T
VA National Geographic Income Thresholds by 10% or less.
c.
Veterans not eligible for enrollment: Veterans not meeting the cri-
teria above: Subpriority e: Noncompensable 0% service-connected;
and Subpriority g: Nonservice-connected.
SOURCE: VA, 2012f.
OCR for page 172
172 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
opportunities, constraints, and preferences; and especially to address unex-
pected difficulties and unintended consequences. It is also necessary to
collect data systematically on processes of care, on how to effect process
change when necessary, on the results of changes with respect to interme-
diate outcomes, on what works and what does not, and on unintended
consequences of changes. The implementation team must be prepared not
only to collect information but to reflect on its implications and to act on
it with the next process-adjustment cycle. Practice redesign requires a series
of linked incremental steps—it is not accomplished in one step. The PDSA
method described above has been used successfully in a variety of primary
care settings to improve practice.
Implementation work that uses the PDSA method has a unique
approach. If changes in disease-specific outcomes are used as the principal
measure of success, valuable progress can occur. The road to improved
disease state is long and difficult—it is actually many roads—and is beset
with so many problems that it requires an approach to dealing with many
unexpected problems. Progress needs to be measured by success in solving
operational and functional problems that appear one after another, not just
in improved disease outcomes. An improved disease state will appear only
after a long run of successful interim problem-solving steps.
Many primary care practice redesign organizations (such as TransforMed,
HealthTeamWorks, and the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement) have
learned that practice coaches are highly useful (or indispensable) to practices
as they begin their redesign efforts. Thus, implementation teams should
include health coaches, integrative-medicine practitioners, and other local
practice resources that can help practices to work out local changes and solu-
tions to the problem of implementing multiple CPGs for their own unique
patient-panel demands under variable local conditions.
The value of learning collaboratives or learning communities must be
stressed. Practices, coaches, and other forms of technical support are valu-
able, but local practice teams often benefit most from the experience of their
peers in similar circumstances, and periodic meetings in which ideas and
solutions can be exchanged will pay handsome dividends.
Thus, implementation success depends on teams that work well
together, that practice active creative problem solving, that maintain flex-
ibility, and that persist in the face of failure—that demonstrate resilience,
the ability to learn and improve. Progress toward complete implementation
of a guideline is measured in terms of successfully solving one after another
the small problems that arise in the course of PDSA work. Use of metrics
can lead to improved care and ultimately lead to healthier patients and
better outcomes.
A practice that is ready for successful redesign cannot be understood
by looking only at workflow; it must also be assessed for active, flexible
OCR for page 173
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 173
problem solving. Over time, such a practice can be expected to have shaped
workflow to solve the problems of the particular patients in the panel with
the particular resources at hand.
SELECT MODELS OF CARE USED BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
As noted above, most veterans receive some of or all their care outside
the VHA system of clinics in the civilian sector. Civilian settings are more
variable and generally less well resourced, and their clinicians are gener-
ally less able to devote the time needed to manage CMI and its attendant
comorbidities properly in the context of a busy daily practice. Stepped care
is much harder in the civilian setting, because specialty resources are less
available. Perhaps most important, primary care clinicians in the civilian
setting are less familiar with the characteristics of CMI in veteran popula-
tions and therefore less adept at creating the complex personal care plans
described above. Nevertheless, PCMHs are rapidly appearing in this sector,
and the practice-redesign efforts necessary to produce PCMHs will benefit
veterans who have CMI and are seeking care—particularly if VHA can
extend its resources to these practices. A civilian PCMH that is rendering
care to veterans who have CMI would benefit from the following:
• Notification from VHA of the names, disability status, comprehen-
sive health assessment, and other medical care records of the veter-
ans under care, as allowed under the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
• VHA CPGs applicable to the specific patients, particularly those
related to time allocations and team expertise.
• Recommended care-team membership for the patients.
• Access, via telehealth or other ECHO-like variations, to specific
team members who have the expertise necessary for the manage-
ment of the patients, such as neurologists adept at managing trau-
matic brain injury or acupuncturists adept at pain management.
• Access to consultation with or referral to VAMCs, WRIISCs, and
other resources that may benefit veterans as specific problems arise
that cannot be managed adequately in the civilian PCMH.
DISSEMINATING EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDELINES THROUGH
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SYSTEM
The flow of evidence-based information (EBI)—knowledge transfer—
through a system to influence policy and practice has become a major topic
of focus in the era of evidence-based medicine. It is particularly impor-
tant when the sheer volume of research data appears to have only slight
OCR for page 174
174 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
influence on clinician-practice behaviors. As a result, research has shifted
attention from mere generation of guidelines to concerns about their dis-
semination and implementation (Grimshaw and Russell, 1993; Thomas et
al., 1999). Knowledge transfer, some suggest, may occur in three stages:
diffusion, dissemination, and implementation (Lomas, 1993). The stages
are characterized by increasing specificity, targeting, and customization,
leading, in theory, to the adoption of new information that changes practice
and policy. Successful models of knowledge transfer do not yet exist (French
et al., 2012), but recent work is offering some useful insights into the pro-
cesses that potentially would help in disseminating EBI, such as practice
guidelines. It is instructive to elucidate the three stages and the distinctions
among them before discussing the relevance of knowledge transfer in treat-
ing for CMI by clinicians in the VA health system.
Diffusion is a passive process that involves spread of EBI with little
attention to specificity in defining the target audience or to the customiza-
tion of the information itself. Publication of studies in professional journals
or coverage of scientific studies in the mass media may garner a wide-
spread audience for the message (Viswanath et al., 2008) but may or may
not attract the attention of clinicians and patients unless they are already
attuned to the topic. Although print media may remain an important source
for some physicians and patients, few physicians read medical journals for
the latest scientific findings, given the sheer amount of published literature,
busy schedules, and possible lack of suitability in how the information is
presented (Lomas, 1993; Thomas et al., 1999). Patient-related factors may
also act as barriers to using EBI (Thomas et al., 1999).
Dissemination is more deliberate flow of information toward a defined
target audience, and the information itself is more customized. Examples
include evidence reviews, practice guidelines, and consensus statements.
Implementation goes beyond reaching the intended audience, clinicians.
The new information is actually used to change practice behaviors. Given
its more ambitious goal, implementation is facilitated by a sharper focus
on addressing organizational barriers to the adoption of EBI (Ramanadhan
et al., 2012). Localization and customization of EBI will go a long way in
facilitating implementation. Appropriate incentives and sanctions may help
in this phase. Implementation of guidelines for treatment of veterans who
have CMI was discussed in detail earlier in this chapter.
Channels or sources on which physicians rely for EBI, the nature of
the information and messages that appeal to them, and the conditions that
improve or hinder their capacity to use EBI define the target audience and
guide the methods used to approach them. Diffusion and dissemination,
in theory, could create awareness about new developments or consensus
guidelines but do not necessarily address the day-to-day reality of the
clinicians in VHA. They are, however, critical in creating the necessary
OCR for page 175
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 175
“readiness for change” in practice behaviors. Change in practice behaviors
requires “enabling factors” that address barriers that deter implementa-
tion (Lomas, 1993). Behavior change is most likely when environmental
changes accompany dissemination of EBI. System changes and support
systems will also reinforce changed practice behaviors and may enable their
maintenance.
CLINICIANS’ BEHAVIOR CHANGE: SYSTEM
AND INTERPERSONAL DETERMINANTS
The role of clinicians is critical in any adoption of health care innova-
tions, and much of the adoption and maintenance of innovations requires
change in clinicians’ behaviors (Gunter and Whittal, 2010). The literature
of a variety of fields—including communication, sociology, marketing, psy-
chology, and business—offers useful pointers to understanding how practice
behaviors could potentially be changed.
• Peer networks, such as the learning communities described above,
have a profound influence on adoption of new behaviors and skills
(Bernstein et al., 2009; IOM, 2012; Ramanadhan et al., 2010).
Peers could potentially introduce new information, norms, and
skills in a network and thereby facilitate the adoption of EBI. Some
peers could model new behaviors and skills, making learning of
new skills smoother. A network of peers in which communication
and informal transfer are routine may lead to the emergence of
“learning organizations” in which acquisition of new information,
skills, and behaviors can be made routine.
• Opinion leaders and champions, particularly in local health cen-
ters, may carry considerable weight in the community of clini-
cians, facilitating behavior changes and making adoption of new
practices acceptable (Moore et al., 2004). One study of knowledge
transfer of evidence-based technology that included screening, brief
intervention, and referral to treatment conducted in emergency
departments found that having local staff as champions made
a big difference in adoption and maintenance of a new practice
(Bernstein et al., 2009).
• The role of leadership is critical in overcoming barriers to imple-
mentation as it ensures quality control, endorsement, priority set-
ting, and the creation of an overall climate of innovation support
(Yano et al., 2012).
• Behaviors that are substantive departures from existing practices
could be more difficult to change; in a similar vein, complex inter-
ventions in contrast to simpler interventions are difficult to imple-
OCR for page 176
176 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
ment and less likely to be adopted (McGovern et al., 2004; Rogers,
1995).
• Organizational constraints—such as inflexible rules, lack of incen-
tives, and potential for negative sanctions—can deter EBI-based
changes in practice.
• New methods for connecting EBI to practice, such as appropriate
methodology, could link evidence to practices better in the context
of the reality of clinical variation.
The advent of information and communication technologies has
enabled the development of decision-support systems that facilitate the
adoption of recommendations. Decision-support systems, particularly ones
that draw on such electronic health records as those used by VA, may pro-
vide patient-specific information to a clinician when needed in a manner
that is user-friendly. These systems are especially effective when they are
user-friendly, easily available, and part of a physician’s work flow (Thomas
et al., 1999). Thomas et al. (1999) argued that such design considerations
as easier navigation, clear indexing, and forgiving interfaces enhance the
utility of communication technologies to facilitate behavior change.
As asserted earlier, customization is a critical element in facilitating
adoption of innovations. A recommended innovation should be flexible,
easy to try out, and customizable to local conditions, and it should have
some advantage over current practices (Rogers, 1995). Customization
demands careful audience segmentation and designing of intervention com-
ponents that meet the needs of segments of the audience. In one study,
VA tried a social marketing approach to disseminate a new model of col-
laborative care to treat depression (Luck et al., 2009). In the model, the
intervention targeted not just the physicians but other staff, such as local
leaders, frontline staff, and managers; it focused on cultural change in the
larger organization. Marketing was also reported to be a critical determi-
nant in the national dissemination of a new model to promote collaborative
care for depression in the VA system (Smith et al., 2008). Those efforts, in
theory, reduce resistance from people in an organization to adopt innova-
tions and ease the change in clinician behaviors.
SUMMARY
VHA faces extraordinary challenges in caring for the burgeoning popu-
lation of veterans who have CMI. It is possible to meet the challenges with
adequate clinician education and support, organization and preparation of
care teams that fit the needs of the veterans, establishment of implementa-
tion protocols that lead to continuous quality improvement, dissemination
of these successes to other clinical teams and settings that are struggling
OCR for page 177
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 177
with similar problems, and extension of VHA resources to civilian settings,
where most veterans receive their care.
REFERENCES
Arora, S., S. Kalishman, D. Dion, D. Som, K. Thornton, A. Bankhurst, J. Boyle, M. Harkins,
K. Moseley, G. Murata, M. Komaramy, J. Katzman, K. Colleran, P. Deming, and S. Yutzy.
2011. Partnering urban academic medical centers and rural primary care clinicians to
provide complex chronic disease care. Health Affairs 30(6):1176-1184.
Bermingham, S. L., A. Cohen, J. Hague, and M. Parsonage. 2010. The cost of somatisation
among the working-age population in England for the year 2008-2009. Mental Health
in Family Medicine 7(2):71-84.
Bernstein, E., D. Topp, E. Shaw, C. Girard, K. Pressman, E. Woolcock, and J. Bernstein. 2009.
A preliminary report of knowledge translation: Lessons from taking screening and brief
intervention techniques from the research setting into regional systems of care. Academic
Emergency Medicine 16(11):1225-1233.
Budzi, D., S. Lurie, K. Singh, and R. Hooker. 2010. Veterans’ perceptions of care by nurse
practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians: A comparison from satisfaction sur-
veys. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 22(3):170-176.
Burton, C., K. McGorm, G. Richardson, D. Weller, and M. Sharpe. 2012. Healthcare costs
incurred by patients repeatedly referred to secondary medical care with medically
unexplained symptoms: A cost of illness study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research
72(3):242-247.
Chou, R., A. Qaseem, V. Snow, D. Casey, J. T. Cross Jr., P. Shekelle, and D. K. Owens. 2007.
Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: A joint clinical practice guideline from the
American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Annals of Internal Medi-
cine 147:478-491.
French, S. D., S. E. Green, D. A. O’Connor, J. E. McKenzie, J. J. Francis, S. Michie, R.
B
uchbinder, P. Schattner, N. Spike, and J. M. Grimshaw. 2012. Developing theory-
informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A system-
atic approach using the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science 7(38).
Furey, P. 2012 (unpublished). Analysis of the Social Media Discussion of Chronic Multi-
Symptom Illness in Veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Analysis commissioned
by the Committee on Gulf War and Health: Treatment of Chronic Multisymptom Illness,
Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Gibson, T. B., T. A. Lee, C. S. Vogeli, J. Hidalgo, G. S. Carls, K. Sredl, S. DesHarnais, W. D.
Marder, K. B. Weiss, T. V. Williams, and A. E. Shields. 2009. A four-system comparison
of patients with chronic illness: The military health system, Veterans Health Administra-
tion, Medicaid, and commercial plans. Military Medicine 174(9):936-943.
Grimshaw, J. M., and I. T. Russell. 1993. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: A
systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 342(8883):1317-1322.
Gunter, R. W., and M. L. Whittal. 2010. Dissemination of cognitive-behavioral treatments for
anxiety disorders: Overcoming barriers and improving patient access. Clinical Psychol-
ogy Review 30(2):194-202.
Harada, N. D., V. M. Villa, and R. Andersen. 2002. Satisfaction with VA and non-VA out
patient care among veterans. American Journal of Medical Quality 17(4):155-164.
Hickey, A. A. 2012 (July 18). Statement of Allison A. Hickey, Under Secretary for Benefits,
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National
ecurity, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations. http://oversight.house.gov/
S
w
p-content/uploads/2012/07/7-18-12-Hickey-Testimony.pdf (accessed September 29, 2012).
OCR for page 178
178 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
Hunt, S. C. 2012 (unpublished). VA Approaches to the Management of Chronic Multi-
Symptom Illness in Gulf War I Veterans. Presentation at the Third Committee Meeting,
April 12, 2012, Irvine, CA.
Hynes, D. M., K. Koelling, K. Stroupe, N. Arnold, K. Mallin, M. W. Sohn, F. M. Weaver,
L. Manheim, and L. Kok. 2007. Veterans’ access to and use of Medicare and Veterans
A
ffairs health care. Medical Care 45(3):214-223.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public: A Sum-
mary of the February 2009 Summit. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2012. Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in
America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Jonas, W. B., and R. A. Chez. 2004. Toward optimal healing environments in health care.
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 10:S1-S6.
Katzman, J. 2012. Making connections: Using telehealth to improve the diagnosis and treat-
ment of complex regional pain syndrome, an underrecognized neuroinflammatory dis
order. Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology. Published online October 2, 2012.
Kehle, S. M., N. Greer, I. Rutks, and T. J. Wilt. 2011. Interventions to Improve Veterans’
Access to Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Health Services Research &
Develop ent Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
m
Konnopka, A., R. Schaefert, S. Heinrich, C. Kaufmann, M. Luppa, W. Herzog, and H. H.
Konig. 2012. Economics of medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review of the
literature. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics 81(5):265-275.
Lincoln, A. E., D. A. Helmer, A. I. Schneiderman, M. Li, H. Copeland, M. K. Prisco,
M. T. Wallin, H. K. Kang, and B. H. Natelson. 2006. The war-related illness and injury
study centers: A resource for deployment-related health concerns. Military Medicine
171(7):577-585.
Lomas, J. 1993. Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: Who should do what? Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences 703:226-237.
Luck, J., F. Hagigi, L. E. Parker, E. M. Yano, L. V. Rubenstein, and J. E. Kirchner. 2009. A
social marketing approach to implementing evidence-based practice in VHA QUERI: The
TIDES depression collaborative care model. Implementation Science 4:64.
Mastal, M. F., M. E. Reardon, and M. English. 2007. Innovations in disability care coordi-
nation organizations: Integrating primary care and behavioral health clinical systems.
Professional Case Management 12(1):27-36.
McAllister, J. W., E. Presler, and W. C. Cooley. 2007. Practice-based care coordination: A
medical home essential. Pediatrics 120(3):e723-e733.
McGovern, M. P., T. S. Fox, H. Y. Xie, and R. E. Drake. 2004. A survey of clinical practices
and readiness to adopt evidence-based practices: Dissemination research in an addiction
treatment system. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 26(4):305-312.
Moore, K. A., R. H. Peters, H. A. Hills, J. B. LeVasseur, A. R. Rich, W. M. Hunt, M. S. Young,
and T. W. Valente. 2004. Characteristics of opinion leaders in substance abuse treatment
agencies. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 30(1):187-203.
Murphy, N. A., P. S. Carbone, Council on Children With Disabilities, and American Academy
of Pediatrics. 2011. Parent-provider-community partnerships: Optimizing outcomes for
children with disabilities. Pediatrics 128(4):795-802.
Nicholas, W., D. O. Farley, M. E. Vaiana, and S. Cretin. 2001. Putting Practice Guidelines
to Work in the Department of Defense Medical System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
Palsbo, S. E., and P. S. Ho. 2007. Consumer evaluation of a disability care coordination orga-
nization. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 18(4):887-901.
OCR for page 179
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 179
Palsbo, S. E., M. F. Mastal, and L. T. O’Donnell. 2006. Disability care coordination orga-
nizations: Improving health and function in people with disabilities. Lippincott’s Case
Managment 11(5):255-264.
Petersen, L. A., M. M. Byrne, C. N. Daw, J. Hasche, B. Reis, and K. Pietz. 2010. Relationship
between clinical conditions and use of Veterans Affairs health care among Medicare-
enrolled veterans. Health Services Research 45(3):762-791.
Petzel, R. A. 2012. What does the future look like for VA healthcare? U.S. Medicine: the
Voice of Federal Medicine, http://www.usmedicine.com/outlook/what-does-the-future-
look-like-for-va-healthcare.html (accessed September 28, 2012).
Ramanadhan, S., J. Weicha, S. Gortmaker, K. M. Emmons, and K. Viswanath. 2010. Infor-
mal training in staff networks to support dissemination of health promotion programs.
American Journal of Health Promotion 25(1):12-18.
Ramanadhan, S., J. Crisostomo, J. Alexander-Molloy, E. Gandelman, M. Grullon, V. Lora,
and K. Viswanath. 2012. Perceptions of evidence-based programs among community-
based organizations tackling health disparities: A qualitative study. Health Education
Research 27(4):717-728.
Reid, S., S. Wessely, T. Crayford, and M. Hotopf. 2002. Frequent attenders with medically
unexplained symptoms: Service use and costs in secondary care. British Journal of Psy-
chiatry 180:248-253.
Reinhard, M. J. 2012 (unpublished). Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and
Chronic Multi-symptom Illness. Presentation at the Second Committee Meeting, Febru-
ary 29, 2012, Washington, DC.
Reisinger, H. S., S. C. Hunt, A. L. Burgo-Black, and M. A. Agarwal. 2012. A population
approach to mitigating the long-term health effects of combat deployments. Preventing
Chronic Disease 9:E54.
Ren, X. S., L. Kazis, A. Lee, W. Rogers, and S. Pendergrass. 2001. Health status and satisfac-
tion with health care: A longitudinal study among patients served by the Veterans Health
Administration. American Journal of Medical Quaityl 16(5):166-173.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. New York: The Free Press.
Rooney, J. A. 2012a. Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. Hearing
on Seamless Transition: Review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. 112th
Cong. 2nd Sess. May 23, 2012. http://veterans.senate.gov/hearings.cfm?action=release.
display&release_id=5a948325-1c39-4251-81a7-a724f9b58c15 (accessed September 28,
2012).
Rooney, J. A. 2012b. Directive-Type Memorandium (DTM) 11-015—Integrated Disability
Evaluation System (IDES). Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
Ruzek, J. I., and R. C. Rosen. 2009. Disseminating evidence-based treatments for PTSD in
organizational settings: A high priority focus area. Behaviour Research and Therapy
47(11):980-989.
Smith, J. L., J. W. Williams, R. R. Owen, L. V. Rubenstein, and E. Chaney. 2008. Develop-
ing a national dissemination plan for collaborative care for depression: QUERI series.
Implementation Science 3.
Stroupe, K. T., D. M. Hynes, A. Giobbie-Hurder, E. Z. Oddone, M. Weinberger, D. J. Reda,
and W. G. Henderson. 2005. Patient satisfaction and use of Veterans Affairs versus non–
Veterans Affairs healthcare services by veterans. Medical Care 43(5):453-460.
Thomas, K. W., C. S. Dayton, and M. W. Peterson. 1999. Evaluation of Internet-based clinical
decision support systems. Journal of Medical Internet Research 1(2):E6.
Tinetti, M. E., T. R. Fried, and C. M. Boyd. 2012. Designing health care for the most com-
mon chronic condition–multimorbidity. Journal of the American Medical Association
307(23):2493-2494.
OCR for page 180
180 GULF WAR AND HEALTH
VA (Department of Veterans Affairs). 2008. Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD): A Joint
VA-DOD Initiative. VA Pamphlet 21-08-1.
VA. 2009a. Controlled Breathing Techniques. War Related Illness and Injury Study Center.
Palo Alto, CA.
VA. 2009b. Quick Start. http://www.vba.va.gov/predischarge/quickstart.htm (accessed Sep-
tember 29, 2012).
VA. 2009c. Self-Management: Giving Veteran Patients Tools to Take Control of Their Own
Health—A Resource for Health Care Providers. War Related Illness and Injury Study
Center. East Orange, NJ.
VA. 2010 (unpublished). Training letter 10-01: Adjudicating Claims Based on Service in
the Gulf War and Southwest Asia. http://www.ngwrc.org/docs/VAtl10-01.pdf (accessed
September 28, 2012).
VA. 2011a. Caring for Gulf War I Veterans. http://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/vhi/caring-
for-gulf-war-veterans-vhi.pdf (accessed March 11, 2013).
VA. 2011b. Complementary and Integrative Medicine: A Resouce for Veterans, Service Mem-
bers and Their Families. War Related Illness and Injury Study Center. East Orange, NJ.
VA. 2011c. Excercise to Help Manage Chronic Pain and/or Fatigue: A Resource for Veterans,
Service Members, and Their Families. War Related Illness and Injury Study Center. East
Orange, NJ.
VA. 2011d. Gulf War Era Veterans Report: Pre-9/11 (August 2, 1990 to September 10, 2001).
Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Speci-
alReports/GW_Pre911_report.pdf (accessed September 28, 2012).
VA. 2011e. Medically Unexplained Symptoms: A Resource for Veterans, Service Members, and
Their Families. War Related Illness and Injury Study Center. East Orange, NJ.
VA. 2011f. VA Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education. http://www.va.gov/oaa/
rfp_coe.asp (accessed September 19, 2012).
VA. 2012a. Analysis of VA Health Care Utilization Among Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF), Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation New Dawn (OND) Veterans.
http://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/epidemiology/healthcare-utilization-report-fy2012-
qtr2.pdf (accessed September 12, 2012).
VA. 2012b. Blue Button. http://www.va.gov/BLUEBUTTON/index.asp (accessed October 24,
2012).
VA. 2012c. Chapter 10 transition assistance. In Federal Benefits for Veterans, Dependents
and Survivors. http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/benefits_book/benefits_chap10.asp
(accessed November 29, 2012).
VA. 2012d. Department of Veterans Affairs Statistics at a Glance. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/
docs/Quickfacts/Stats_at_a_glance_FINAL.pdf (accessed September 19, 2012).
VA. 2012e. Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses Task Force Report. http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/
2011_GWVI-TF_Report.pdf (accessed September 28, 2012)
VA. 2012f. Health Benefits Priority Groups Table. http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/resources/
priority_groups.asp (accessed November 19, 2012).
VA. 2012g. Health Care: Patient Centered Care. http://www.va.gov/health/newsfeatures/
20120827a.asp (accessed November 19, 2012).
VA. 2012h. Improving Quality of Care. http://www.qualityandsafety.va.gov/qualityofcare/
improving-quality-of-care.asp (accessed November 19, 2012).
VA. 2012i. My HealtheVet. https://www.myhealth.va.gov/index.html (accessed October 24,
2012).
VA. 2012j. Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT). http://www.va.gov/primarycare/pcmh/ (accessed
September 28, 2012).
OCR for page 181
IMPLEMENTATION AND MODELS OF CARE 181
VA. 2012k. Review of Veterans’ Access to Mental Health Care. VA Office of Inspector General,
Veterans Health Administration. http://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-12-00900-168.pdf
(accessed September 28, 2012).
VA. 2012l. War Related Illness and Injury Study Center: What We Do. http://www.
warrelatedillness.va.gov/WARRELATEDILLNESS/about-us/what-we-do.asp (accessed
September 28, 2012).
VA and DOD (Department of Defense). 2001a. Clinical Practice Guideline for Post-
Deployment Health Evaluation and Management, Version 1.2. http://www.healthquality.
va.gov/pdh/PDH_cpg.pdf (accessed September 28, 2012).
VA and DOD. 2001b. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Medically Unexplained
Symptoms: Chronic Pain and Fatigue. http://www.healthquality.va.gov/mus/mus_fulltext.
pdf (accessed September 28, 2012).
VA and DOD. 2009a. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use
Disorders (SUD). http://www.healthquality.va.gov/sud/sud_full_601f.pdf (accessed Sep-
tember 28, 2012).
VA and DOD. 2009b. Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Concussion/Mild Trau-
matic Brain Injury. http://www.healthquality.va.gov/mtbi/concussion_mtbi_full_1_0.pdf
( ccessed September 28, 2012).
a
VA and DOD. 2009c. Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Major Depressive Disorder
(MDD). http://www.healthquality.va.gov/MDD_FULL_3c.pdf (accessed September 28,
2012).
VA and DOD. 2010a. Clinical Practice Guideline For Management of Post-Traumatic Stress.
http://www.healthquality.va.gov/ptsd/PTSD-FULL-2010a.pdf (accessed September 28,
2012).
VA and DOD. 2010b. Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Opioid Therapy for
Chronic Pain. http://www.healthquality.va.gov/COT_312_Full-er.pdf (accessed Septem-
ber 28, 2012).
VA and DOD. 2011. Manual for Facility Clinical Practice Guideline Champions. https://
www.qmo.amedd.army.mil/general_documents/Champion_Manual.pdf (accessed Sep-
tember 28, 2012).
Viswanath, K., K. D. Blake, H. I. Meissner, N. G. Saiontz, C. Mull, C. S. Freeman, B. Hesse,
and R. T. Croyle. 2008. Occupational practices and the making of health news: A
national survey of US health and medical science journalists. Journal of Health Com-
munication 13(8):759-777.
Walter, J., I. D. Coulter, A. Adler, P. D. Bliese, and R. Nicholas. 2010. Program evaluation of
total force fitness in the military. Military Medicine 175(8):103-109.
Walters, T. 2011 (unpublished). Institute of Medicine Committee on Gulf War and Health:
Treatments for Multi-Symptom Illness, December 12, 2011, Washington, DC.
West, A. N., W. B. Weeks, and A. E. Wallace. 2008. Rural veterans and access to high-quality
care for high-risk surgeries. Health Services Research 43(5):1737-1751.
Wright, S. M., T. Craig, S. Campbell, J. Schaefer, and C. Humble. 2006. Patient satisfaction
of female and male users of Veterans Health Administration services. Journal of General
Internal Medicine 21 (Suppl 3):S26-S32.
Yano, E. M., L. W. Green, K. Glanz, J. Z. Ayanian, B. S. Mittman, V. Chollette, and L. V.
Rubenstein. 2012. Implementation and spread of interventions into the multilevel context
of routine practice and policy: Implications for the cancer care continuum. Journal of the
National Cancer Institute Monograph (44):86-99.
OCR for page 182
