Federal Practitioner

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Telephone outreach by a nurse practitioner (NP) providing counseling and care coordination reduced the gaps in breast and cervical cancer screenings among women veterans in rural areas, according to a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of 55 women veterans who received interventions related to breast or cervical cancer screening at a rural Veterans Health Administration health care system.
• A Boost team, including an NP, a medical director, a program coordinator, and a program evaluation team, was established to provide care coordination and counseling for these participants.
• The NP conducted outreach by telephone to these participants receiving care at five community-based outpatient clinics located in rural counties and helped coordinate access to screening appointments through the Office of Community Care.
• Outcomes included the number of veterans due for breast or cervical cancer screening at the time of outreach and the number of mammograms and Pap smears completed in the 12-month period following the intervention.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 55 veterans who received Boost interventions related to cancer screening, 35 (64%) were due for breast cancer screening and 27 (49%) were due for cervical cancer screening before the intervention.
• Following the Boost intervention, the number of veterans due for breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings decreased to 18 (32%) and 16 (29%), respectively.
• Among veterans due for breast cancer screening, 29 (83%) received counseling regarding screening and 17 (59%) of counseled participants completed mammography; however, among those due for cervical cancer screening, 22 (81%) received counseling and 11 (50%) completed screening.
• None of the veterans who were due for screening but did not receive counseling completed their screening, demonstrating the critical role of clinician-provided education and counseling.

IN PRACTICE:

“We hope to expand Boost outreach from one NP working part-time across two health systems to a national partnership of licensed independent providers conducting clinician-initiated outreach to a broader and geographically more diverse group of veterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Lina Vadlamani, MD, MBA, San Francisco Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on April 24, 2026, in Military Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was a secondary analysis in which participants were not randomly assigned, limiting causal inferences. Veterans who answered the phone and engaged with the NP were likely easier to reach and potentially more proactive about their health than those who did not engage, and this selection bias may have limited the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Office of Rural Health. The authors reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rural populations experience more health care disparities than urban populations, including a greater proportion of adults aged ≥ 65 years, higher poverty, and a higher prevalence of chronic comorbidities. Reported rates vary by study methodology and over time.¹ These disparities are further exacerbated by reduced access to health care practitioners (HCPs), particularly physical and mental health specialty services, and a lack of rural health care facilities.¹ HCP training programs are primarily located in urban settings and may heavily influence the geographical location and population focus of newly trained HCPs’ first positions.² As the largest provider of health professions training, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can innovate to improve the quality of education and training while supporting rural health care sustainability and health care workforce retention.^3,4 

One such innovation is expanding the implementation of telesupervision (ie, clinical supervision delivered via synchronous audio and video formats) for health professions trainees. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the literature documenting telesupervision substantially expanded across health care disciplines. These findings support telesupervision as a feasible alternative to traditional in-person supervision and suggest increased trainee comfort with telehealth use.^5,6 The literature also provides insight into considerations for the use of telesupervision, including being more intentional in the development of the supervisory relationship,^6-8 and enabling appropriate access to supervisors to support quality patient care and experiential learning.^9,10 

This quality improvement examination of telesupervision in 11 rural VA psychology training programs spanned 3 years and included 3197 monthly surveys completed by supervisors and trainees. It supported the use of telesupervision compared with in-person or mixed modality supervision across a wide range of outcomes in upholding patient safety and maintaining the quality of supervision while also expanding trainees’ comfort in implementing telehealth care. The Table summarizes how frequently supervisors observed trainees providing clinical care via live observation, video or tape reviews, or conducting cotherapy. The clinical sessions for most trainees (70.3%) were directly observed by supervisors at least monthly across all methods. We also reviewed differences in Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI) scores, which quantify the strength of the working relationship between trainees and supervisors, across 458 rotations by position (trainee vs supervisor) and rurality (rural vs urban sites). Overall, alliance was high with mean scores of 5.5 to 6.7 on a 7-point scale. While trainees tended to report higher alliance (P < .001), there were no differences by rurality (P = .06) or the rurality × position interaction (P = .08), and the marginally significant effects were small, indicating that rurality tended to attenuate position effects (Figure). Additional analyses of modality (in-person, telesupervision, or mixed modalities) indicated no differences. Thus, trainee and supervisor data from this project identified safe, high-quality, and consistent supervisory practices. Finally, additional data highlighted the potential benefits of a mixed-modality supervision, including both in-person supervision and telesupervision.^11,12 

The expanded use of telesupervision provides several new opportunities for rural health care clinical supervisors, trainees, and veterans. Clinical supervisors who would otherwise operate as the sole HCP within their discipline or specialty at a remote clinic can increase their professional connection to a main facility and/or larger professional organization by serving as a clinical supervisor within a training program via telesupervision. This creates a greater connection to the larger mission, thereby supporting the clinical supervisor’s potential retention in their work setting.¹⁰ 

Telesupervision expands the opportunity for health professions trainees to be clinically supervised by individuals with the cultural knowledge specific to the patient population served (ie, those individuals working within or knowledgeable about the particular rural setting). This supports higher quality training and patient care, even if the trainee’s primary physical location is not colocated with the clinical supervisor. 

Telesupervision can expand the number of clinical supervisors and rotations available within a health care system or clinic, particularly for specialty services (eg, psychological testing, dermatology) that are not otherwise available within specific geographic regions. Thus, telesupervision enables a supervisor with the needed expertise, specialty, or advanced training at one clinic to supervise a trainee located hundreds to thousands of miles away while serving a veteran who may or may not be colocated with either HCP. For example, the supervisor may be located in American Samoa, supervising a trainee physically residing in Hawaii who provides telehealth patient care to a veteran in Saipan. This also enables health care systems serving rural patient populations to bolster their offerings to support future trainee recruitment. 

The more trainees increase their connection to caring for rural veterans, the greater the likelihood they will develop knowledge and contribute to these communities after completing their training. Consequently, telesupervision may be fundamental to improving rural population health, contributing to the sustainability of rural health training programs and workforce retention, increasing access to needed health care in geographical areas of shortage, and allowing trainees to receive supervision from those who are most competent in the specific needs of patients living in rural communities. 

The evolving landscape of telesupervision and associated opportunities underscores the need to bolster overall clinical supervision practices. Clinical supervision is more than assuming liability, cosigning notes, and ensuring that the standard of care is met. The provision of clinical supervision is a distinct competency separate from the delivery of clinical care. However, only a small portion of those providing clinical supervision have had formal training in supervision and the development of supervision competencies.^13,14 Thus, an HCP can be a highly proficient clinician while still being deficient in the skills needed to be a competent clinical supervisor, with a lack of training in supervision skills undermining engagement in effective supervision.¹⁵ 

Research supports the following as essential components of effective clinical supervision: a working alliance between supervisor and supervisee, inclusive of resolution of strains/ruptures, consistent provision of evaluative feedback, consistent supervision meetings, direct observation of clinical work, and opportunities for trainees to see skills modeled through experiential supervision.¹³ These elements enable investment in the long-term development of the trainee through deep and nuanced feedback provided, the supervisory relationship, access to mentoring, and assistance with articulating case formulations to enable future health care professionals to provide even better care. Engaging in effective supervision requires both the development of supervision competencies and the time allocation needed to uphold these essential elements. Although vital to quality health care, clinical supervision is not consistently reflected in labor mapping or productivity metrics. Consequently, limited dedicated time for supervision (eg, direct observation of trainees’ clinical care, reflection, and preparation to address trainees’ developmental needs) and heavy workloads remain major barriers to effective supervision.¹⁴ The continued expansion of technology-assisted supervision highlights the need for HCP duties and associated clinical supervisory skills (whether in person or via telesupervision) to become more integrated into their roles within health care settings. 

Upholding effective supervision practices within telesupervision requires thoughtful implementation. Supervisors should engage in direct observation of clinical work in a manner that enables timely correction of trainees and supplemental clinical care as needed, including interventions that assist trainees. In addition, it is essential that the supervisor provides trainees with access to scheduled, ad hoc, and emergent supervision. Furthermore, the supervisor needs to ensure that, regardless of modality, the supervisor can uphold the competency/learning goal development of the trainee (ie, meet learning needs), effectively deliver and receive constructive feedback, and model critical clinical skills relevant to the clinical training area. Of utmost importance, the supervisory oversight and type of supervision required should match the setting to ensure effective supervision. 

In some clinical settings, telesupervision may be less appropriate for upholding all elements of effective supervision while matching the needs of the clinical intervention and the trainee. Thus, supervisors need to engage in the supervisory modality that enables them to effectively intervene in clinical care according to the oversight needed. For example, a physical health care intervention may require the supervisor to provide hands-on guidance for a skill or procedure, whereas the dynamics of an inpatient mental health care setting may have patient care interactions that are not fully met by the use of telesupervision, such as complex patients’ needs, acuity, and crisis management. As telesupervision research continues to expand to better understand these applied complexities, there will be an evolving knowledge of the nuances in the application of telesupervision that best capture the benefits of telesupervision without compromising the quality of training and patient care. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Clinicians working with HCP trainees have the opportunity to use telesupervision to create a dynamic and rich learning environment while maintaining the quality of training and potentially reducing health disparities experienced by rural veterans. With this opportunity also comes the need to recognize clinical supervision as a competency and an essential role of an HCP. In doing so, a thoughtful approach to supervision will enable the powerful tool of telesupervision to be used to its highest potential in a responsible manner that does not overextend its reach. 

Rural populations experience more health care disparities than urban populations, including a greater proportion of adults aged ≥ 65 years, higher poverty, and a higher prevalence of chronic comorbidities. Reported rates vary by study methodology and over time.¹ These disparities are further exacerbated by reduced access to health care practitioners (HCPs), particularly physical and mental health specialty services, and a lack of rural health care facilities.¹ HCP training programs are primarily located in urban settings and may heavily influence the geographical location and population focus of newly trained HCPs’ first positions.² As the largest provider of health professions training, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can innovate to improve the quality of education and training while supporting rural health care sustainability and health care workforce retention.^3,4 

One such innovation is expanding the implementation of telesupervision (ie, clinical supervision delivered via synchronous audio and video formats) for health professions trainees. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the literature documenting telesupervision substantially expanded across health care disciplines. These findings support telesupervision as a feasible alternative to traditional in-person supervision and suggest increased trainee comfort with telehealth use.^5,6 The literature also provides insight into considerations for the use of telesupervision, including being more intentional in the development of the supervisory relationship,^6-8 and enabling appropriate access to supervisors to support quality patient care and experiential learning.^9,10 

This quality improvement examination of telesupervision in 11 rural VA psychology training programs spanned 3 years and included 3197 monthly surveys completed by supervisors and trainees. It supported the use of telesupervision compared with in-person or mixed modality supervision across a wide range of outcomes in upholding patient safety and maintaining the quality of supervision while also expanding trainees’ comfort in implementing telehealth care. The Table summarizes how frequently supervisors observed trainees providing clinical care via live observation, video or tape reviews, or conducting cotherapy. The clinical sessions for most trainees (70.3%) were directly observed by supervisors at least monthly across all methods. We also reviewed differences in Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI) scores, which quantify the strength of the working relationship between trainees and supervisors, across 458 rotations by position (trainee vs supervisor) and rurality (rural vs urban sites). Overall, alliance was high with mean scores of 5.5 to 6.7 on a 7-point scale. While trainees tended to report higher alliance (P < .001), there were no differences by rurality (P = .06) or the rurality × position interaction (P = .08), and the marginally significant effects were small, indicating that rurality tended to attenuate position effects (Figure). Additional analyses of modality (in-person, telesupervision, or mixed modalities) indicated no differences. Thus, trainee and supervisor data from this project identified safe, high-quality, and consistent supervisory practices. Finally, additional data highlighted the potential benefits of a mixed-modality supervision, including both in-person supervision and telesupervision.^11,12 

The expanded use of telesupervision provides several new opportunities for rural health care clinical supervisors, trainees, and veterans. Clinical supervisors who would otherwise operate as the sole HCP within their discipline or specialty at a remote clinic can increase their professional connection to a main facility and/or larger professional organization by serving as a clinical supervisor within a training program via telesupervision. This creates a greater connection to the larger mission, thereby supporting the clinical supervisor’s potential retention in their work setting.¹⁰ 

Telesupervision expands the opportunity for health professions trainees to be clinically supervised by individuals with the cultural knowledge specific to the patient population served (ie, those individuals working within or knowledgeable about the particular rural setting). This supports higher quality training and patient care, even if the trainee’s primary physical location is not colocated with the clinical supervisor. 

Telesupervision can expand the number of clinical supervisors and rotations available within a health care system or clinic, particularly for specialty services (eg, psychological testing, dermatology) that are not otherwise available within specific geographic regions. Thus, telesupervision enables a supervisor with the needed expertise, specialty, or advanced training at one clinic to supervise a trainee located hundreds to thousands of miles away while serving a veteran who may or may not be colocated with either HCP. For example, the supervisor may be located in American Samoa, supervising a trainee physically residing in Hawaii who provides telehealth patient care to a veteran in Saipan. This also enables health care systems serving rural patient populations to bolster their offerings to support future trainee recruitment. 

The more trainees increase their connection to caring for rural veterans, the greater the likelihood they will develop knowledge and contribute to these communities after completing their training. Consequently, telesupervision may be fundamental to improving rural population health, contributing to the sustainability of rural health training programs and workforce retention, increasing access to needed health care in geographical areas of shortage, and allowing trainees to receive supervision from those who are most competent in the specific needs of patients living in rural communities. 

The evolving landscape of telesupervision and associated opportunities underscores the need to bolster overall clinical supervision practices. Clinical supervision is more than assuming liability, cosigning notes, and ensuring that the standard of care is met. The provision of clinical supervision is a distinct competency separate from the delivery of clinical care. However, only a small portion of those providing clinical supervision have had formal training in supervision and the development of supervision competencies.^13,14 Thus, an HCP can be a highly proficient clinician while still being deficient in the skills needed to be a competent clinical supervisor, with a lack of training in supervision skills undermining engagement in effective supervision.¹⁵ 

Research supports the following as essential components of effective clinical supervision: a working alliance between supervisor and supervisee, inclusive of resolution of strains/ruptures, consistent provision of evaluative feedback, consistent supervision meetings, direct observation of clinical work, and opportunities for trainees to see skills modeled through experiential supervision.¹³ These elements enable investment in the long-term development of the trainee through deep and nuanced feedback provided, the supervisory relationship, access to mentoring, and assistance with articulating case formulations to enable future health care professionals to provide even better care. Engaging in effective supervision requires both the development of supervision competencies and the time allocation needed to uphold these essential elements. Although vital to quality health care, clinical supervision is not consistently reflected in labor mapping or productivity metrics. Consequently, limited dedicated time for supervision (eg, direct observation of trainees’ clinical care, reflection, and preparation to address trainees’ developmental needs) and heavy workloads remain major barriers to effective supervision.¹⁴ The continued expansion of technology-assisted supervision highlights the need for HCP duties and associated clinical supervisory skills (whether in person or via telesupervision) to become more integrated into their roles within health care settings. 

Upholding effective supervision practices within telesupervision requires thoughtful implementation. Supervisors should engage in direct observation of clinical work in a manner that enables timely correction of trainees and supplemental clinical care as needed, including interventions that assist trainees. In addition, it is essential that the supervisor provides trainees with access to scheduled, ad hoc, and emergent supervision. Furthermore, the supervisor needs to ensure that, regardless of modality, the supervisor can uphold the competency/learning goal development of the trainee (ie, meet learning needs), effectively deliver and receive constructive feedback, and model critical clinical skills relevant to the clinical training area. Of utmost importance, the supervisory oversight and type of supervision required should match the setting to ensure effective supervision. 

In some clinical settings, telesupervision may be less appropriate for upholding all elements of effective supervision while matching the needs of the clinical intervention and the trainee. Thus, supervisors need to engage in the supervisory modality that enables them to effectively intervene in clinical care according to the oversight needed. For example, a physical health care intervention may require the supervisor to provide hands-on guidance for a skill or procedure, whereas the dynamics of an inpatient mental health care setting may have patient care interactions that are not fully met by the use of telesupervision, such as complex patients’ needs, acuity, and crisis management. As telesupervision research continues to expand to better understand these applied complexities, there will be an evolving knowledge of the nuances in the application of telesupervision that best capture the benefits of telesupervision without compromising the quality of training and patient care. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Clinicians working with HCP trainees have the opportunity to use telesupervision to create a dynamic and rich learning environment while maintaining the quality of training and potentially reducing health disparities experienced by rural veterans. With this opportunity also comes the need to recognize clinical supervision as a competency and an essential role of an HCP. In doing so, a thoughtful approach to supervision will enable the powerful tool of telesupervision to be used to its highest potential in a responsible manner that does not overextend its reach. 

Rural populations experience more health care disparities than urban populations, including a greater proportion of adults aged ≥ 65 years, higher poverty, and a higher prevalence of chronic comorbidities. Reported rates vary by study methodology and over time.¹ These disparities are further exacerbated by reduced access to health care practitioners (HCPs), particularly physical and mental health specialty services, and a lack of rural health care facilities.¹ HCP training programs are primarily located in urban settings and may heavily influence the geographical location and population focus of newly trained HCPs’ first positions.² As the largest provider of health professions training, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can innovate to improve the quality of education and training while supporting rural health care sustainability and health care workforce retention.^3,4 

One such innovation is expanding the implementation of telesupervision (ie, clinical supervision delivered via synchronous audio and video formats) for health professions trainees. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the literature documenting telesupervision substantially expanded across health care disciplines. These findings support telesupervision as a feasible alternative to traditional in-person supervision and suggest increased trainee comfort with telehealth use.^5,6 The literature also provides insight into considerations for the use of telesupervision, including being more intentional in the development of the supervisory relationship,^6-8 and enabling appropriate access to supervisors to support quality patient care and experiential learning.^9,10 

This quality improvement examination of telesupervision in 11 rural VA psychology training programs spanned 3 years and included 3197 monthly surveys completed by supervisors and trainees. It supported the use of telesupervision compared with in-person or mixed modality supervision across a wide range of outcomes in upholding patient safety and maintaining the quality of supervision while also expanding trainees’ comfort in implementing telehealth care. The Table summarizes how frequently supervisors observed trainees providing clinical care via live observation, video or tape reviews, or conducting cotherapy. The clinical sessions for most trainees (70.3%) were directly observed by supervisors at least monthly across all methods. We also reviewed differences in Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI) scores, which quantify the strength of the working relationship between trainees and supervisors, across 458 rotations by position (trainee vs supervisor) and rurality (rural vs urban sites). Overall, alliance was high with mean scores of 5.5 to 6.7 on a 7-point scale. While trainees tended to report higher alliance (P < .001), there were no differences by rurality (P = .06) or the rurality × position interaction (P = .08), and the marginally significant effects were small, indicating that rurality tended to attenuate position effects (Figure). Additional analyses of modality (in-person, telesupervision, or mixed modalities) indicated no differences. Thus, trainee and supervisor data from this project identified safe, high-quality, and consistent supervisory practices. Finally, additional data highlighted the potential benefits of a mixed-modality supervision, including both in-person supervision and telesupervision.^11,12 

The expanded use of telesupervision provides several new opportunities for rural health care clinical supervisors, trainees, and veterans. Clinical supervisors who would otherwise operate as the sole HCP within their discipline or specialty at a remote clinic can increase their professional connection to a main facility and/or larger professional organization by serving as a clinical supervisor within a training program via telesupervision. This creates a greater connection to the larger mission, thereby supporting the clinical supervisor’s potential retention in their work setting.¹⁰ 

Telesupervision expands the opportunity for health professions trainees to be clinically supervised by individuals with the cultural knowledge specific to the patient population served (ie, those individuals working within or knowledgeable about the particular rural setting). This supports higher quality training and patient care, even if the trainee’s primary physical location is not colocated with the clinical supervisor. 

Telesupervision can expand the number of clinical supervisors and rotations available within a health care system or clinic, particularly for specialty services (eg, psychological testing, dermatology) that are not otherwise available within specific geographic regions. Thus, telesupervision enables a supervisor with the needed expertise, specialty, or advanced training at one clinic to supervise a trainee located hundreds to thousands of miles away while serving a veteran who may or may not be colocated with either HCP. For example, the supervisor may be located in American Samoa, supervising a trainee physically residing in Hawaii who provides telehealth patient care to a veteran in Saipan. This also enables health care systems serving rural patient populations to bolster their offerings to support future trainee recruitment. 

The more trainees increase their connection to caring for rural veterans, the greater the likelihood they will develop knowledge and contribute to these communities after completing their training. Consequently, telesupervision may be fundamental to improving rural population health, contributing to the sustainability of rural health training programs and workforce retention, increasing access to needed health care in geographical areas of shortage, and allowing trainees to receive supervision from those who are most competent in the specific needs of patients living in rural communities. 

The evolving landscape of telesupervision and associated opportunities underscores the need to bolster overall clinical supervision practices. Clinical supervision is more than assuming liability, cosigning notes, and ensuring that the standard of care is met. The provision of clinical supervision is a distinct competency separate from the delivery of clinical care. However, only a small portion of those providing clinical supervision have had formal training in supervision and the development of supervision competencies.^13,14 Thus, an HCP can be a highly proficient clinician while still being deficient in the skills needed to be a competent clinical supervisor, with a lack of training in supervision skills undermining engagement in effective supervision.¹⁵ 

Research supports the following as essential components of effective clinical supervision: a working alliance between supervisor and supervisee, inclusive of resolution of strains/ruptures, consistent provision of evaluative feedback, consistent supervision meetings, direct observation of clinical work, and opportunities for trainees to see skills modeled through experiential supervision.¹³ These elements enable investment in the long-term development of the trainee through deep and nuanced feedback provided, the supervisory relationship, access to mentoring, and assistance with articulating case formulations to enable future health care professionals to provide even better care. Engaging in effective supervision requires both the development of supervision competencies and the time allocation needed to uphold these essential elements. Although vital to quality health care, clinical supervision is not consistently reflected in labor mapping or productivity metrics. Consequently, limited dedicated time for supervision (eg, direct observation of trainees’ clinical care, reflection, and preparation to address trainees’ developmental needs) and heavy workloads remain major barriers to effective supervision.¹⁴ The continued expansion of technology-assisted supervision highlights the need for HCP duties and associated clinical supervisory skills (whether in person or via telesupervision) to become more integrated into their roles within health care settings. 

Upholding effective supervision practices within telesupervision requires thoughtful implementation. Supervisors should engage in direct observation of clinical work in a manner that enables timely correction of trainees and supplemental clinical care as needed, including interventions that assist trainees. In addition, it is essential that the supervisor provides trainees with access to scheduled, ad hoc, and emergent supervision. Furthermore, the supervisor needs to ensure that, regardless of modality, the supervisor can uphold the competency/learning goal development of the trainee (ie, meet learning needs), effectively deliver and receive constructive feedback, and model critical clinical skills relevant to the clinical training area. Of utmost importance, the supervisory oversight and type of supervision required should match the setting to ensure effective supervision. 

In some clinical settings, telesupervision may be less appropriate for upholding all elements of effective supervision while matching the needs of the clinical intervention and the trainee. Thus, supervisors need to engage in the supervisory modality that enables them to effectively intervene in clinical care according to the oversight needed. For example, a physical health care intervention may require the supervisor to provide hands-on guidance for a skill or procedure, whereas the dynamics of an inpatient mental health care setting may have patient care interactions that are not fully met by the use of telesupervision, such as complex patients’ needs, acuity, and crisis management. As telesupervision research continues to expand to better understand these applied complexities, there will be an evolving knowledge of the nuances in the application of telesupervision that best capture the benefits of telesupervision without compromising the quality of training and patient care. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Clinicians working with HCP trainees have the opportunity to use telesupervision to create a dynamic and rich learning environment while maintaining the quality of training and potentially reducing health disparities experienced by rural veterans. With this opportunity also comes the need to recognize clinical supervision as a competency and an essential role of an HCP. In doing so, a thoughtful approach to supervision will enable the powerful tool of telesupervision to be used to its highest potential in a responsible manner that does not overextend its reach. 

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had follow-up outcome data after completing a 12-week telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation program had improved functional capacity, with 6-minute walk distance increasing by 41.3 m (15.7%) and quality-of-life scores improving by 27.9% to 42.7%. The virtual program had an 86% completion rate, suggesting telehealth rehabilitation may be a feasible alternative to traditional in-person programs.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 12-week single-arm cohort intervention evaluated effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of in-home, supervised telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation delivered via US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Video Connect in Houston, Texas. 

• Participants included 51 veterans with COPD aged ≥ 18 years and referred to the program; exclusions included mobility-limiting surgery, neurologic disease impairing walking, likely nonadherence, or unwillingness to consent. 

• Intervention consisted of 1 session weekly for about 120 minutes led by a licensed physical therapist and respiratory therapist, with home monitoring of blood pressure, heart rate, SpO₂, respiratory rate, and exertion. 

• In-person outcome assessments occurred at baseline and 12 weeks; the primary outcome was the 6-minute walk test, and secondary outcomes included Timed Up & Go test, Five Times Sit-to-Stand test, and quality of life via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test.

TAKEAWAY:

• Functional capacity improved significantly with a mean increase of 41.3 m in 6-minute walk distance, a 15.7% improvement (P < .001; d = 0.76), surpassing the minimal clinically important difference of 25 m for patients with COPD. 

• COPD-affected quality of life improved, with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores decreasing by 18.2 points, a 27.9% improvement (P < .001), and COPD Assessment Test scores decreasing by 12.1 points, a 42.7% improvement (P < .001). 

• Functional mobility and lower-body strength also improved, with Timed Up and Go test completion time decreasing by 1.2 seconds (9.9% faster; P = .02) and Five Times Sit-to-Stand test time improving by 1.2 seconds (9.0% faster; P = .02). 

• Program retention was high, with 44 of 51 participants (86.3%) completing the full intervention. When excluding COVID-19 pandemic–related dropouts, the retention rate increased to 90.2%

IN PRACTICE: “Our study not only highlights the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving the functional performance of COPD patients but also emphasizes the potential use of telehealth-rehabilitation as a viable alternative to traditional in-clinic programs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study’s first author was Abderrahman Ouattas, Interdisciplinary Consortium on Advanced Motion Performance, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study lacked a control group and included predominantly male participants, which may limit generalizability. The modest sample size and insufficient exploration of potential confounding factors further constrain the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the study was limited to veterans living within 80 miles of Houston, creating an unusual proximity requirement for telehealth programs that could introduce selection bias. The researchers noted that actively recruiting during the COVID-19 pandemic presented unforeseen challenges, and the absence of remote biomechanical data collection may have limited the ability to monitor rehabilitation progress and make necessary adjustments.

DISCLOSURES: The authors report no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest. No specific funding sources or financial disclosures were mentioned.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Patients treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or pneumonia experienced worse outcomes when treated at hospitals acquired by private equity firms, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2026 International Conference.

“Previous studies have linked private equity acquisition of hospitals to worse patient experiences and higher rates of hospital-acquired adverse events, such as falls, although findings for specific medical conditions have been more variable,” according to lead author Stephen Mein, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“We wanted to understand whether private equity acquisitions impacted outcomes for patients hospitalized with COPD and pneumonia because these conditions are among the most common reasons for hospitalization and they are widely included in measures of hospital care quality,” he said.

Mein and colleagues reviewed data from Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 41 private equity hospitals and 192 matched control hospitals between 2010 and 2019, including 146,904 COPD visits and 194,993 pneumonia visits.

The study population was Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had at least one hospital encounter (defined as observation stay or inpatient admission) for asthma, COPD, or pneumonia. The clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day hospital revisit rates. The researchers compared changes in outcomes across 3 years before and after acquisition in a linear regression analysis. Models adjusted for patient age, sex, race and ethnicity, clinical risk score, and dual eligibility status.

Overall, no changes in patient age, sex, clinical risk scores or dual-eligibility status across all conditions at private equity hospitals were noted compared with control hospitals. However, 30-day hospital revisits among patients with asthma increased significantly at private equity hospitals compared to control hospitals (difference-in-differences, + 8.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.0-12.7). No significant changes were noted for in-hospital mortality or 30-day mortality.

Similarly, 30-day hospital revisits were significantly higher for patients with COPD at private equity hospitals than at control hospitals (+ 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6). Patients with pneumonia had an increased in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals compared with control hospitals (+ 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2), with no differences in 30-day mortality or revisits.

The findings that patients treated for COPD at private equity-acquired hospitals more often returned to the hospital within 30 days after hospital discharge and that patients with pneumonia were more likely to die during their hospital stay were surprising, Mein noted. “The 1-percentage-point increase in deaths among patients with pneumonia is especially concerning as the baseline in-hospital mortality rate for this condition was only 3%-4%,” he said.

“Our findings add to growing concerns around the potential negative effects of private equity ownership in healthcare and highlight the need for stronger oversight of these acquisitions to help protect our patients, and the results have implications for many patients as private equity acquisitions of US hospitals are becoming more common,” Mein said.

The findings were limited by the focus on older adults with Medicare insurance, and may not be generalizable to other patient populations, said Mein. “In addition, we were unable to account for differences in private equity firm practices or identify potential heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitals acquired by different private equity firms,” he said. More research is needed to understand the factors contributing to worse outcomes at private equity-acquired hospitals in the current study and other published work, Mein added.

Vigilance is Needed to Optimize Outcomes

“Given the rapid increase in acquisitions of US hospitals by private equity firms, it is important to evaluate how these acquisitions affect patient health outcomes,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The worse outcomes observed among patients hospitalized in privately acquired hospitals were not entirely unexpected,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study. “Although not explicitly stated in the abstract, these acquisitions may involve cost-containment strategies, such as potential reductions in staffing. particularly nursing and support staff, changes in supply chain management, or the scaling back of less profitable services, which likely contribute to worse patient outcomes,” she said.

More research is needed to identify the potential etiologies driving these differences in outcomes, which would help inform strategies for improvement, said Baldomero. However, the results of the new study suggest that clinicians managing patients discharged from acquired hospitals should be vigilant about discharge planning, transitions, and follow-up to mitigate poor health outcomes, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or pneumonia experienced worse outcomes when treated at hospitals acquired by private equity firms, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2026 International Conference.

“Previous studies have linked private equity acquisition of hospitals to worse patient experiences and higher rates of hospital-acquired adverse events, such as falls, although findings for specific medical conditions have been more variable,” according to lead author Stephen Mein, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“We wanted to understand whether private equity acquisitions impacted outcomes for patients hospitalized with COPD and pneumonia because these conditions are among the most common reasons for hospitalization and they are widely included in measures of hospital care quality,” he said.

Mein and colleagues reviewed data from Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 41 private equity hospitals and 192 matched control hospitals between 2010 and 2019, including 146,904 COPD visits and 194,993 pneumonia visits.

The study population was Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had at least one hospital encounter (defined as observation stay or inpatient admission) for asthma, COPD, or pneumonia. The clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day hospital revisit rates. The researchers compared changes in outcomes across 3 years before and after acquisition in a linear regression analysis. Models adjusted for patient age, sex, race and ethnicity, clinical risk score, and dual eligibility status.

Overall, no changes in patient age, sex, clinical risk scores or dual-eligibility status across all conditions at private equity hospitals were noted compared with control hospitals. However, 30-day hospital revisits among patients with asthma increased significantly at private equity hospitals compared to control hospitals (difference-in-differences, + 8.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.0-12.7). No significant changes were noted for in-hospital mortality or 30-day mortality.

Similarly, 30-day hospital revisits were significantly higher for patients with COPD at private equity hospitals than at control hospitals (+ 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6). Patients with pneumonia had an increased in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals compared with control hospitals (+ 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2), with no differences in 30-day mortality or revisits.

The findings that patients treated for COPD at private equity-acquired hospitals more often returned to the hospital within 30 days after hospital discharge and that patients with pneumonia were more likely to die during their hospital stay were surprising, Mein noted. “The 1-percentage-point increase in deaths among patients with pneumonia is especially concerning as the baseline in-hospital mortality rate for this condition was only 3%-4%,” he said.

“Our findings add to growing concerns around the potential negative effects of private equity ownership in healthcare and highlight the need for stronger oversight of these acquisitions to help protect our patients, and the results have implications for many patients as private equity acquisitions of US hospitals are becoming more common,” Mein said.

The findings were limited by the focus on older adults with Medicare insurance, and may not be generalizable to other patient populations, said Mein. “In addition, we were unable to account for differences in private equity firm practices or identify potential heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitals acquired by different private equity firms,” he said. More research is needed to understand the factors contributing to worse outcomes at private equity-acquired hospitals in the current study and other published work, Mein added.

Vigilance is Needed to Optimize Outcomes

“Given the rapid increase in acquisitions of US hospitals by private equity firms, it is important to evaluate how these acquisitions affect patient health outcomes,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The worse outcomes observed among patients hospitalized in privately acquired hospitals were not entirely unexpected,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study. “Although not explicitly stated in the abstract, these acquisitions may involve cost-containment strategies, such as potential reductions in staffing. particularly nursing and support staff, changes in supply chain management, or the scaling back of less profitable services, which likely contribute to worse patient outcomes,” she said.

More research is needed to identify the potential etiologies driving these differences in outcomes, which would help inform strategies for improvement, said Baldomero. However, the results of the new study suggest that clinicians managing patients discharged from acquired hospitals should be vigilant about discharge planning, transitions, and follow-up to mitigate poor health outcomes, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients treated for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or pneumonia experienced worse outcomes when treated at hospitals acquired by private equity firms, based on data from a new study presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) 2026 International Conference.

“Previous studies have linked private equity acquisition of hospitals to worse patient experiences and higher rates of hospital-acquired adverse events, such as falls, although findings for specific medical conditions have been more variable,” according to lead author Stephen Mein, MD, a pulmonologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“We wanted to understand whether private equity acquisitions impacted outcomes for patients hospitalized with COPD and pneumonia because these conditions are among the most common reasons for hospitalization and they are widely included in measures of hospital care quality,” he said.

Mein and colleagues reviewed data from Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 41 private equity hospitals and 192 matched control hospitals between 2010 and 2019, including 146,904 COPD visits and 194,993 pneumonia visits.

The study population was Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who had at least one hospital encounter (defined as observation stay or inpatient admission) for asthma, COPD, or pneumonia. The clinical outcomes were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day hospital revisit rates. The researchers compared changes in outcomes across 3 years before and after acquisition in a linear regression analysis. Models adjusted for patient age, sex, race and ethnicity, clinical risk score, and dual eligibility status.

Overall, no changes in patient age, sex, clinical risk scores or dual-eligibility status across all conditions at private equity hospitals were noted compared with control hospitals. However, 30-day hospital revisits among patients with asthma increased significantly at private equity hospitals compared to control hospitals (difference-in-differences, + 8.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.0-12.7). No significant changes were noted for in-hospital mortality or 30-day mortality.

Similarly, 30-day hospital revisits were significantly higher for patients with COPD at private equity hospitals than at control hospitals (+ 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1-1.6). Patients with pneumonia had an increased in-hospital mortality at private equity hospitals compared with control hospitals (+ 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2-1.2), with no differences in 30-day mortality or revisits.

The findings that patients treated for COPD at private equity-acquired hospitals more often returned to the hospital within 30 days after hospital discharge and that patients with pneumonia were more likely to die during their hospital stay were surprising, Mein noted. “The 1-percentage-point increase in deaths among patients with pneumonia is especially concerning as the baseline in-hospital mortality rate for this condition was only 3%-4%,” he said.

“Our findings add to growing concerns around the potential negative effects of private equity ownership in healthcare and highlight the need for stronger oversight of these acquisitions to help protect our patients, and the results have implications for many patients as private equity acquisitions of US hospitals are becoming more common,” Mein said.

The findings were limited by the focus on older adults with Medicare insurance, and may not be generalizable to other patient populations, said Mein. “In addition, we were unable to account for differences in private equity firm practices or identify potential heterogeneity in outcomes across hospitals acquired by different private equity firms,” he said. More research is needed to understand the factors contributing to worse outcomes at private equity-acquired hospitals in the current study and other published work, Mein added.

Vigilance is Needed to Optimize Outcomes

“Given the rapid increase in acquisitions of US hospitals by private equity firms, it is important to evaluate how these acquisitions affect patient health outcomes,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, MS, a pulmonologist, critical care physician, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“The worse outcomes observed among patients hospitalized in privately acquired hospitals were not entirely unexpected,” said Baldomero, who was not involved in the study. “Although not explicitly stated in the abstract, these acquisitions may involve cost-containment strategies, such as potential reductions in staffing. particularly nursing and support staff, changes in supply chain management, or the scaling back of less profitable services, which likely contribute to worse patient outcomes,” she said.

More research is needed to identify the potential etiologies driving these differences in outcomes, which would help inform strategies for improvement, said Baldomero. However, the results of the new study suggest that clinicians managing patients discharged from acquired hospitals should be vigilant about discharge planning, transitions, and follow-up to mitigate poor health outcomes, she said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes produced lower-quality documentation of clinical notes than human clinicians, and especially struggled in settings with background noise or clinicians wearing masks, a new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) study finds.

In 5 simulated clinical cases, notes written by various AI programs scored lower than reports produced by humans on the modified Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), a measurement of note quality scale, reported Ashok Reddy, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, et al in the April issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

AI scribes scored lower compared with humans across all domains, including accuracy, thoroughness, and usefulness. There was an especially large gap in scores on the 50-point PDQI-9 in an acute low back pain case (human, 43.8 points; AI, 20.3 points; difference, 23.5 points).

“For clinicians, AI scribes should be regarded as tools for generating draft documentation that requires review and editing, rather than as a substitute for clinician-authored notes,” the authors wrote. “Although ambient AI scribes hold promise for reducing clinician burden, rigorous and ongoing evaluation of their quality is essential to ensure that these tools enhance rather than compromise the quality of clinical care.”

AI Scribe Use is Widespread

Taylor N. Anderson, MD, a clinical informatics fellow at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, is familiar with the study findings and noted that the use of AI scribes in medicine has grown rapidly. All major health organizations are either using it or facing “enormous pressure” from clinicians to do so, she told Federal Practitioner. 

Previous research has linked the use of AI scribes for clinical notes to less electronic health record usage and documentation time for clinicians, leading to more time for patient visits. Still, the quality of clinical notes written by AI is “quite variable across vendors,” Anderson said.

Anderson led a 2025 study that examined 5 AI scribe platforms and found an average of 3.0 errors per case with “potential for moderate-to-severe harm.”

For the new study on the simulated cases, part of a VHA-sponsored “technology sprint” via Challenge.gov, researchers developed audio descriptions of 5 clinical cases reflecting common patient encounters in primary care: acute low back pain, chest pain, a new diagnosis of diabetes, a pharmacy consultation, and a follow-up with a nurse case manager for heart failure. 

Two cases included non-English accents, 1 included background noise, and 1 featured speech through a medical mask. All the “patients” were played by what the authors described as “trained standardized patient actors.”

For each case, 3 humans and 11 AI scribe programs produced clinical notes. The clinical notes were then evaluated by 6 raters.

Researchers found that AI scribe-generated notes scored worse than human-generated notes across all 10 domains of the modified PDQI-9 (accuracy, thoroughness, usefulness, organization, comprehensiveness, succinctness, synthesization, internal consistency, and freedom from hallucination and bias).

There were especially large gaps between the AI and human notes in the domains of thoroughness, organization, and usefulness. Even wider gaps were observed for the encounters with noise and mask usage.

“These findings highlight that although ambient AI scribes can generate complete notes, the overall quality remains broadly below that of human-authored documentation,” the authors wrote. 

No Comparison Between AI Scribes

The researchers noted that “given contractual limitations, we cannot interpret the results for specific vendors.” They also noted that the study did not use professional scribes, who may produce even higher-quality results, and the humans were not producing notes in a real-world clinical environment.

Anderson, the clinical informatics fellow, pointed out that the study does not examine the common scenario in which a clinician edits notes produced by an AI scribe. In fact, she said, there is no current research on this, failing to examine “the postediting note that would actually go into the chart.”

In an accompanying commentary, collaborative scientist Aaron Tierney, PhD, and Kristine Lee, MD, an associate executive director, both with the Permanente Medical Group, California, called for future research to focus on “real-world performance, promote the development of documentation policies that prioritize patient care over billing requirements, and systematically incorporate patient perspectives into assessments of quality.”

Why AI Misses the Mark

In an interview with Federal Practitioner, AI researcher Maxim Topaz, PhD, RN, MA, an associate professor of Nursing and Data Science at Columbia University School of Nursing, New York City, who is familiar with the study but did not participate in it, praised the research. 

He pointed out that AI has trouble accurately representing clinical encounters because they “tend to fill gaps with plausible-sounding language, which can mask omissions and make errors harder to catch.” Also, “ambient scribes can only document what is verbalized aloud. Physical exam findings the clinician notices but does not narrate, nonverbal cues, and patient-initiated concerns that drift past in conversation are systematically underrepresented.”

Moving forward, Topaz advised clinicians to “treat AI-generated notes as a first draft, not a finished product. Read them carefully, especially for omissions, which the current evidence suggests are by far the most common error type and which are harder to spot than fabrications because the surrounding note still reads coherently.”

Two study authors disclosed employment by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Other authors had no disclosures. The commentary authors have no disclosures. Anderson has no disclosures. Topaz discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health and other federal sources.

Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes produced lower-quality documentation of clinical notes than human clinicians, and especially struggled in settings with background noise or clinicians wearing masks, a new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) study finds.

In 5 simulated clinical cases, notes written by various AI programs scored lower than reports produced by humans on the modified Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), a measurement of note quality scale, reported Ashok Reddy, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, et al in the April issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

AI scribes scored lower compared with humans across all domains, including accuracy, thoroughness, and usefulness. There was an especially large gap in scores on the 50-point PDQI-9 in an acute low back pain case (human, 43.8 points; AI, 20.3 points; difference, 23.5 points).

“For clinicians, AI scribes should be regarded as tools for generating draft documentation that requires review and editing, rather than as a substitute for clinician-authored notes,” the authors wrote. “Although ambient AI scribes hold promise for reducing clinician burden, rigorous and ongoing evaluation of their quality is essential to ensure that these tools enhance rather than compromise the quality of clinical care.”

AI Scribe Use is Widespread

Taylor N. Anderson, MD, a clinical informatics fellow at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, is familiar with the study findings and noted that the use of AI scribes in medicine has grown rapidly. All major health organizations are either using it or facing “enormous pressure” from clinicians to do so, she told Federal Practitioner. 

Previous research has linked the use of AI scribes for clinical notes to less electronic health record usage and documentation time for clinicians, leading to more time for patient visits. Still, the quality of clinical notes written by AI is “quite variable across vendors,” Anderson said.

Anderson led a 2025 study that examined 5 AI scribe platforms and found an average of 3.0 errors per case with “potential for moderate-to-severe harm.”

For the new study on the simulated cases, part of a VHA-sponsored “technology sprint” via Challenge.gov, researchers developed audio descriptions of 5 clinical cases reflecting common patient encounters in primary care: acute low back pain, chest pain, a new diagnosis of diabetes, a pharmacy consultation, and a follow-up with a nurse case manager for heart failure. 

Two cases included non-English accents, 1 included background noise, and 1 featured speech through a medical mask. All the “patients” were played by what the authors described as “trained standardized patient actors.”

For each case, 3 humans and 11 AI scribe programs produced clinical notes. The clinical notes were then evaluated by 6 raters.

Researchers found that AI scribe-generated notes scored worse than human-generated notes across all 10 domains of the modified PDQI-9 (accuracy, thoroughness, usefulness, organization, comprehensiveness, succinctness, synthesization, internal consistency, and freedom from hallucination and bias).

There were especially large gaps between the AI and human notes in the domains of thoroughness, organization, and usefulness. Even wider gaps were observed for the encounters with noise and mask usage.

“These findings highlight that although ambient AI scribes can generate complete notes, the overall quality remains broadly below that of human-authored documentation,” the authors wrote. 

No Comparison Between AI Scribes

The researchers noted that “given contractual limitations, we cannot interpret the results for specific vendors.” They also noted that the study did not use professional scribes, who may produce even higher-quality results, and the humans were not producing notes in a real-world clinical environment.

Anderson, the clinical informatics fellow, pointed out that the study does not examine the common scenario in which a clinician edits notes produced by an AI scribe. In fact, she said, there is no current research on this, failing to examine “the postediting note that would actually go into the chart.”

In an accompanying commentary, collaborative scientist Aaron Tierney, PhD, and Kristine Lee, MD, an associate executive director, both with the Permanente Medical Group, California, called for future research to focus on “real-world performance, promote the development of documentation policies that prioritize patient care over billing requirements, and systematically incorporate patient perspectives into assessments of quality.”

Why AI Misses the Mark

In an interview with Federal Practitioner, AI researcher Maxim Topaz, PhD, RN, MA, an associate professor of Nursing and Data Science at Columbia University School of Nursing, New York City, who is familiar with the study but did not participate in it, praised the research. 

He pointed out that AI has trouble accurately representing clinical encounters because they “tend to fill gaps with plausible-sounding language, which can mask omissions and make errors harder to catch.” Also, “ambient scribes can only document what is verbalized aloud. Physical exam findings the clinician notices but does not narrate, nonverbal cues, and patient-initiated concerns that drift past in conversation are systematically underrepresented.”

Moving forward, Topaz advised clinicians to “treat AI-generated notes as a first draft, not a finished product. Read them carefully, especially for omissions, which the current evidence suggests are by far the most common error type and which are harder to spot than fabrications because the surrounding note still reads coherently.”

Two study authors disclosed employment by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Other authors had no disclosures. The commentary authors have no disclosures. Anderson has no disclosures. Topaz discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health and other federal sources.

Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes produced lower-quality documentation of clinical notes than human clinicians, and especially struggled in settings with background noise or clinicians wearing masks, a new Veterans Health Administration (VHA) study finds.

In 5 simulated clinical cases, notes written by various AI programs scored lower than reports produced by humans on the modified Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9), a measurement of note quality scale, reported Ashok Reddy, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, et al in the April issue of Annals of Internal Medicine.

AI scribes scored lower compared with humans across all domains, including accuracy, thoroughness, and usefulness. There was an especially large gap in scores on the 50-point PDQI-9 in an acute low back pain case (human, 43.8 points; AI, 20.3 points; difference, 23.5 points).

“For clinicians, AI scribes should be regarded as tools for generating draft documentation that requires review and editing, rather than as a substitute for clinician-authored notes,” the authors wrote. “Although ambient AI scribes hold promise for reducing clinician burden, rigorous and ongoing evaluation of their quality is essential to ensure that these tools enhance rather than compromise the quality of clinical care.”

AI Scribe Use is Widespread

Taylor N. Anderson, MD, a clinical informatics fellow at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, is familiar with the study findings and noted that the use of AI scribes in medicine has grown rapidly. All major health organizations are either using it or facing “enormous pressure” from clinicians to do so, she told Federal Practitioner. 

Previous research has linked the use of AI scribes for clinical notes to less electronic health record usage and documentation time for clinicians, leading to more time for patient visits. Still, the quality of clinical notes written by AI is “quite variable across vendors,” Anderson said.

Anderson led a 2025 study that examined 5 AI scribe platforms and found an average of 3.0 errors per case with “potential for moderate-to-severe harm.”

For the new study on the simulated cases, part of a VHA-sponsored “technology sprint” via Challenge.gov, researchers developed audio descriptions of 5 clinical cases reflecting common patient encounters in primary care: acute low back pain, chest pain, a new diagnosis of diabetes, a pharmacy consultation, and a follow-up with a nurse case manager for heart failure. 

Two cases included non-English accents, 1 included background noise, and 1 featured speech through a medical mask. All the “patients” were played by what the authors described as “trained standardized patient actors.”

For each case, 3 humans and 11 AI scribe programs produced clinical notes. The clinical notes were then evaluated by 6 raters.

Researchers found that AI scribe-generated notes scored worse than human-generated notes across all 10 domains of the modified PDQI-9 (accuracy, thoroughness, usefulness, organization, comprehensiveness, succinctness, synthesization, internal consistency, and freedom from hallucination and bias).

There were especially large gaps between the AI and human notes in the domains of thoroughness, organization, and usefulness. Even wider gaps were observed for the encounters with noise and mask usage.

“These findings highlight that although ambient AI scribes can generate complete notes, the overall quality remains broadly below that of human-authored documentation,” the authors wrote. 

No Comparison Between AI Scribes

The researchers noted that “given contractual limitations, we cannot interpret the results for specific vendors.” They also noted that the study did not use professional scribes, who may produce even higher-quality results, and the humans were not producing notes in a real-world clinical environment.

Anderson, the clinical informatics fellow, pointed out that the study does not examine the common scenario in which a clinician edits notes produced by an AI scribe. In fact, she said, there is no current research on this, failing to examine “the postediting note that would actually go into the chart.”

In an accompanying commentary, collaborative scientist Aaron Tierney, PhD, and Kristine Lee, MD, an associate executive director, both with the Permanente Medical Group, California, called for future research to focus on “real-world performance, promote the development of documentation policies that prioritize patient care over billing requirements, and systematically incorporate patient perspectives into assessments of quality.”

Why AI Misses the Mark

In an interview with Federal Practitioner, AI researcher Maxim Topaz, PhD, RN, MA, an associate professor of Nursing and Data Science at Columbia University School of Nursing, New York City, who is familiar with the study but did not participate in it, praised the research. 

He pointed out that AI has trouble accurately representing clinical encounters because they “tend to fill gaps with plausible-sounding language, which can mask omissions and make errors harder to catch.” Also, “ambient scribes can only document what is verbalized aloud. Physical exam findings the clinician notices but does not narrate, nonverbal cues, and patient-initiated concerns that drift past in conversation are systematically underrepresented.”

Moving forward, Topaz advised clinicians to “treat AI-generated notes as a first draft, not a finished product. Read them carefully, especially for omissions, which the current evidence suggests are by far the most common error type and which are harder to spot than fabrications because the surrounding note still reads coherently.”

Two study authors disclosed employment by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Other authors had no disclosures. The commentary authors have no disclosures. Anderson has no disclosures. Topaz discloses relationships with the National Institutes of Health and other federal sources.

TOPLINE: Among veterans and demographically matched nonveterans from 2002 to 2019, higher state household firearm ownership was associated with higher rates of deaths by suicide, while greater state firearm law restrictiveness was associated with lower rates of deaths by suicide. In 2017 to 2019 models, these associations were seen for both veterans and matched nonveterans and driven primarily by firearm deaths by suicide rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• US state-level data across 6 consecutive 3-year periods from 2002-2019, stratified suicide rates by veteran status (veteran vs matched nonveterans) and method (firearm vs nonfirearm). 

• Data sources included US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention counts matched to the National Death Index, plus Centers for Disease Control suicide counts and population estimates by sex and age. 

• Participants included veterans with state- and period-specific death suicide counts and population denominators from the VetPop model, and a matched nonveteran comparison created by comparing state deaths by suicide data to veterans’ age and gender distributions. 

• Exposure measures included annual state household firearm ownership rate estimates carried forward to 2017-2019, and a 7-item state firearm policy restrictiveness index derived from the RAND Corporation state firearm law database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Average death by suicide rates from 2002-2019 were 28.2 per 100,000 for veterans and 27.5 per 100,000 for matched nonveterans, with most deaths involving a firearm. 

• Across states, the maximum average death by suicide rate was about 3 times the minimum over the study period, and veteran and matched nonveteran state patterns aligned closely. 

• Higher household firearm ownership was associated with higher firearm death by suicide rates for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

• Greater firearm law restrictiveness, equivalent to 3 additional restrictive laws, was associated with fewer firearm deaths by suicide for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

IN PRACTICE: “The results suggest that changes to state firearm laws and policies should be investigated as a possibly cost-effective primary prevention strategy for reducing suicide rates among veterans and nonveterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study was led by Andrew R. Morral, PhD, RAND Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, and Terry L. Schell, PhD, and Adam Scherling, RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California and published online in Injury Prevention.

LIMITATIONS: The estimates are correlational and should not be interpreted as causal effect estimates, as most interstate variation in gun ownership and firearm laws predates the beginning of the available VA death by suicide data, limiting the analytical approach to identify causal effects. VA does not share microdata on veteran suicide, requiring construction of a matched comparison sample of nonveterans by estimating veteran decedent removal from general population suicide totals within cells of a 5-way table based on publicly released 3-way tables, introducing imprecision. Veteran suicide counts are known to undercount suicides among veterans who separated from the military prior to 1974, likely resulting in a slight underestimate of veteran suicide rates for the oldest cohort of veterans, particularly in earlier study periods. Restricting analysis to identify modeled effects solely through limited changes in state firearm ownership and policies during the study period yields imprecise effect estimates.

DISCLOSURES: This work received support from a grant provided by The RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute, established through a contribution from Daniel J. Epstein via the Epstein Family Foundation. Neither the Institute, the Foundation, nor Mr. Epstein participated in the design, conduct, analysis, or drafting of this report. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Among veterans and demographically matched nonveterans from 2002 to 2019, higher state household firearm ownership was associated with higher rates of deaths by suicide, while greater state firearm law restrictiveness was associated with lower rates of deaths by suicide. In 2017 to 2019 models, these associations were seen for both veterans and matched nonveterans and driven primarily by firearm deaths by suicide rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• US state-level data across 6 consecutive 3-year periods from 2002-2019, stratified suicide rates by veteran status (veteran vs matched nonveterans) and method (firearm vs nonfirearm). 

• Data sources included US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention counts matched to the National Death Index, plus Centers for Disease Control suicide counts and population estimates by sex and age. 

• Participants included veterans with state- and period-specific death suicide counts and population denominators from the VetPop model, and a matched nonveteran comparison created by comparing state deaths by suicide data to veterans’ age and gender distributions. 

• Exposure measures included annual state household firearm ownership rate estimates carried forward to 2017-2019, and a 7-item state firearm policy restrictiveness index derived from the RAND Corporation state firearm law database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Average death by suicide rates from 2002-2019 were 28.2 per 100,000 for veterans and 27.5 per 100,000 for matched nonveterans, with most deaths involving a firearm. 

• Across states, the maximum average death by suicide rate was about 3 times the minimum over the study period, and veteran and matched nonveteran state patterns aligned closely. 

• Higher household firearm ownership was associated with higher firearm death by suicide rates for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

• Greater firearm law restrictiveness, equivalent to 3 additional restrictive laws, was associated with fewer firearm deaths by suicide for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

IN PRACTICE: “The results suggest that changes to state firearm laws and policies should be investigated as a possibly cost-effective primary prevention strategy for reducing suicide rates among veterans and nonveterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study was led by Andrew R. Morral, PhD, RAND Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, and Terry L. Schell, PhD, and Adam Scherling, RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California and published online in Injury Prevention.

LIMITATIONS: The estimates are correlational and should not be interpreted as causal effect estimates, as most interstate variation in gun ownership and firearm laws predates the beginning of the available VA death by suicide data, limiting the analytical approach to identify causal effects. VA does not share microdata on veteran suicide, requiring construction of a matched comparison sample of nonveterans by estimating veteran decedent removal from general population suicide totals within cells of a 5-way table based on publicly released 3-way tables, introducing imprecision. Veteran suicide counts are known to undercount suicides among veterans who separated from the military prior to 1974, likely resulting in a slight underestimate of veteran suicide rates for the oldest cohort of veterans, particularly in earlier study periods. Restricting analysis to identify modeled effects solely through limited changes in state firearm ownership and policies during the study period yields imprecise effect estimates.

DISCLOSURES: This work received support from a grant provided by The RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute, established through a contribution from Daniel J. Epstein via the Epstein Family Foundation. Neither the Institute, the Foundation, nor Mr. Epstein participated in the design, conduct, analysis, or drafting of this report. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: Among veterans and demographically matched nonveterans from 2002 to 2019, higher state household firearm ownership was associated with higher rates of deaths by suicide, while greater state firearm law restrictiveness was associated with lower rates of deaths by suicide. In 2017 to 2019 models, these associations were seen for both veterans and matched nonveterans and driven primarily by firearm deaths by suicide rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• US state-level data across 6 consecutive 3-year periods from 2002-2019, stratified suicide rates by veteran status (veteran vs matched nonveterans) and method (firearm vs nonfirearm). 

• Data sources included US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention counts matched to the National Death Index, plus Centers for Disease Control suicide counts and population estimates by sex and age. 

• Participants included veterans with state- and period-specific death suicide counts and population denominators from the VetPop model, and a matched nonveteran comparison created by comparing state deaths by suicide data to veterans’ age and gender distributions. 

• Exposure measures included annual state household firearm ownership rate estimates carried forward to 2017-2019, and a 7-item state firearm policy restrictiveness index derived from the RAND Corporation state firearm law database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Average death by suicide rates from 2002-2019 were 28.2 per 100,000 for veterans and 27.5 per 100,000 for matched nonveterans, with most deaths involving a firearm. 

• Across states, the maximum average death by suicide rate was about 3 times the minimum over the study period, and veteran and matched nonveteran state patterns aligned closely. 

• Higher household firearm ownership was associated with higher firearm death by suicide rates for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

• Greater firearm law restrictiveness, equivalent to 3 additional restrictive laws, was associated with fewer firearm deaths by suicide for veterans and matched nonveterans from 2017-2019.

IN PRACTICE: “The results suggest that changes to state firearm laws and policies should be investigated as a possibly cost-effective primary prevention strategy for reducing suicide rates among veterans and nonveterans,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:The study was led by Andrew R. Morral, PhD, RAND Corporation in Arlington, Virginia, and Terry L. Schell, PhD, and Adam Scherling, RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California and published online in Injury Prevention.

LIMITATIONS: The estimates are correlational and should not be interpreted as causal effect estimates, as most interstate variation in gun ownership and firearm laws predates the beginning of the available VA death by suicide data, limiting the analytical approach to identify causal effects. VA does not share microdata on veteran suicide, requiring construction of a matched comparison sample of nonveterans by estimating veteran decedent removal from general population suicide totals within cells of a 5-way table based on publicly released 3-way tables, introducing imprecision. Veteran suicide counts are known to undercount suicides among veterans who separated from the military prior to 1974, likely resulting in a slight underestimate of veteran suicide rates for the oldest cohort of veterans, particularly in earlier study periods. Restricting analysis to identify modeled effects solely through limited changes in state firearm ownership and policies during the study period yields imprecise effect estimates.

DISCLOSURES: This work received support from a grant provided by The RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute, established through a contribution from Daniel J. Epstein via the Epstein Family Foundation. Neither the Institute, the Foundation, nor Mr. Epstein participated in the design, conduct, analysis, or drafting of this report. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.