Original Research

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health problem and is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ Management of HCC is complex; as it largely occurs in the background of chronic liver disease, its management must simultaneously address challenges related to the patient’s tumor burden, as well as their underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. HCC is universally fatal without treatment, with a 5-year survival < 10%.² However, if detected early HCC is potentially curable, with treatments such as hepatic resection, ablation, and/or liver transplantation, which are associated with 5-year survival rates as high as 70%.² HCC-specific palliative treatments, including intra-arterial therapies (eg, trans-arterial chemoembolization, radioembolization) and systemic chemotherapy, have also been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced HCC. Therefore, a key driver of patient survival is receipt of HCC-specific therapy.

There is rising incidence and mortality related to HCC in the US veteran population, largely attributed to acquisition of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection decades prior.³ There is also a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in this population, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychiatric disorders which can negatively influence receipt of medical treatment, including cancer care.^4,5 Given the complexity of managing HCC, as well as the plethora of potential treatment options available, it is widely accepted that a multidisciplinary team approach, such as the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) provides optimal care to patients with HCC.^2,6 The aim of the present study was to identify in a population of veterans diagnosed with HCC the prevalence of psychosocial barriers to care and assess their impact and the role of an MDTB on receipt of HCC-specific care.

Methods

In June 2007, a joint institutional MDTB was established for patients with primary liver tumors receiving care at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (WSMMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin. As we have described elsewhere, individual cases with their corresponding imaging studies were reviewed at a weekly conference attended by transplant hepatologists, medical oncologists, hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, pathologists, diagnostic and interventional radiologists, and nurse coordinators.⁶ Potential therapies offered included surgical resection, liver transplantation (LT), thermal ablation, intra-arterial therapies (chemo and/or radioembolization), systemic chemotherapy, stereotactic radiation, and best supportive care. Decisions regarding the appropriate treatment modality were made based on patient factors, review of their cross-sectional imaging studies and/or histopathology, and context of their underlying liver dysfunction. The tumor board discussion was summarized in meeting minutes as well as tumor board encounters recorded in each patient’s health record. Although patients with benign tumors were presented at the MDTB, only patients with a diagnosis of HCC were included in this study.

A database analysis was conducted of all veteran patients with HCC managed through the WSMMVH MDTB, since its inception up to December 31, 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data for analysis included demographics, laboratory parameters at time of diagnosis and treatment, imaging findings, histopathology and/or surgical pathology, treatment rendered, and follow-up information. The primary outcome measured in this study included receipt of any therapy and secondarily, patient survival.

Discrete variables were analyzed with χ² statistics or Fisher exact test and continuous variables with the student t test. Multivariable analyses were carried out with logistic regression. Variables with a P < .05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS v24.0.

As a quality-improvement initiative for the care and management of veterans with HCC, this study was determined to be exempt from review by the WSMMVH and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Institutional Review Board.

Results

From January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016, 149 patients with HCC were managed through the MDTB. Baseline demographic data, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class, and baseline HCC characteristics of the cohort are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

There was a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in our study cohort, including alcohol or substance use disorder, mental illness diagnosis, and low socioeconomic status (Table 3). The mean distance traveled to WSMMVH for HCC-specific care was 206 km. Fifty patients in the cohort utilized travel assistance and 33 patients accessed lodging assistance.

 

HCC Treatments

There was a high rate of receipt of treatment in our study cohort with 127 (85%) patients receiving at least one HCC-specific therapy. Care was individualized and coordinated through our institutional MDTB, with both curative and palliative treatment modalities utilized (Table 4).

Curative treatment, which includes LT, ablation, or resection, was offered to 78 (52%) patients who were within T2 stage. Of these 78 patients who were potential candidates for LT as a curative treatment for HCC, 31 were not deemed suitable transplant candidates. Psychosocial barriers precluded consideration for LT in 7 of the 31 patients due to active substance use, homelessness in 1 patient, and severe mental illness in 3 patients. Medical comorbidities, advanced patient age, and patient preference accounted for the remainder.

In a univariate analysis of the cohort of 149 patients, factors that decreased the likelihood of receipt of curative HCC therapy included T2 stage or higher at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, whereas provision for lodging was associated with increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care (Table 5). Other factors that influenced receipt of any treatment included patient’s MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum α-fetoprotein, a surrogate marker for tumor stage. In the multivariable analysis, predictors of receiving curative therapy included absence of substance use, within T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. The presence of psychosocial barriers apart from substance use did not predict a lower chance of receiving curative HCC therapy (including homelessness, distance traveled to center, mental health disorder, and low income).

Median survival was 727 (95% CI, 488-966) days from diagnosis. Survival from HCC diagnosis in study cohort was 72% at 1 year, 50% at 2 years, 39% at 3 years, and 36% at 5 years. Death occurred in 71 (48%) patients; HCC accounted for death in 52 (73%) patients, complications of end-stage liver disease in 13 (18%) patients, and other causes for the remainder of patients.

Discussion

Increases in prevalence and mortality related to cirrhosis and HCC have been reported among the US veteran population.³ This is in large part attributable to the burden of chronic HCV infection in this population. As mirrored in the US population in general, we may be at a turning point regarding the gradual increase in prevalence in HCC.⁷ The prevalence of cirrhosis and viral-related HCC related to HCV infection will decline with availability of effective antiviral therapy. Alcoholic liver disease remains a main etiological factor for development of cirrhosis and HCC. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming a more prevalent cause for development of cirrhosis, indication for liver transplantation, and development of HCC, and indeed may lead to HCC even in the absence of cirrhosis.⁸

HCC remains a challenging clinical problem.² As the vast majority of cases arise in the context of cirrhosis, management of HCC not only must address the cancer stage at diagnosis, but also the patient’s underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. Receipt of HCC-specific therapy is a key driver of patient outcome, with curative therapies available for those diagnosed with early-stage disease. We and others have shown that a multidisciplinary approach to coordinate, individualize, and optimize care for these complex patients can improve the rate of treatment utilization, reduce treatment delays, and improve patient survival.^6,9,10

Patient psychosocial barriers, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use, and psychiatric disorders, are more prevalent among the veteran population and have the potential to negatively influence successful health care delivery. One retrospective study of 100 veterans at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center treated for HCC from 2009 to 2014 showed a majority of the patients lived on a meager income, a high prevalence of homelessness, substance use history in 96% of their cohort, and psychiatric illness in 65% of patients.¹¹ Other studies have documented similar findings in the veteran population, with alcohol, substance use, as well as other uncontrolled comorbidities as barriers to providing care, such as antiviral therapy for chronic HCV infection.¹²

Herein, we present a cohort of veterans with HCC managed through our MDTB from 2007 to 2016, for whom chronic HCV infection and/or alcoholic liver disease were the main causes of cirrhosis. Our cohort had a high burden of alcohol and substance use disorders while other psychiatric illnesses were also common. Our cohort includes patients who were poor, and even some veterans who lacked a stable home. This profile of poverty and social deprivation among veterans is matched in national data.^13-15 Using a tumor board model of nurse navigation and multidisciplinary care, we were able to provide travel and lodging assistance to 50 (34%) and 33 (22%) patients, respectively, in order to facilitate their care.

 

Our data demonstrate that the impact of psychosocial barriers on our capacity to deliver care varies with the nature of the treatment under consideration: curative vs cancer control. For example, active substance use disorder, homelessness, and severe established mental illness were often considered insurmountable when the treatment in question was LT. Nevertheless, despite the high prevalence in our study group of barriers, such as lack of transport while living far from a VA medical center, or alcohol use disorder, a curative treatment with either LT, tumor ablation, or resection could be offered to over half of our cohort. When noncurative therapies are included, most patients (85%) received HCC-specific care, with good relative survival.

Our reported high receipt of HCC-specific care and patient survival is in contrast to previously reported low rates of HCC-specific care in in a national survey of management of 1296 veteran patients infected with HCV who developed HCC from 1998 to 2006. In this population, HCC-specific treatment was provided to 34%.¹⁶ However our data are consistent with our previously published data of patients with HCC managed through an institutional MDTB.⁶ Indeed, as shown by a univariate analysis in our present study, individualizing care to address modifiable patient barriers, such as providing provisions for lodging if needed, was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care. On the other hand, advanced tumor stage (> T2) at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, which was the most common psychiatric diagnosis in our cohort, were both associated with decreased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care. Clinical factors such as MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum AFP all affected the likelihood of providing HCC-specific care. In a multivariate analysis, factors that predicted ability to receive curative therapy included absence of substance use, T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. This is expected as patients with HCC within T2 stage (or Milan criteria) with compensated cirrhosis are most likely to receive curative therapies, such as resection, ablation, or LT.²

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a high burden of psychosocial challenges in veterans with HCC. These accounted for a significant barrier to receive HCC-specific care. Despite the presence of these patient barriers, high rates of HCC-specific treatment are attainable through individualization and coordination of patient care in the context of a MDTB model with nurse navigation. Provision of targeted social support to ameliorate these modifiable factors improves patient outcomes.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health problem and is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ Management of HCC is complex; as it largely occurs in the background of chronic liver disease, its management must simultaneously address challenges related to the patient’s tumor burden, as well as their underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. HCC is universally fatal without treatment, with a 5-year survival < 10%.² However, if detected early HCC is potentially curable, with treatments such as hepatic resection, ablation, and/or liver transplantation, which are associated with 5-year survival rates as high as 70%.² HCC-specific palliative treatments, including intra-arterial therapies (eg, trans-arterial chemoembolization, radioembolization) and systemic chemotherapy, have also been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced HCC. Therefore, a key driver of patient survival is receipt of HCC-specific therapy.

There is rising incidence and mortality related to HCC in the US veteran population, largely attributed to acquisition of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection decades prior.³ There is also a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in this population, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychiatric disorders which can negatively influence receipt of medical treatment, including cancer care.^4,5 Given the complexity of managing HCC, as well as the plethora of potential treatment options available, it is widely accepted that a multidisciplinary team approach, such as the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) provides optimal care to patients with HCC.^2,6 The aim of the present study was to identify in a population of veterans diagnosed with HCC the prevalence of psychosocial barriers to care and assess their impact and the role of an MDTB on receipt of HCC-specific care.

Methods

In June 2007, a joint institutional MDTB was established for patients with primary liver tumors receiving care at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (WSMMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin. As we have described elsewhere, individual cases with their corresponding imaging studies were reviewed at a weekly conference attended by transplant hepatologists, medical oncologists, hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, pathologists, diagnostic and interventional radiologists, and nurse coordinators.⁶ Potential therapies offered included surgical resection, liver transplantation (LT), thermal ablation, intra-arterial therapies (chemo and/or radioembolization), systemic chemotherapy, stereotactic radiation, and best supportive care. Decisions regarding the appropriate treatment modality were made based on patient factors, review of their cross-sectional imaging studies and/or histopathology, and context of their underlying liver dysfunction. The tumor board discussion was summarized in meeting minutes as well as tumor board encounters recorded in each patient’s health record. Although patients with benign tumors were presented at the MDTB, only patients with a diagnosis of HCC were included in this study.

A database analysis was conducted of all veteran patients with HCC managed through the WSMMVH MDTB, since its inception up to December 31, 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data for analysis included demographics, laboratory parameters at time of diagnosis and treatment, imaging findings, histopathology and/or surgical pathology, treatment rendered, and follow-up information. The primary outcome measured in this study included receipt of any therapy and secondarily, patient survival.

Discrete variables were analyzed with χ² statistics or Fisher exact test and continuous variables with the student t test. Multivariable analyses were carried out with logistic regression. Variables with a P < .05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS v24.0.

As a quality-improvement initiative for the care and management of veterans with HCC, this study was determined to be exempt from review by the WSMMVH and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Institutional Review Board.

Results

From January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016, 149 patients with HCC were managed through the MDTB. Baseline demographic data, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class, and baseline HCC characteristics of the cohort are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

There was a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in our study cohort, including alcohol or substance use disorder, mental illness diagnosis, and low socioeconomic status (Table 3). The mean distance traveled to WSMMVH for HCC-specific care was 206 km. Fifty patients in the cohort utilized travel assistance and 33 patients accessed lodging assistance.

 

HCC Treatments

There was a high rate of receipt of treatment in our study cohort with 127 (85%) patients receiving at least one HCC-specific therapy. Care was individualized and coordinated through our institutional MDTB, with both curative and palliative treatment modalities utilized (Table 4).

Curative treatment, which includes LT, ablation, or resection, was offered to 78 (52%) patients who were within T2 stage. Of these 78 patients who were potential candidates for LT as a curative treatment for HCC, 31 were not deemed suitable transplant candidates. Psychosocial barriers precluded consideration for LT in 7 of the 31 patients due to active substance use, homelessness in 1 patient, and severe mental illness in 3 patients. Medical comorbidities, advanced patient age, and patient preference accounted for the remainder.

In a univariate analysis of the cohort of 149 patients, factors that decreased the likelihood of receipt of curative HCC therapy included T2 stage or higher at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, whereas provision for lodging was associated with increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care (Table 5). Other factors that influenced receipt of any treatment included patient’s MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum α-fetoprotein, a surrogate marker for tumor stage. In the multivariable analysis, predictors of receiving curative therapy included absence of substance use, within T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. The presence of psychosocial barriers apart from substance use did not predict a lower chance of receiving curative HCC therapy (including homelessness, distance traveled to center, mental health disorder, and low income).

Median survival was 727 (95% CI, 488-966) days from diagnosis. Survival from HCC diagnosis in study cohort was 72% at 1 year, 50% at 2 years, 39% at 3 years, and 36% at 5 years. Death occurred in 71 (48%) patients; HCC accounted for death in 52 (73%) patients, complications of end-stage liver disease in 13 (18%) patients, and other causes for the remainder of patients.

Discussion

Increases in prevalence and mortality related to cirrhosis and HCC have been reported among the US veteran population.³ This is in large part attributable to the burden of chronic HCV infection in this population. As mirrored in the US population in general, we may be at a turning point regarding the gradual increase in prevalence in HCC.⁷ The prevalence of cirrhosis and viral-related HCC related to HCV infection will decline with availability of effective antiviral therapy. Alcoholic liver disease remains a main etiological factor for development of cirrhosis and HCC. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming a more prevalent cause for development of cirrhosis, indication for liver transplantation, and development of HCC, and indeed may lead to HCC even in the absence of cirrhosis.⁸

HCC remains a challenging clinical problem.² As the vast majority of cases arise in the context of cirrhosis, management of HCC not only must address the cancer stage at diagnosis, but also the patient’s underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. Receipt of HCC-specific therapy is a key driver of patient outcome, with curative therapies available for those diagnosed with early-stage disease. We and others have shown that a multidisciplinary approach to coordinate, individualize, and optimize care for these complex patients can improve the rate of treatment utilization, reduce treatment delays, and improve patient survival.^6,9,10

Patient psychosocial barriers, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use, and psychiatric disorders, are more prevalent among the veteran population and have the potential to negatively influence successful health care delivery. One retrospective study of 100 veterans at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center treated for HCC from 2009 to 2014 showed a majority of the patients lived on a meager income, a high prevalence of homelessness, substance use history in 96% of their cohort, and psychiatric illness in 65% of patients.¹¹ Other studies have documented similar findings in the veteran population, with alcohol, substance use, as well as other uncontrolled comorbidities as barriers to providing care, such as antiviral therapy for chronic HCV infection.¹²

Herein, we present a cohort of veterans with HCC managed through our MDTB from 2007 to 2016, for whom chronic HCV infection and/or alcoholic liver disease were the main causes of cirrhosis. Our cohort had a high burden of alcohol and substance use disorders while other psychiatric illnesses were also common. Our cohort includes patients who were poor, and even some veterans who lacked a stable home. This profile of poverty and social deprivation among veterans is matched in national data.^13-15 Using a tumor board model of nurse navigation and multidisciplinary care, we were able to provide travel and lodging assistance to 50 (34%) and 33 (22%) patients, respectively, in order to facilitate their care.

 

Our data demonstrate that the impact of psychosocial barriers on our capacity to deliver care varies with the nature of the treatment under consideration: curative vs cancer control. For example, active substance use disorder, homelessness, and severe established mental illness were often considered insurmountable when the treatment in question was LT. Nevertheless, despite the high prevalence in our study group of barriers, such as lack of transport while living far from a VA medical center, or alcohol use disorder, a curative treatment with either LT, tumor ablation, or resection could be offered to over half of our cohort. When noncurative therapies are included, most patients (85%) received HCC-specific care, with good relative survival.

Our reported high receipt of HCC-specific care and patient survival is in contrast to previously reported low rates of HCC-specific care in in a national survey of management of 1296 veteran patients infected with HCV who developed HCC from 1998 to 2006. In this population, HCC-specific treatment was provided to 34%.¹⁶ However our data are consistent with our previously published data of patients with HCC managed through an institutional MDTB.⁶ Indeed, as shown by a univariate analysis in our present study, individualizing care to address modifiable patient barriers, such as providing provisions for lodging if needed, was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care. On the other hand, advanced tumor stage (> T2) at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, which was the most common psychiatric diagnosis in our cohort, were both associated with decreased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care. Clinical factors such as MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum AFP all affected the likelihood of providing HCC-specific care. In a multivariate analysis, factors that predicted ability to receive curative therapy included absence of substance use, T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. This is expected as patients with HCC within T2 stage (or Milan criteria) with compensated cirrhosis are most likely to receive curative therapies, such as resection, ablation, or LT.²

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a high burden of psychosocial challenges in veterans with HCC. These accounted for a significant barrier to receive HCC-specific care. Despite the presence of these patient barriers, high rates of HCC-specific treatment are attainable through individualization and coordination of patient care in the context of a MDTB model with nurse navigation. Provision of targeted social support to ameliorate these modifiable factors improves patient outcomes.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major global health problem and is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide.¹ Management of HCC is complex; as it largely occurs in the background of chronic liver disease, its management must simultaneously address challenges related to the patient’s tumor burden, as well as their underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. HCC is universally fatal without treatment, with a 5-year survival < 10%.² However, if detected early HCC is potentially curable, with treatments such as hepatic resection, ablation, and/or liver transplantation, which are associated with 5-year survival rates as high as 70%.² HCC-specific palliative treatments, including intra-arterial therapies (eg, trans-arterial chemoembolization, radioembolization) and systemic chemotherapy, have also been shown to prolong survival in patients with advanced HCC. Therefore, a key driver of patient survival is receipt of HCC-specific therapy.

There is rising incidence and mortality related to HCC in the US veteran population, largely attributed to acquisition of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection decades prior.³ There is also a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in this population, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use disorders, and psychiatric disorders which can negatively influence receipt of medical treatment, including cancer care.^4,5 Given the complexity of managing HCC, as well as the plethora of potential treatment options available, it is widely accepted that a multidisciplinary team approach, such as the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) provides optimal care to patients with HCC.^2,6 The aim of the present study was to identify in a population of veterans diagnosed with HCC the prevalence of psychosocial barriers to care and assess their impact and the role of an MDTB on receipt of HCC-specific care.

Methods

In June 2007, a joint institutional MDTB was established for patients with primary liver tumors receiving care at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (WSMMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin. As we have described elsewhere, individual cases with their corresponding imaging studies were reviewed at a weekly conference attended by transplant hepatologists, medical oncologists, hepatobiliary and transplant surgeons, pathologists, diagnostic and interventional radiologists, and nurse coordinators.⁶ Potential therapies offered included surgical resection, liver transplantation (LT), thermal ablation, intra-arterial therapies (chemo and/or radioembolization), systemic chemotherapy, stereotactic radiation, and best supportive care. Decisions regarding the appropriate treatment modality were made based on patient factors, review of their cross-sectional imaging studies and/or histopathology, and context of their underlying liver dysfunction. The tumor board discussion was summarized in meeting minutes as well as tumor board encounters recorded in each patient’s health record. Although patients with benign tumors were presented at the MDTB, only patients with a diagnosis of HCC were included in this study.

A database analysis was conducted of all veteran patients with HCC managed through the WSMMVH MDTB, since its inception up to December 31, 2016, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data for analysis included demographics, laboratory parameters at time of diagnosis and treatment, imaging findings, histopathology and/or surgical pathology, treatment rendered, and follow-up information. The primary outcome measured in this study included receipt of any therapy and secondarily, patient survival.

Discrete variables were analyzed with χ² statistics or Fisher exact test and continuous variables with the student t test. Multivariable analyses were carried out with logistic regression. Variables with a P < .05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS v24.0.

As a quality-improvement initiative for the care and management of veterans with HCC, this study was determined to be exempt from review by the WSMMVH and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Institutional Review Board.

Results

From January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2016, 149 patients with HCC were managed through the MDTB. Baseline demographic data, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class, and baseline HCC characteristics of the cohort are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

There was a high prevalence of psychosocial barriers in our study cohort, including alcohol or substance use disorder, mental illness diagnosis, and low socioeconomic status (Table 3). The mean distance traveled to WSMMVH for HCC-specific care was 206 km. Fifty patients in the cohort utilized travel assistance and 33 patients accessed lodging assistance.

 

HCC Treatments

There was a high rate of receipt of treatment in our study cohort with 127 (85%) patients receiving at least one HCC-specific therapy. Care was individualized and coordinated through our institutional MDTB, with both curative and palliative treatment modalities utilized (Table 4).

Curative treatment, which includes LT, ablation, or resection, was offered to 78 (52%) patients who were within T2 stage. Of these 78 patients who were potential candidates for LT as a curative treatment for HCC, 31 were not deemed suitable transplant candidates. Psychosocial barriers precluded consideration for LT in 7 of the 31 patients due to active substance use, homelessness in 1 patient, and severe mental illness in 3 patients. Medical comorbidities, advanced patient age, and patient preference accounted for the remainder.

In a univariate analysis of the cohort of 149 patients, factors that decreased the likelihood of receipt of curative HCC therapy included T2 stage or higher at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, whereas provision for lodging was associated with increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care (Table 5). Other factors that influenced receipt of any treatment included patient’s MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum α-fetoprotein, a surrogate marker for tumor stage. In the multivariable analysis, predictors of receiving curative therapy included absence of substance use, within T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. The presence of psychosocial barriers apart from substance use did not predict a lower chance of receiving curative HCC therapy (including homelessness, distance traveled to center, mental health disorder, and low income).

Median survival was 727 (95% CI, 488-966) days from diagnosis. Survival from HCC diagnosis in study cohort was 72% at 1 year, 50% at 2 years, 39% at 3 years, and 36% at 5 years. Death occurred in 71 (48%) patients; HCC accounted for death in 52 (73%) patients, complications of end-stage liver disease in 13 (18%) patients, and other causes for the remainder of patients.

Discussion

Increases in prevalence and mortality related to cirrhosis and HCC have been reported among the US veteran population.³ This is in large part attributable to the burden of chronic HCV infection in this population. As mirrored in the US population in general, we may be at a turning point regarding the gradual increase in prevalence in HCC.⁷ The prevalence of cirrhosis and viral-related HCC related to HCV infection will decline with availability of effective antiviral therapy. Alcoholic liver disease remains a main etiological factor for development of cirrhosis and HCC. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is becoming a more prevalent cause for development of cirrhosis, indication for liver transplantation, and development of HCC, and indeed may lead to HCC even in the absence of cirrhosis.⁸

HCC remains a challenging clinical problem.² As the vast majority of cases arise in the context of cirrhosis, management of HCC not only must address the cancer stage at diagnosis, but also the patient’s underlying liver dysfunction and performance status. Receipt of HCC-specific therapy is a key driver of patient outcome, with curative therapies available for those diagnosed with early-stage disease. We and others have shown that a multidisciplinary approach to coordinate, individualize, and optimize care for these complex patients can improve the rate of treatment utilization, reduce treatment delays, and improve patient survival.^6,9,10

Patient psychosocial barriers, such as low socioeconomic status, homelessness, alcohol and substance use, and psychiatric disorders, are more prevalent among the veteran population and have the potential to negatively influence successful health care delivery. One retrospective study of 100 veterans at a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center treated for HCC from 2009 to 2014 showed a majority of the patients lived on a meager income, a high prevalence of homelessness, substance use history in 96% of their cohort, and psychiatric illness in 65% of patients.¹¹ Other studies have documented similar findings in the veteran population, with alcohol, substance use, as well as other uncontrolled comorbidities as barriers to providing care, such as antiviral therapy for chronic HCV infection.¹²

Herein, we present a cohort of veterans with HCC managed through our MDTB from 2007 to 2016, for whom chronic HCV infection and/or alcoholic liver disease were the main causes of cirrhosis. Our cohort had a high burden of alcohol and substance use disorders while other psychiatric illnesses were also common. Our cohort includes patients who were poor, and even some veterans who lacked a stable home. This profile of poverty and social deprivation among veterans is matched in national data.^13-15 Using a tumor board model of nurse navigation and multidisciplinary care, we were able to provide travel and lodging assistance to 50 (34%) and 33 (22%) patients, respectively, in order to facilitate their care.

 

Our data demonstrate that the impact of psychosocial barriers on our capacity to deliver care varies with the nature of the treatment under consideration: curative vs cancer control. For example, active substance use disorder, homelessness, and severe established mental illness were often considered insurmountable when the treatment in question was LT. Nevertheless, despite the high prevalence in our study group of barriers, such as lack of transport while living far from a VA medical center, or alcohol use disorder, a curative treatment with either LT, tumor ablation, or resection could be offered to over half of our cohort. When noncurative therapies are included, most patients (85%) received HCC-specific care, with good relative survival.

Our reported high receipt of HCC-specific care and patient survival is in contrast to previously reported low rates of HCC-specific care in in a national survey of management of 1296 veteran patients infected with HCV who developed HCC from 1998 to 2006. In this population, HCC-specific treatment was provided to 34%.¹⁶ However our data are consistent with our previously published data of patients with HCC managed through an institutional MDTB.⁶ Indeed, as shown by a univariate analysis in our present study, individualizing care to address modifiable patient barriers, such as providing provisions for lodging if needed, was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care. On the other hand, advanced tumor stage (> T2) at diagnosis and a diagnosis of depression, which was the most common psychiatric diagnosis in our cohort, were both associated with decreased likelihood of receiving HCC-specific care. Clinical factors such as MELD score, total bilirubin, and serum AFP all affected the likelihood of providing HCC-specific care. In a multivariate analysis, factors that predicted ability to receive curative therapy included absence of substance use, T2 stage of tumor, and Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A cirrhosis. This is expected as patients with HCC within T2 stage (or Milan criteria) with compensated cirrhosis are most likely to receive curative therapies, such as resection, ablation, or LT.²

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a high burden of psychosocial challenges in veterans with HCC. These accounted for a significant barrier to receive HCC-specific care. Despite the presence of these patient barriers, high rates of HCC-specific treatment are attainable through individualization and coordination of patient care in the context of a MDTB model with nurse navigation. Provision of targeted social support to ameliorate these modifiable factors improves patient outcomes.

Heart failure (HF) is a costly and burdensome illness and is the top reason for hospital admissions for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare.¹ The cost of HF to the United States is estimated to grow to $3 billion annually by 2030.² People living with HF have a high symptom burden and poor quality of life.^3,4 Symptoms include shortness of breath, fatigue, depression, and decreases in psychosocial, existential, and spiritual well-being.^5-9

Veterans in the US are a unique cultural group with distinct contextual considerations around their experiences.¹⁰ Different groups of veterans require unique cultural considerations, such as the experiences of veterans who served during the Vietnam war and during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF). The extent of unmet needs of people living with HF, the number of veterans living with this illness, and the unique contextual components related to living with HF among veterans require further exploration into this illness experience for this distinct population. Research should explore innovative ways of managing both the number of people living with the illness and the significant impact of HF in people’s lives due to the high symptom burden and poor quality of life.³

This study used the model of adjustment to illness to explore the psychosocial adjustment to illness and the experience of US veterans living with HF, with a focus on the domains of meaning creation, self-schema, and world schema.¹¹ The model of adjustment to illness describes how people learn to adjust to living with an illness, which can lead to positive health outcomes. Meaning creation is defined as the process in which people create meaning from their experience living with illness. Self-schema is how people living with illness see themselves, and world schema is how people living with chronic illness see their place in the world. These domains shift as part of the adjustment to living with an illness described in this model.¹¹ This foundation allowed the investigators to explore the experience of living with HF among veterans with a focus on these domains. Our study aimed to cocreate illness narratives among veterans living with HF and to explore components of psychosocial adjustment informed by the model.

Methods

This study used narrative inquiry with a focus on illness narratives.^12-17 Narrative inquiry as defined by Catherine Riessman involves the generation of socially constructed and cocreated meanings between the researcher and narrator. The researcher is an active participant in narrative creation as the narrator chooses which events to include in the stories based on the social, historical, and cultural context of both the narrator (study participant) and audience (researcher). Riessman describes the importance of contextual factors and meaning creation as an important aspect of narrative inquiry.^12-14,16,17 It is important in narrative inquiry to consider how cultural, social, and historical factors influence narrative creation, constriction, and/or elimination.

This study prospectively created and collected data at a single time point. Semi-structured interviews explored psychosocial adjustment for people living with HF using an opening question modified from previous illness narrative research: Why do you think you got heart failure?¹⁸ Probes included the domains of psychosocial adjustment informed by the model of adjustment to illness domains (Figure). Emergent probes were used to illicit additional data around psychosocial adjustment to illness. Data were created and collected in accordance with narrative inquiry during the cocreation of the illness narratives between the researcher and study participants. This interview guide was tested by the first author in preliminary work to prepare for this study.

Allowing for emergent probes and acknowledging the role of the researcher as audience is key to the cocreation of narratives using this methodological framework. Narrators shape their narrative with the audience in mind; they cocreate their narrative with their audience using this type of narrative inquiry.^12,16 What the narrator chooses to include and exclude from their story provides a window into how they see themselves and their world.¹⁹ Audio recordings were used to capture data, allowing for the researcher to take contemporaneous notes exploring contextual considerations to the narrative cocreation process and to be used later in analysis. Analytic notes were completed during the interviews as well as later in analysis as part of the contextual reflection.

Setting

Research was conducted in the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. Participants were recruited through the outpatient cardiology clinic where the interviews also took place. This study was approved through the Colorado Institutional Review Board and Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center (IRB: 19-1064). Participants were identified by the treating cardiologist who was a part of the study team. Interested veterans were introduced to the first author who was stationed in an empty clinic room. The study cardiologist screened to ensure all participants were ≥ 18 years of age and had a diagnosis of HF for > 1 year. Persons with an impairment that could interfere with their ability to construct a narrative were also excluded.

Recruitment took place from October 2019 to January 2020. Three veterans refused participation. Five study participants provided informed consent and were enrolled and interviewed. All interviews were completed in the clinic at the time of consent per participant preference. One-hour long semi-structured interviews were conducted and audio recorded. A demographic form was administered at the end of each interview to capture contextual data. The researcher also kept a reflexive journal and audit trail.

 

Narrative Analysis

Riessman described general steps to conduct narrative analysis, including transcription, narrative clean-up, consideration of contextual factors, exploration of thematic threads, consideration of larger social narratives, and positioning.¹² The first author read transcripts while listening to the audio recordings to ensure accuracy. With narrative clean-up each narrative was organized to cocreate overall meaning, changed to protect anonymity, and refined to only include the illness narrative. For example, if a narrator told a story about childhood and then later in the interview remembered another detail to add to their story, narrative clean-up reordered events to make cohesive sense of the story. Demographic, historical, cultural, and social contexts of both the narrator and audience were reflected on during analysis to explore how these components may have shaped and influenced cocreation. Context was also considered within the larger VA setting.

Emergent themes were explored for convergence, divergence, and points of tension within and across each narrative. Larger social narratives were also considered for their influence on possible inclusion/exclusion of experience, such as how gender identity may have influenced study participants’ descriptions of their roles in social systems. These themes and narratives were then shared with our team, and we worked through decision points during the analysis process and discussed interpretation of the data to reach consensus.

Results

Five veterans living with HF were recruited and consented to participate in the study. Demographics of the participants and first author are included in the Table. Five illness narratives were cocreated, entitled: Blame the Cheese: Frank’s Illness Narrative; Love is Love: Bob’s Illness Narrative; The Brighter Things in Life is My Family: George’s Illness Narrative; We Never Know When Our Time is Coming: Bill’s Illness Narrative; and A Dream Deferred: Henry’s Illness Narrative.

Each narrative was explored focusing on the domains of the model of adjustment to illness. An emergent theme was also identified with multiple subthemes: being a veteran is unique. Related subthemes included: financial benefits, intersectionality of government and health care, the intersectionality of masculinity and military service, and the dichotomy of military experience.

The search for meaning creation after the experience of chronic illness emerged across interviews. One example of meaning creation was in Frank's illness narrative. Frank was unsure why he got HF: “Probably because I ate too much cheese…I mean, that’s gotta be it. It can’t be anything else.” By tying HF to his diet, he found meaning through his health behaviors.

Model of Adjustment to Illness

The narratives illustrate components of the model of adjustment to illness and describe how each of the participants either shifted their self-schema and world schema or reinforced their previously established schemas. It also demonstrates how people use narratives to create meaning and illness understanding from their illness experience, reflecting, and emphasizing different parts creating meaning from their experience.

A commonality across the narratives was a shift in self-schema, including the shift from being a provider to being reliant on others. In accordance with the dominant social narrative around men as providers, each narrator talked about their identity as a provider for themselves and their families. Often keeping their provider identity required modifications of the definition, from physical abilities and employment to financial security and stability. George made all his health care decisions based on his goal of providing for his family and protecting them from having to care for him: “I’m always thinking about the future, always trying to figure out how my family, if something should happen to me, how my family would cope, and how my family would be able to support themselves.” Bob’s health care goals were to stay alive long enough for his wife to get financial benefits as a surviving spouse: “That’s why I’m trying to make everything for her, you know. I’m not worried about myself. I’m not. Her I am, you know. And love is love.” Both of their health care decisions are shaped by their identity as a provider shifting to financial support.

Some narrators changed the way they saw their world, or world schema, while others felt their illness experience just reinforced the way they had already experienced the world. Frank was able to reprioritize what was important to him after his diagnosis and accept his own mortality: “I might as well chill out, no more stress, and just enjoy things ’cause you could die…” For Henry, getting HF was only part of the experience of systemic oppression that had impacted his and his family’s lives for generations. He saw how his oppression by the military and US government led to his father’s exposure to chemicals that Henry believed he inherited and caused his illness. Henry’s illness experience reinforced his distrust in the institutions that were oppressed him and his family.

 

Veteran Status

Being a veteran in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system impacted how a narrative understanding of illness was created. Veterans are a unique cultural population with aspects of their illness experience that are important to understand.¹⁰ Institutions such as the VA also enable and constrain components of narrative creation.²⁰ The illness narratives in this study were cocreated within the institutional setting of the VA. Part of the analysis included exploring how the institutional setting impacted the narrative creation. Emergent subthemes of the uniqueness of the veteran experience include financial benefits, intersectionality of government and health care, intersectionality of masculinity and military service, and the dichotomy of military experience.

In the US it is unique to the VA that the government both treats and assesses the severity of medical conditions to determine eligibility for health care and financial benefits. The VA’s financial benefits are intended to help compensate veterans who are experiencing illness as a result of their military experience.²¹ However, because the VA administers them the Veterans Benefits Administration and the VHA, veterans see both as interconnected. The perceived tie between illness severity and financial compensation could influence or bias how veterans understand their illness severity and experience. This may inadvertently encourage veterans to see their illness as being tied to their military service. This shaping of narratives should be considered as a contextual component as veterans obtain financial compensation and health insurance from the same larger organization that provides their health care and management.

George was a young man who during his service had chest pains and felt tired during physical training. He was surprised when his cardiologist explained his heart was enlarged. “All I know is when I initially joined the military, I was perfectly fine, you know, and when I was in the military, graduating, all that stuff, there was a glitch on the [electrocardiogram] they gave me after one day of doing [physical training] and then they’re like, oh, that’s fine. Come to find out it was mitral valve prolapse. And the doctors didn’t catch it then.” George feels the stress of the military caused his heart problems: “It wasn’t there before… so I’d have to say the strain from the military had to have caused it.” George’s medical history noted that he has a genetic connective tissue disorder that can lead to HF and likely was underlying cause of his illness. This example of how George pruned his narrative experience to highlight the cause as his military experience instead of a genetic disorder could have multiple financial and health benefits. The financial incentive for George to see his illness as caused by his military service could potentially bias his illness narrative to find his illness cause as tied to his service.

Government/Health Care Intersectionality

Veterans who may have experienced trust-breaking events with the government, like Agent Orange exposure or intergenerational racial trauma, may apply that experience to all government agencies. Bob felt the government had purposefully used him to create a military weapon. The army “knew I was angry and they used that for their advantage,” he said. Bob learned that he was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, which is presumed to be associated with HF. Bob felt betrayed that the VHA had not figured out his health problems earlier. “I didn’t know anything about it until 6 months ago… Our government knew about it when they used it, and they didn’t care. They just wanted to win the war, and a whole lot of GIs like me suffered because of that, and I was like my government killed me? And I was fighting for them?”

Henry learned to distrust the government and the health care system because of a long history of systematic oppression and exploitation. These institutions’ erosion of trust has impact beyond the trust-breaking event itself but reverberates into how communities view organizations and institutions for generations. For Black Americans, who have historically been experimented on without consent by the US government and health care systems, this can make it especially hard to trust and build working relationships with those institutions. Health care professionals (HCPs) need to build collaborative partnerships with patients to provide effective care while understanding why some patients may have difficulty trusting health care systems, especially government-led systems.

The nature of HF as an illness can also make it difficult to predict and manage.²² This uncertainty and difficulty in managing HF can make it especially hard for people to establish trust with their HCPs whom they want to see as experts in their illness. HCPs in these narratives were often portrayed as incompetent or neglectful. The unpredictable nature of the illness itself was not reflected in the narrator’s experience.

Masculinity/Military Service Intersectionality

For the veteran narrators, tied into the identity of being a provider are social messages about masculinity. There is a unique intersectionality of being a man, the military culture, and living with chronic illnesses. Dominant social messages around being a man include being tough, not expressing emotion, self-reliance, and having power. This overlaps with social messages on military culture, including self-reliance, toughness, persistence in the face of adversity, limited expression of emotions, and the recognition of power and respect.²³

People who internalize these social messages on masculinity may be less likely to access mental health treatment.²³ This stigmatizing barrier to mental health treatment could impact how positive narratives are constructed around the experience of chronic illness for narrators who identify as masculine. Military and masculine identity could exclude or constrain stories about a veteran who did not “solider on” or who had to rely on others in a team to get things done. This shift can especially impact veterans experiencing chronic illnesses like HF, which often impact their physical abilities. Veterans may feel pressured to think of and portray themselves as being strong by limiting their expression of pain and other symptoms to remain in alignment with the dominant narrative. By not being open about the full experience of their illness both positive and negative, veterans may have unaddressed aspects of their illness experience or HCPs may not be able have all the information they need before the concern becomes a more serious health problem.

 

Dichotomy of Military Experience

Some narrators in this study talked about their military experience as both traumatic and beneficial. These dichotomous viewpoints can be difficult for veterans to construct a narrative understanding around. How can an inherently painful potentially traumatic experience, such as war, have benefits? This way of looking at the world may require a large narrative shift in their world and self-schemas to accept.

Bob hurt people in Vietnam as part of his job. “I did a lot of killing.” Bob met a village elder who stopped him from hurting people in the village and “in my spare time, I would go back to the village and he would teach me, how to be a better man,” Bob shared. “He taught me about life and everything, and he was awesome, just to this day, he’s like a father to me.” Bob tried to change his life and learned how to live a life full of love and care because of his experience in Vietnam. Though Bob hurt a lot of people in Vietnam, which still haunts him, he found meaning through his life lessons from the village elder. “I’m ashamed of what I did in Vietnam. I did some really bad stuff, but ever since then, I’ve always tried to do good to help people.”

Discussion

Exploring a person’s illness experience from a truly holistic pathway allows HCPs to see how the ripples of illness echo into the interconnection of surrounding systems and even across time. These stories suggest that veterans may experience their illness and construct their illness narratives based on the distinct contextual considerations of veteran culture.¹⁰ Research exploring how veterans see their illness and its potential impact on their health care access and choices could benefit from exploration into narrative understanding and meaning creation as a potentially contributing factor to health care decision making. As veterans are treated across health care systems, this has implications not only for VHA care, but community care as well.

These narratives also demonstrate how veterans create health care goals woven into their narrative understanding of their illness and its cause, lending insight into understanding health care decision making. This change in self-schema shapes how veterans see themselves and their role which shapes other aspects of their health care. These findings also contribute to our understanding of meaning creation. By exploring meaning making and narrative understanding, this work adds to our knowledge of the importance of spirituality as a component of the holistic experience of illness. There have been previous studies exploring the spiritual aspects of HF and the importance of meaning making.^24,25 Exploring meaning making as an aspect of illness narratives can have important implications. Future research could explore the connections between meaning creation and illness narratives.

Limitations

The sample of veterans who participated in this study and are not generalizable to all veteran populations. The sample also only reflects people who were willing to participate and may exclude experience of people who may not have felt comfortable talking to a VA employee about their experience. It is also important to note that the small sample size included primarily male and White participants. In narrative inquiry, the number of participants is not as essential as diving into the depth of the interviews with the participants.

It is also important to note the position of the interviewer. As a White cisgender, heterosexual, middle-aged, middle class female who was raised in rural Kansas in a predominantly Protestant community, the positionality of the interviewer as a cocreator of the data inherently shaped and influenced the narratives created during this study. This contextual understanding of narratives created within the research relationship is an essential component to narrative inquiry and understanding.

Conclusions

Exploring these veterans’ narrative understanding of their experience of illness has many potential implications for health care systems, HCPs, and our military and veteran populations described in this article. Thinking about how the impact of racism, the influence of incentives to remain ill, and the complex intersection of identity and health brings light to how these domains may influence how people see themselves and engage in health care. These domains from these stories of the heart may help millions of people living with chronic illnesses like HF to not only live with their illness but inform how their experience is shaped by the systems surrounding them, including health care, government, and systems of power and oppression.

Heart failure (HF) is a costly and burdensome illness and is the top reason for hospital admissions for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare.¹ The cost of HF to the United States is estimated to grow to $3 billion annually by 2030.² People living with HF have a high symptom burden and poor quality of life.^3,4 Symptoms include shortness of breath, fatigue, depression, and decreases in psychosocial, existential, and spiritual well-being.^5-9

Veterans in the US are a unique cultural group with distinct contextual considerations around their experiences.¹⁰ Different groups of veterans require unique cultural considerations, such as the experiences of veterans who served during the Vietnam war and during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF). The extent of unmet needs of people living with HF, the number of veterans living with this illness, and the unique contextual components related to living with HF among veterans require further exploration into this illness experience for this distinct population. Research should explore innovative ways of managing both the number of people living with the illness and the significant impact of HF in people’s lives due to the high symptom burden and poor quality of life.³

This study used the model of adjustment to illness to explore the psychosocial adjustment to illness and the experience of US veterans living with HF, with a focus on the domains of meaning creation, self-schema, and world schema.¹¹ The model of adjustment to illness describes how people learn to adjust to living with an illness, which can lead to positive health outcomes. Meaning creation is defined as the process in which people create meaning from their experience living with illness. Self-schema is how people living with illness see themselves, and world schema is how people living with chronic illness see their place in the world. These domains shift as part of the adjustment to living with an illness described in this model.¹¹ This foundation allowed the investigators to explore the experience of living with HF among veterans with a focus on these domains. Our study aimed to cocreate illness narratives among veterans living with HF and to explore components of psychosocial adjustment informed by the model.

Methods

This study used narrative inquiry with a focus on illness narratives.^12-17 Narrative inquiry as defined by Catherine Riessman involves the generation of socially constructed and cocreated meanings between the researcher and narrator. The researcher is an active participant in narrative creation as the narrator chooses which events to include in the stories based on the social, historical, and cultural context of both the narrator (study participant) and audience (researcher). Riessman describes the importance of contextual factors and meaning creation as an important aspect of narrative inquiry.^12-14,16,17 It is important in narrative inquiry to consider how cultural, social, and historical factors influence narrative creation, constriction, and/or elimination.

This study prospectively created and collected data at a single time point. Semi-structured interviews explored psychosocial adjustment for people living with HF using an opening question modified from previous illness narrative research: Why do you think you got heart failure?¹⁸ Probes included the domains of psychosocial adjustment informed by the model of adjustment to illness domains (Figure). Emergent probes were used to illicit additional data around psychosocial adjustment to illness. Data were created and collected in accordance with narrative inquiry during the cocreation of the illness narratives between the researcher and study participants. This interview guide was tested by the first author in preliminary work to prepare for this study.

Allowing for emergent probes and acknowledging the role of the researcher as audience is key to the cocreation of narratives using this methodological framework. Narrators shape their narrative with the audience in mind; they cocreate their narrative with their audience using this type of narrative inquiry.^12,16 What the narrator chooses to include and exclude from their story provides a window into how they see themselves and their world.¹⁹ Audio recordings were used to capture data, allowing for the researcher to take contemporaneous notes exploring contextual considerations to the narrative cocreation process and to be used later in analysis. Analytic notes were completed during the interviews as well as later in analysis as part of the contextual reflection.

Setting

Research was conducted in the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. Participants were recruited through the outpatient cardiology clinic where the interviews also took place. This study was approved through the Colorado Institutional Review Board and Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center (IRB: 19-1064). Participants were identified by the treating cardiologist who was a part of the study team. Interested veterans were introduced to the first author who was stationed in an empty clinic room. The study cardiologist screened to ensure all participants were ≥ 18 years of age and had a diagnosis of HF for > 1 year. Persons with an impairment that could interfere with their ability to construct a narrative were also excluded.

Recruitment took place from October 2019 to January 2020. Three veterans refused participation. Five study participants provided informed consent and were enrolled and interviewed. All interviews were completed in the clinic at the time of consent per participant preference. One-hour long semi-structured interviews were conducted and audio recorded. A demographic form was administered at the end of each interview to capture contextual data. The researcher also kept a reflexive journal and audit trail.

 

Narrative Analysis

Riessman described general steps to conduct narrative analysis, including transcription, narrative clean-up, consideration of contextual factors, exploration of thematic threads, consideration of larger social narratives, and positioning.¹² The first author read transcripts while listening to the audio recordings to ensure accuracy. With narrative clean-up each narrative was organized to cocreate overall meaning, changed to protect anonymity, and refined to only include the illness narrative. For example, if a narrator told a story about childhood and then later in the interview remembered another detail to add to their story, narrative clean-up reordered events to make cohesive sense of the story. Demographic, historical, cultural, and social contexts of both the narrator and audience were reflected on during analysis to explore how these components may have shaped and influenced cocreation. Context was also considered within the larger VA setting.

Emergent themes were explored for convergence, divergence, and points of tension within and across each narrative. Larger social narratives were also considered for their influence on possible inclusion/exclusion of experience, such as how gender identity may have influenced study participants’ descriptions of their roles in social systems. These themes and narratives were then shared with our team, and we worked through decision points during the analysis process and discussed interpretation of the data to reach consensus.

Results

Five veterans living with HF were recruited and consented to participate in the study. Demographics of the participants and first author are included in the Table. Five illness narratives were cocreated, entitled: Blame the Cheese: Frank’s Illness Narrative; Love is Love: Bob’s Illness Narrative; The Brighter Things in Life is My Family: George’s Illness Narrative; We Never Know When Our Time is Coming: Bill’s Illness Narrative; and A Dream Deferred: Henry’s Illness Narrative.

Each narrative was explored focusing on the domains of the model of adjustment to illness. An emergent theme was also identified with multiple subthemes: being a veteran is unique. Related subthemes included: financial benefits, intersectionality of government and health care, the intersectionality of masculinity and military service, and the dichotomy of military experience.

The search for meaning creation after the experience of chronic illness emerged across interviews. One example of meaning creation was in Frank's illness narrative. Frank was unsure why he got HF: “Probably because I ate too much cheese…I mean, that’s gotta be it. It can’t be anything else.” By tying HF to his diet, he found meaning through his health behaviors.

Model of Adjustment to Illness

The narratives illustrate components of the model of adjustment to illness and describe how each of the participants either shifted their self-schema and world schema or reinforced their previously established schemas. It also demonstrates how people use narratives to create meaning and illness understanding from their illness experience, reflecting, and emphasizing different parts creating meaning from their experience.

A commonality across the narratives was a shift in self-schema, including the shift from being a provider to being reliant on others. In accordance with the dominant social narrative around men as providers, each narrator talked about their identity as a provider for themselves and their families. Often keeping their provider identity required modifications of the definition, from physical abilities and employment to financial security and stability. George made all his health care decisions based on his goal of providing for his family and protecting them from having to care for him: “I’m always thinking about the future, always trying to figure out how my family, if something should happen to me, how my family would cope, and how my family would be able to support themselves.” Bob’s health care goals were to stay alive long enough for his wife to get financial benefits as a surviving spouse: “That’s why I’m trying to make everything for her, you know. I’m not worried about myself. I’m not. Her I am, you know. And love is love.” Both of their health care decisions are shaped by their identity as a provider shifting to financial support.

Some narrators changed the way they saw their world, or world schema, while others felt their illness experience just reinforced the way they had already experienced the world. Frank was able to reprioritize what was important to him after his diagnosis and accept his own mortality: “I might as well chill out, no more stress, and just enjoy things ’cause you could die…” For Henry, getting HF was only part of the experience of systemic oppression that had impacted his and his family’s lives for generations. He saw how his oppression by the military and US government led to his father’s exposure to chemicals that Henry believed he inherited and caused his illness. Henry’s illness experience reinforced his distrust in the institutions that were oppressed him and his family.

 

Veteran Status

Being a veteran in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system impacted how a narrative understanding of illness was created. Veterans are a unique cultural population with aspects of their illness experience that are important to understand.¹⁰ Institutions such as the VA also enable and constrain components of narrative creation.²⁰ The illness narratives in this study were cocreated within the institutional setting of the VA. Part of the analysis included exploring how the institutional setting impacted the narrative creation. Emergent subthemes of the uniqueness of the veteran experience include financial benefits, intersectionality of government and health care, intersectionality of masculinity and military service, and the dichotomy of military experience.

In the US it is unique to the VA that the government both treats and assesses the severity of medical conditions to determine eligibility for health care and financial benefits. The VA’s financial benefits are intended to help compensate veterans who are experiencing illness as a result of their military experience.²¹ However, because the VA administers them the Veterans Benefits Administration and the VHA, veterans see both as interconnected. The perceived tie between illness severity and financial compensation could influence or bias how veterans understand their illness severity and experience. This may inadvertently encourage veterans to see their illness as being tied to their military service. This shaping of narratives should be considered as a contextual component as veterans obtain financial compensation and health insurance from the same larger organization that provides their health care and management.

George was a young man who during his service had chest pains and felt tired during physical training. He was surprised when his cardiologist explained his heart was enlarged. “All I know is when I initially joined the military, I was perfectly fine, you know, and when I was in the military, graduating, all that stuff, there was a glitch on the [electrocardiogram] they gave me after one day of doing [physical training] and then they’re like, oh, that’s fine. Come to find out it was mitral valve prolapse. And the doctors didn’t catch it then.” George feels the stress of the military caused his heart problems: “It wasn’t there before… so I’d have to say the strain from the military had to have caused it.” George’s medical history noted that he has a genetic connective tissue disorder that can lead to HF and likely was underlying cause of his illness. This example of how George pruned his narrative experience to highlight the cause as his military experience instead of a genetic disorder could have multiple financial and health benefits. The financial incentive for George to see his illness as caused by his military service could potentially bias his illness narrative to find his illness cause as tied to his service.

Government/Health Care Intersectionality

Veterans who may have experienced trust-breaking events with the government, like Agent Orange exposure or intergenerational racial trauma, may apply that experience to all government agencies. Bob felt the government had purposefully used him to create a military weapon. The army “knew I was angry and they used that for their advantage,” he said. Bob learned that he was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, which is presumed to be associated with HF. Bob felt betrayed that the VHA had not figured out his health problems earlier. “I didn’t know anything about it until 6 months ago… Our government knew about it when they used it, and they didn’t care. They just wanted to win the war, and a whole lot of GIs like me suffered because of that, and I was like my government killed me? And I was fighting for them?”

Henry learned to distrust the government and the health care system because of a long history of systematic oppression and exploitation. These institutions’ erosion of trust has impact beyond the trust-breaking event itself but reverberates into how communities view organizations and institutions for generations. For Black Americans, who have historically been experimented on without consent by the US government and health care systems, this can make it especially hard to trust and build working relationships with those institutions. Health care professionals (HCPs) need to build collaborative partnerships with patients to provide effective care while understanding why some patients may have difficulty trusting health care systems, especially government-led systems.

The nature of HF as an illness can also make it difficult to predict and manage.²² This uncertainty and difficulty in managing HF can make it especially hard for people to establish trust with their HCPs whom they want to see as experts in their illness. HCPs in these narratives were often portrayed as incompetent or neglectful. The unpredictable nature of the illness itself was not reflected in the narrator’s experience.

Masculinity/Military Service Intersectionality

For the veteran narrators, tied into the identity of being a provider are social messages about masculinity. There is a unique intersectionality of being a man, the military culture, and living with chronic illnesses. Dominant social messages around being a man include being tough, not expressing emotion, self-reliance, and having power. This overlaps with social messages on military culture, including self-reliance, toughness, persistence in the face of adversity, limited expression of emotions, and the recognition of power and respect.²³

People who internalize these social messages on masculinity may be less likely to access mental health treatment.²³ This stigmatizing barrier to mental health treatment could impact how positive narratives are constructed around the experience of chronic illness for narrators who identify as masculine. Military and masculine identity could exclude or constrain stories about a veteran who did not “solider on” or who had to rely on others in a team to get things done. This shift can especially impact veterans experiencing chronic illnesses like HF, which often impact their physical abilities. Veterans may feel pressured to think of and portray themselves as being strong by limiting their expression of pain and other symptoms to remain in alignment with the dominant narrative. By not being open about the full experience of their illness both positive and negative, veterans may have unaddressed aspects of their illness experience or HCPs may not be able have all the information they need before the concern becomes a more serious health problem.

 

Dichotomy of Military Experience

Some narrators in this study talked about their military experience as both traumatic and beneficial. These dichotomous viewpoints can be difficult for veterans to construct a narrative understanding around. How can an inherently painful potentially traumatic experience, such as war, have benefits? This way of looking at the world may require a large narrative shift in their world and self-schemas to accept.

Bob hurt people in Vietnam as part of his job. “I did a lot of killing.” Bob met a village elder who stopped him from hurting people in the village and “in my spare time, I would go back to the village and he would teach me, how to be a better man,” Bob shared. “He taught me about life and everything, and he was awesome, just to this day, he’s like a father to me.” Bob tried to change his life and learned how to live a life full of love and care because of his experience in Vietnam. Though Bob hurt a lot of people in Vietnam, which still haunts him, he found meaning through his life lessons from the village elder. “I’m ashamed of what I did in Vietnam. I did some really bad stuff, but ever since then, I’ve always tried to do good to help people.”

Discussion

Exploring a person’s illness experience from a truly holistic pathway allows HCPs to see how the ripples of illness echo into the interconnection of surrounding systems and even across time. These stories suggest that veterans may experience their illness and construct their illness narratives based on the distinct contextual considerations of veteran culture.¹⁰ Research exploring how veterans see their illness and its potential impact on their health care access and choices could benefit from exploration into narrative understanding and meaning creation as a potentially contributing factor to health care decision making. As veterans are treated across health care systems, this has implications not only for VHA care, but community care as well.

These narratives also demonstrate how veterans create health care goals woven into their narrative understanding of their illness and its cause, lending insight into understanding health care decision making. This change in self-schema shapes how veterans see themselves and their role which shapes other aspects of their health care. These findings also contribute to our understanding of meaning creation. By exploring meaning making and narrative understanding, this work adds to our knowledge of the importance of spirituality as a component of the holistic experience of illness. There have been previous studies exploring the spiritual aspects of HF and the importance of meaning making.^24,25 Exploring meaning making as an aspect of illness narratives can have important implications. Future research could explore the connections between meaning creation and illness narratives.

Limitations

The sample of veterans who participated in this study and are not generalizable to all veteran populations. The sample also only reflects people who were willing to participate and may exclude experience of people who may not have felt comfortable talking to a VA employee about their experience. It is also important to note that the small sample size included primarily male and White participants. In narrative inquiry, the number of participants is not as essential as diving into the depth of the interviews with the participants.

It is also important to note the position of the interviewer. As a White cisgender, heterosexual, middle-aged, middle class female who was raised in rural Kansas in a predominantly Protestant community, the positionality of the interviewer as a cocreator of the data inherently shaped and influenced the narratives created during this study. This contextual understanding of narratives created within the research relationship is an essential component to narrative inquiry and understanding.

Conclusions

Exploring these veterans’ narrative understanding of their experience of illness has many potential implications for health care systems, HCPs, and our military and veteran populations described in this article. Thinking about how the impact of racism, the influence of incentives to remain ill, and the complex intersection of identity and health brings light to how these domains may influence how people see themselves and engage in health care. These domains from these stories of the heart may help millions of people living with chronic illnesses like HF to not only live with their illness but inform how their experience is shaped by the systems surrounding them, including health care, government, and systems of power and oppression.

Heart failure (HF) is a costly and burdensome illness and is the top reason for hospital admissions for the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare.¹ The cost of HF to the United States is estimated to grow to $3 billion annually by 2030.² People living with HF have a high symptom burden and poor quality of life.^3,4 Symptoms include shortness of breath, fatigue, depression, and decreases in psychosocial, existential, and spiritual well-being.^5-9

Veterans in the US are a unique cultural group with distinct contextual considerations around their experiences.¹⁰ Different groups of veterans require unique cultural considerations, such as the experiences of veterans who served during the Vietnam war and during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF). The extent of unmet needs of people living with HF, the number of veterans living with this illness, and the unique contextual components related to living with HF among veterans require further exploration into this illness experience for this distinct population. Research should explore innovative ways of managing both the number of people living with the illness and the significant impact of HF in people’s lives due to the high symptom burden and poor quality of life.³

This study used the model of adjustment to illness to explore the psychosocial adjustment to illness and the experience of US veterans living with HF, with a focus on the domains of meaning creation, self-schema, and world schema.¹¹ The model of adjustment to illness describes how people learn to adjust to living with an illness, which can lead to positive health outcomes. Meaning creation is defined as the process in which people create meaning from their experience living with illness. Self-schema is how people living with illness see themselves, and world schema is how people living with chronic illness see their place in the world. These domains shift as part of the adjustment to living with an illness described in this model.¹¹ This foundation allowed the investigators to explore the experience of living with HF among veterans with a focus on these domains. Our study aimed to cocreate illness narratives among veterans living with HF and to explore components of psychosocial adjustment informed by the model.

Methods

This study used narrative inquiry with a focus on illness narratives.^12-17 Narrative inquiry as defined by Catherine Riessman involves the generation of socially constructed and cocreated meanings between the researcher and narrator. The researcher is an active participant in narrative creation as the narrator chooses which events to include in the stories based on the social, historical, and cultural context of both the narrator (study participant) and audience (researcher). Riessman describes the importance of contextual factors and meaning creation as an important aspect of narrative inquiry.^12-14,16,17 It is important in narrative inquiry to consider how cultural, social, and historical factors influence narrative creation, constriction, and/or elimination.

This study prospectively created and collected data at a single time point. Semi-structured interviews explored psychosocial adjustment for people living with HF using an opening question modified from previous illness narrative research: Why do you think you got heart failure?¹⁸ Probes included the domains of psychosocial adjustment informed by the model of adjustment to illness domains (Figure). Emergent probes were used to illicit additional data around psychosocial adjustment to illness. Data were created and collected in accordance with narrative inquiry during the cocreation of the illness narratives between the researcher and study participants. This interview guide was tested by the first author in preliminary work to prepare for this study.

Allowing for emergent probes and acknowledging the role of the researcher as audience is key to the cocreation of narratives using this methodological framework. Narrators shape their narrative with the audience in mind; they cocreate their narrative with their audience using this type of narrative inquiry.^12,16 What the narrator chooses to include and exclude from their story provides a window into how they see themselves and their world.¹⁹ Audio recordings were used to capture data, allowing for the researcher to take contemporaneous notes exploring contextual considerations to the narrative cocreation process and to be used later in analysis. Analytic notes were completed during the interviews as well as later in analysis as part of the contextual reflection.

Setting

Research was conducted in the Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado. Participants were recruited through the outpatient cardiology clinic where the interviews also took place. This study was approved through the Colorado Institutional Review Board and Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center (IRB: 19-1064). Participants were identified by the treating cardiologist who was a part of the study team. Interested veterans were introduced to the first author who was stationed in an empty clinic room. The study cardiologist screened to ensure all participants were ≥ 18 years of age and had a diagnosis of HF for > 1 year. Persons with an impairment that could interfere with their ability to construct a narrative were also excluded.

Recruitment took place from October 2019 to January 2020. Three veterans refused participation. Five study participants provided informed consent and were enrolled and interviewed. All interviews were completed in the clinic at the time of consent per participant preference. One-hour long semi-structured interviews were conducted and audio recorded. A demographic form was administered at the end of each interview to capture contextual data. The researcher also kept a reflexive journal and audit trail.

 

Narrative Analysis

Riessman described general steps to conduct narrative analysis, including transcription, narrative clean-up, consideration of contextual factors, exploration of thematic threads, consideration of larger social narratives, and positioning.¹² The first author read transcripts while listening to the audio recordings to ensure accuracy. With narrative clean-up each narrative was organized to cocreate overall meaning, changed to protect anonymity, and refined to only include the illness narrative. For example, if a narrator told a story about childhood and then later in the interview remembered another detail to add to their story, narrative clean-up reordered events to make cohesive sense of the story. Demographic, historical, cultural, and social contexts of both the narrator and audience were reflected on during analysis to explore how these components may have shaped and influenced cocreation. Context was also considered within the larger VA setting.

Emergent themes were explored for convergence, divergence, and points of tension within and across each narrative. Larger social narratives were also considered for their influence on possible inclusion/exclusion of experience, such as how gender identity may have influenced study participants’ descriptions of their roles in social systems. These themes and narratives were then shared with our team, and we worked through decision points during the analysis process and discussed interpretation of the data to reach consensus.

Results

Five veterans living with HF were recruited and consented to participate in the study. Demographics of the participants and first author are included in the Table. Five illness narratives were cocreated, entitled: Blame the Cheese: Frank’s Illness Narrative; Love is Love: Bob’s Illness Narrative; The Brighter Things in Life is My Family: George’s Illness Narrative; We Never Know When Our Time is Coming: Bill’s Illness Narrative; and A Dream Deferred: Henry’s Illness Narrative.

Each narrative was explored focusing on the domains of the model of adjustment to illness. An emergent theme was also identified with multiple subthemes: being a veteran is unique. Related subthemes included: financial benefits, intersectionality of government and health care, the intersectionality of masculinity and military service, and the dichotomy of military experience.

The search for meaning creation after the experience of chronic illness emerged across interviews. One example of meaning creation was in Frank's illness narrative. Frank was unsure why he got HF: “Probably because I ate too much cheese…I mean, that’s gotta be it. It can’t be anything else.” By tying HF to his diet, he found meaning through his health behaviors.

Model of Adjustment to Illness

The narratives illustrate components of the model of adjustment to illness and describe how each of the participants either shifted their self-schema and world schema or reinforced their previously established schemas. It also demonstrates how people use narratives to create meaning and illness understanding from their illness experience, reflecting, and emphasizing different parts creating meaning from their experience.

A commonality across the narratives was a shift in self-schema, including the shift from being a provider to being reliant on others. In accordance with the dominant social narrative around men as providers, each narrator talked about their identity as a provider for themselves and their families. Often keeping their provider identity required modifications of the definition, from physical abilities and employment to financial security and stability. George made all his health care decisions based on his goal of providing for his family and protecting them from having to care for him: “I’m always thinking about the future, always trying to figure out how my family, if something should happen to me, how my family would cope, and how my family would be able to support themselves.” Bob’s health care goals were to stay alive long enough for his wife to get financial benefits as a surviving spouse: “That’s why I’m trying to make everything for her, you know. I’m not worried about myself. I’m not. Her I am, you know. And love is love.” Both of their health care decisions are shaped by their identity as a provider shifting to financial support.

Some narrators changed the way they saw their world, or world schema, while others felt their illness experience just reinforced the way they had already experienced the world. Frank was able to reprioritize what was important to him after his diagnosis and accept his own mortality: “I might as well chill out, no more stress, and just enjoy things ’cause you could die…” For Henry, getting HF was only part of the experience of systemic oppression that had impacted his and his family’s lives for generations. He saw how his oppression by the military and US government led to his father’s exposure to chemicals that Henry believed he inherited and caused his illness. Henry’s illness experience reinforced his distrust in the institutions that were oppressed him and his family.

 

Veteran Status

Being a veteran in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system impacted how a narrative understanding of illness was created. Veterans are a unique cultural population with aspects of their illness experience that are important to understand.¹⁰ Institutions such as the VA also enable and constrain components of narrative creation.²⁰ The illness narratives in this study were cocreated within the institutional setting of the VA. Part of the analysis included exploring how the institutional setting impacted the narrative creation. Emergent subthemes of the uniqueness of the veteran experience include financial benefits, intersectionality of government and health care, intersectionality of masculinity and military service, and the dichotomy of military experience.

In the US it is unique to the VA that the government both treats and assesses the severity of medical conditions to determine eligibility for health care and financial benefits. The VA’s financial benefits are intended to help compensate veterans who are experiencing illness as a result of their military experience.²¹ However, because the VA administers them the Veterans Benefits Administration and the VHA, veterans see both as interconnected. The perceived tie between illness severity and financial compensation could influence or bias how veterans understand their illness severity and experience. This may inadvertently encourage veterans to see their illness as being tied to their military service. This shaping of narratives should be considered as a contextual component as veterans obtain financial compensation and health insurance from the same larger organization that provides their health care and management.

George was a young man who during his service had chest pains and felt tired during physical training. He was surprised when his cardiologist explained his heart was enlarged. “All I know is when I initially joined the military, I was perfectly fine, you know, and when I was in the military, graduating, all that stuff, there was a glitch on the [electrocardiogram] they gave me after one day of doing [physical training] and then they’re like, oh, that’s fine. Come to find out it was mitral valve prolapse. And the doctors didn’t catch it then.” George feels the stress of the military caused his heart problems: “It wasn’t there before… so I’d have to say the strain from the military had to have caused it.” George’s medical history noted that he has a genetic connective tissue disorder that can lead to HF and likely was underlying cause of his illness. This example of how George pruned his narrative experience to highlight the cause as his military experience instead of a genetic disorder could have multiple financial and health benefits. The financial incentive for George to see his illness as caused by his military service could potentially bias his illness narrative to find his illness cause as tied to his service.

Government/Health Care Intersectionality

Veterans who may have experienced trust-breaking events with the government, like Agent Orange exposure or intergenerational racial trauma, may apply that experience to all government agencies. Bob felt the government had purposefully used him to create a military weapon. The army “knew I was angry and they used that for their advantage,” he said. Bob learned that he was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, which is presumed to be associated with HF. Bob felt betrayed that the VHA had not figured out his health problems earlier. “I didn’t know anything about it until 6 months ago… Our government knew about it when they used it, and they didn’t care. They just wanted to win the war, and a whole lot of GIs like me suffered because of that, and I was like my government killed me? And I was fighting for them?”

Henry learned to distrust the government and the health care system because of a long history of systematic oppression and exploitation. These institutions’ erosion of trust has impact beyond the trust-breaking event itself but reverberates into how communities view organizations and institutions for generations. For Black Americans, who have historically been experimented on without consent by the US government and health care systems, this can make it especially hard to trust and build working relationships with those institutions. Health care professionals (HCPs) need to build collaborative partnerships with patients to provide effective care while understanding why some patients may have difficulty trusting health care systems, especially government-led systems.

The nature of HF as an illness can also make it difficult to predict and manage.²² This uncertainty and difficulty in managing HF can make it especially hard for people to establish trust with their HCPs whom they want to see as experts in their illness. HCPs in these narratives were often portrayed as incompetent or neglectful. The unpredictable nature of the illness itself was not reflected in the narrator’s experience.

Masculinity/Military Service Intersectionality

For the veteran narrators, tied into the identity of being a provider are social messages about masculinity. There is a unique intersectionality of being a man, the military culture, and living with chronic illnesses. Dominant social messages around being a man include being tough, not expressing emotion, self-reliance, and having power. This overlaps with social messages on military culture, including self-reliance, toughness, persistence in the face of adversity, limited expression of emotions, and the recognition of power and respect.²³

People who internalize these social messages on masculinity may be less likely to access mental health treatment.²³ This stigmatizing barrier to mental health treatment could impact how positive narratives are constructed around the experience of chronic illness for narrators who identify as masculine. Military and masculine identity could exclude or constrain stories about a veteran who did not “solider on” or who had to rely on others in a team to get things done. This shift can especially impact veterans experiencing chronic illnesses like HF, which often impact their physical abilities. Veterans may feel pressured to think of and portray themselves as being strong by limiting their expression of pain and other symptoms to remain in alignment with the dominant narrative. By not being open about the full experience of their illness both positive and negative, veterans may have unaddressed aspects of their illness experience or HCPs may not be able have all the information they need before the concern becomes a more serious health problem.

 

Dichotomy of Military Experience

Some narrators in this study talked about their military experience as both traumatic and beneficial. These dichotomous viewpoints can be difficult for veterans to construct a narrative understanding around. How can an inherently painful potentially traumatic experience, such as war, have benefits? This way of looking at the world may require a large narrative shift in their world and self-schemas to accept.

Bob hurt people in Vietnam as part of his job. “I did a lot of killing.” Bob met a village elder who stopped him from hurting people in the village and “in my spare time, I would go back to the village and he would teach me, how to be a better man,” Bob shared. “He taught me about life and everything, and he was awesome, just to this day, he’s like a father to me.” Bob tried to change his life and learned how to live a life full of love and care because of his experience in Vietnam. Though Bob hurt a lot of people in Vietnam, which still haunts him, he found meaning through his life lessons from the village elder. “I’m ashamed of what I did in Vietnam. I did some really bad stuff, but ever since then, I’ve always tried to do good to help people.”

Discussion

Exploring a person’s illness experience from a truly holistic pathway allows HCPs to see how the ripples of illness echo into the interconnection of surrounding systems and even across time. These stories suggest that veterans may experience their illness and construct their illness narratives based on the distinct contextual considerations of veteran culture.¹⁰ Research exploring how veterans see their illness and its potential impact on their health care access and choices could benefit from exploration into narrative understanding and meaning creation as a potentially contributing factor to health care decision making. As veterans are treated across health care systems, this has implications not only for VHA care, but community care as well.

These narratives also demonstrate how veterans create health care goals woven into their narrative understanding of their illness and its cause, lending insight into understanding health care decision making. This change in self-schema shapes how veterans see themselves and their role which shapes other aspects of their health care. These findings also contribute to our understanding of meaning creation. By exploring meaning making and narrative understanding, this work adds to our knowledge of the importance of spirituality as a component of the holistic experience of illness. There have been previous studies exploring the spiritual aspects of HF and the importance of meaning making.^24,25 Exploring meaning making as an aspect of illness narratives can have important implications. Future research could explore the connections between meaning creation and illness narratives.

Limitations

The sample of veterans who participated in this study and are not generalizable to all veteran populations. The sample also only reflects people who were willing to participate and may exclude experience of people who may not have felt comfortable talking to a VA employee about their experience. It is also important to note that the small sample size included primarily male and White participants. In narrative inquiry, the number of participants is not as essential as diving into the depth of the interviews with the participants.

It is also important to note the position of the interviewer. As a White cisgender, heterosexual, middle-aged, middle class female who was raised in rural Kansas in a predominantly Protestant community, the positionality of the interviewer as a cocreator of the data inherently shaped and influenced the narratives created during this study. This contextual understanding of narratives created within the research relationship is an essential component to narrative inquiry and understanding.

Conclusions

Exploring these veterans’ narrative understanding of their experience of illness has many potential implications for health care systems, HCPs, and our military and veteran populations described in this article. Thinking about how the impact of racism, the influence of incentives to remain ill, and the complex intersection of identity and health brings light to how these domains may influence how people see themselves and engage in health care. These domains from these stories of the heart may help millions of people living with chronic illnesses like HF to not only live with their illness but inform how their experience is shaped by the systems surrounding them, including health care, government, and systems of power and oppression.

Hospital leaders report the most common aim of peer review (PR) is to improve quality and patient safety, thus it is a potentially powerful quality improvement (QI) driver.¹ “When conducted systematically and credibly, peer review for quality management can result in both short-term and long-term improvements in patient care by revealing areas for improvement in the provision of care,” Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1190 states. “This ultimately contributes to organizational improvements.” At the same time, there are anecdotal concerns that PR may be used punitively and driven by case outcomes rather than by accepted best practices supporting QI.

Studies of the PR process suggest these concerns are valid. A key tenet of QI is standardization. PR is problematic in that regard; studies show poor interrater reliability for judgments on care, as well as hindsight bias—the fact that raters are strongly influenced by the outcome of care, not the process of care.^2-5 There are concerns that case selection or review process when not standardized may be wielded as punitive too.⁶ In this study, we sought to identify the relationship between PR findings and subsequent institution quality metrics. If PR does lead to an improvement in quality, or if quality concerns are managed within the PR committee, it should be possible to identify a measurable relationship between the PR process and a facility’s subsequent quality measures.

A handful of studies describe the association between PR and quality of care. Itri and colleagues noted that random, not standardized PR in radiology does not achieve reductions in diagnostic error rate.⁷ However, adoption of just culture principles in PR resulted in a significant improvement in facility leaders’ self-reports of quality measures at surveyed institutions.⁸ The same author reported that increases in PR standardization and integration with performance improvement activities could explain up to 18% of objective quality measure variation.⁹

We sought to determine whether a specific aspect of the PR process, the PR committee judgment of quality of care by clinicians, was related to medical center quality in a cross-sectional study of 136 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. The VHA is a good source of study because there are standardized PR processes and training for committee members and reviewers. Our hypothesis was that medical centers with a higher number of Level 2 (“most experienced and competent clinicians might have managed the case differently”) and Level 3 (“most experienced and competent providers would have managed the case differently”) PR findings would also have lower quality metric scores for processes and outcomes of care.

Methods

We used PR data from fiscal year 2018 and 2019. VHA PR data are available quarterly and are self-reported by each facility to the VHA Office of Clinical Risk Management. These data are broken down by facility. The following data, when available in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019, were used for this analysis: percent and number of PR that are ranked as level 1, 2, or 3; medical center group (MCG) acuity measure assigned by the VHA (1 is highest, 3 is lowest); and number of PR per 100,000 unique veteran encounters in 2019. Measures of facility quality are drawn from Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data from 2019, which are available quarterly by facility and are rolling for 12 months. SAIL measures processes and outcomes of care. Table 1 indicates which measures are focused on outcomes vs quality processes.

SAS Version 9.2 was used to perform statistical analyses. We used Spearman correlation to estimate the PR and quality relationship.

Results

There were 136 facilities with 2 years of PR data available. The majority of these facilities (89) were highest complexity MCG 1 facilities; 19 were MCG 2, and 28 were MCG 3. Of 13,515 PRs, most of the 9555 PR findings were level 1 (70.7%). The between-facility range of level 2 and 3 findings was large, varying from 3.5% to nearly 70% in 2019 (Table 2). Findings were similar in 2018; facilities level 2 and 3 ratings ranged from 3.6% to 73.5% of all PR findings.

There was no correlation between most quality measures and facility PR findings (Table 3). The only exception was for Global Measures (GM90), an inpatient process of care measure. Unexpectedly, the correlation was positive—facilities with a higher percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings had better inpatient processes of care SAIL score. The strongest correlation was between 2018 and 2019 PR findings.

 

Discussion

We hypothesized that a high percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings would be negatively associated with objective facility measures of care processes in SAIL but we did not see this association. The only quality measure associated with PR findings was GM90, a score of inpatient care processes. However, the association was positive, with better performance associated with more level 2 and 3 PR findings.

The best predictor of the proportion of a facility’s PR findings is the previous year’s PR findings. With an R = 0.59, the previous year findings explain about 35% of the variability in level assignment. Our analysis may describe a new bias in PR, in which committees consistently assign either low or high proportions of level 2 and 3 findings. This correlation could be due to individual PR committee culture or composition, but it does not relate to objective quality measures.

Strengths

For this study we use objective measures of PR processes, the assignment of levels of care. PR findings should reflect not only outcomes, but also the quality of the care, reflected by adherence to evidence-based processes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescription in heart failure. Therefore, we used SAIL scores, an objective and standardized process and outcome quality measures. Additionally, VHA is likely a national leader in the standardization of PR: VHA mandates as well as provides training for reviewers and PR committee members, has a standardized case-referral process, and mandates the documentation of feedback to health care professionals when care did not meet standards. While other publications show that PR has poor interrater reliability, VHA provides an outside contract to perform a second review on a percentage of cases to improve the validity of PR level assignments.

Limitations

Facilities self-report PR outcomes, so there could be errors in reporting. In addition, this study was cross sectional and not longitudinal and it is possible that change in quality measures over time are correlated with PR findings. Future studies using the VHA PR and SAIL data could evaluate whether changes over time, and perhaps in response to level 2 and 3 findings, would be a more sensitive indicator of the impact of the PR process on quality metrics. Future studies could incorporate the relationship between findings from the All Employee Survey, which is conducted annually, such as psychologic safety, as well as the distance the facility has gone on the high reliability organization journey, with PR findings and SAIL metrics. Finally, PR is focused on the practice of an individual clinician, while SAIL quality metrics reflect facility performance. Interventions possibly stay at the clinician level and do not drive subsequent QI processes. This is a missed opportunity, and future studies could evaluate practices by the PR coordinators to determine whether differences in these processes are associated with quality measures.

What does this mean for PR? Since the early 1990s, there have been exhortations from experts to improve PR, by adopting a QI model, or for a deeper integration of PR and QI.^1,2,10 Just culture tools, which include QI, are promoted as a means to improve PR.^8,11,12 Other studies show PR remains problematic in terms of standardization, incorporation of best practices, redesigning systems of care, or demonstrable improvements to facility safety and care quality.^1,4,6,8 Several publications have described interventions to improve PR. Deyo-Svedson discussed a program with standardized training and triggers, much like VHA.¹³ Itri and colleagues standardized PR in radiology to target areas of known diagnostic error, as well as use the issues assessed in PR to perform QI and education. One example of a successful QI effort involved changing the radiology reporting template to make sure areas that are prone to diagnostic error are addressed.⁷

Conclusions

Since 35% of PR level variance is correlated with prior year’s results, PR committees should look at increased standardization in reviews and findings. We endorse a strong focus on standardization, application of just culture tools to case reviews, and tighter linkage between process and outcome metrics measured by SAIL and PR case finding. Studies should be performed to pilot interventions to improve the linkage between PR and quality, so that greater and faster gains can be made in quality processes and, leading from this, outcomes. Additionally, future research should investigate why some facilities consistently choose higher or lower PR ratings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. George “Web” Ross for his helpful edits.

Hospital leaders report the most common aim of peer review (PR) is to improve quality and patient safety, thus it is a potentially powerful quality improvement (QI) driver.¹ “When conducted systematically and credibly, peer review for quality management can result in both short-term and long-term improvements in patient care by revealing areas for improvement in the provision of care,” Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1190 states. “This ultimately contributes to organizational improvements.” At the same time, there are anecdotal concerns that PR may be used punitively and driven by case outcomes rather than by accepted best practices supporting QI.

Studies of the PR process suggest these concerns are valid. A key tenet of QI is standardization. PR is problematic in that regard; studies show poor interrater reliability for judgments on care, as well as hindsight bias—the fact that raters are strongly influenced by the outcome of care, not the process of care.^2-5 There are concerns that case selection or review process when not standardized may be wielded as punitive too.⁶ In this study, we sought to identify the relationship between PR findings and subsequent institution quality metrics. If PR does lead to an improvement in quality, or if quality concerns are managed within the PR committee, it should be possible to identify a measurable relationship between the PR process and a facility’s subsequent quality measures.

A handful of studies describe the association between PR and quality of care. Itri and colleagues noted that random, not standardized PR in radiology does not achieve reductions in diagnostic error rate.⁷ However, adoption of just culture principles in PR resulted in a significant improvement in facility leaders’ self-reports of quality measures at surveyed institutions.⁸ The same author reported that increases in PR standardization and integration with performance improvement activities could explain up to 18% of objective quality measure variation.⁹

We sought to determine whether a specific aspect of the PR process, the PR committee judgment of quality of care by clinicians, was related to medical center quality in a cross-sectional study of 136 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. The VHA is a good source of study because there are standardized PR processes and training for committee members and reviewers. Our hypothesis was that medical centers with a higher number of Level 2 (“most experienced and competent clinicians might have managed the case differently”) and Level 3 (“most experienced and competent providers would have managed the case differently”) PR findings would also have lower quality metric scores for processes and outcomes of care.

Methods

We used PR data from fiscal year 2018 and 2019. VHA PR data are available quarterly and are self-reported by each facility to the VHA Office of Clinical Risk Management. These data are broken down by facility. The following data, when available in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019, were used for this analysis: percent and number of PR that are ranked as level 1, 2, or 3; medical center group (MCG) acuity measure assigned by the VHA (1 is highest, 3 is lowest); and number of PR per 100,000 unique veteran encounters in 2019. Measures of facility quality are drawn from Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data from 2019, which are available quarterly by facility and are rolling for 12 months. SAIL measures processes and outcomes of care. Table 1 indicates which measures are focused on outcomes vs quality processes.

SAS Version 9.2 was used to perform statistical analyses. We used Spearman correlation to estimate the PR and quality relationship.

Results

There were 136 facilities with 2 years of PR data available. The majority of these facilities (89) were highest complexity MCG 1 facilities; 19 were MCG 2, and 28 were MCG 3. Of 13,515 PRs, most of the 9555 PR findings were level 1 (70.7%). The between-facility range of level 2 and 3 findings was large, varying from 3.5% to nearly 70% in 2019 (Table 2). Findings were similar in 2018; facilities level 2 and 3 ratings ranged from 3.6% to 73.5% of all PR findings.

There was no correlation between most quality measures and facility PR findings (Table 3). The only exception was for Global Measures (GM90), an inpatient process of care measure. Unexpectedly, the correlation was positive—facilities with a higher percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings had better inpatient processes of care SAIL score. The strongest correlation was between 2018 and 2019 PR findings.

 

Discussion

We hypothesized that a high percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings would be negatively associated with objective facility measures of care processes in SAIL but we did not see this association. The only quality measure associated with PR findings was GM90, a score of inpatient care processes. However, the association was positive, with better performance associated with more level 2 and 3 PR findings.

The best predictor of the proportion of a facility’s PR findings is the previous year’s PR findings. With an R = 0.59, the previous year findings explain about 35% of the variability in level assignment. Our analysis may describe a new bias in PR, in which committees consistently assign either low or high proportions of level 2 and 3 findings. This correlation could be due to individual PR committee culture or composition, but it does not relate to objective quality measures.

Strengths

For this study we use objective measures of PR processes, the assignment of levels of care. PR findings should reflect not only outcomes, but also the quality of the care, reflected by adherence to evidence-based processes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescription in heart failure. Therefore, we used SAIL scores, an objective and standardized process and outcome quality measures. Additionally, VHA is likely a national leader in the standardization of PR: VHA mandates as well as provides training for reviewers and PR committee members, has a standardized case-referral process, and mandates the documentation of feedback to health care professionals when care did not meet standards. While other publications show that PR has poor interrater reliability, VHA provides an outside contract to perform a second review on a percentage of cases to improve the validity of PR level assignments.

Limitations

Facilities self-report PR outcomes, so there could be errors in reporting. In addition, this study was cross sectional and not longitudinal and it is possible that change in quality measures over time are correlated with PR findings. Future studies using the VHA PR and SAIL data could evaluate whether changes over time, and perhaps in response to level 2 and 3 findings, would be a more sensitive indicator of the impact of the PR process on quality metrics. Future studies could incorporate the relationship between findings from the All Employee Survey, which is conducted annually, such as psychologic safety, as well as the distance the facility has gone on the high reliability organization journey, with PR findings and SAIL metrics. Finally, PR is focused on the practice of an individual clinician, while SAIL quality metrics reflect facility performance. Interventions possibly stay at the clinician level and do not drive subsequent QI processes. This is a missed opportunity, and future studies could evaluate practices by the PR coordinators to determine whether differences in these processes are associated with quality measures.

What does this mean for PR? Since the early 1990s, there have been exhortations from experts to improve PR, by adopting a QI model, or for a deeper integration of PR and QI.^1,2,10 Just culture tools, which include QI, are promoted as a means to improve PR.^8,11,12 Other studies show PR remains problematic in terms of standardization, incorporation of best practices, redesigning systems of care, or demonstrable improvements to facility safety and care quality.^1,4,6,8 Several publications have described interventions to improve PR. Deyo-Svedson discussed a program with standardized training and triggers, much like VHA.¹³ Itri and colleagues standardized PR in radiology to target areas of known diagnostic error, as well as use the issues assessed in PR to perform QI and education. One example of a successful QI effort involved changing the radiology reporting template to make sure areas that are prone to diagnostic error are addressed.⁷

Conclusions

Since 35% of PR level variance is correlated with prior year’s results, PR committees should look at increased standardization in reviews and findings. We endorse a strong focus on standardization, application of just culture tools to case reviews, and tighter linkage between process and outcome metrics measured by SAIL and PR case finding. Studies should be performed to pilot interventions to improve the linkage between PR and quality, so that greater and faster gains can be made in quality processes and, leading from this, outcomes. Additionally, future research should investigate why some facilities consistently choose higher or lower PR ratings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. George “Web” Ross for his helpful edits.

Hospital leaders report the most common aim of peer review (PR) is to improve quality and patient safety, thus it is a potentially powerful quality improvement (QI) driver.¹ “When conducted systematically and credibly, peer review for quality management can result in both short-term and long-term improvements in patient care by revealing areas for improvement in the provision of care,” Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directive 1190 states. “This ultimately contributes to organizational improvements.” At the same time, there are anecdotal concerns that PR may be used punitively and driven by case outcomes rather than by accepted best practices supporting QI.

Studies of the PR process suggest these concerns are valid. A key tenet of QI is standardization. PR is problematic in that regard; studies show poor interrater reliability for judgments on care, as well as hindsight bias—the fact that raters are strongly influenced by the outcome of care, not the process of care.^2-5 There are concerns that case selection or review process when not standardized may be wielded as punitive too.⁶ In this study, we sought to identify the relationship between PR findings and subsequent institution quality metrics. If PR does lead to an improvement in quality, or if quality concerns are managed within the PR committee, it should be possible to identify a measurable relationship between the PR process and a facility’s subsequent quality measures.

A handful of studies describe the association between PR and quality of care. Itri and colleagues noted that random, not standardized PR in radiology does not achieve reductions in diagnostic error rate.⁷ However, adoption of just culture principles in PR resulted in a significant improvement in facility leaders’ self-reports of quality measures at surveyed institutions.⁸ The same author reported that increases in PR standardization and integration with performance improvement activities could explain up to 18% of objective quality measure variation.⁹

We sought to determine whether a specific aspect of the PR process, the PR committee judgment of quality of care by clinicians, was related to medical center quality in a cross-sectional study of 136 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. The VHA is a good source of study because there are standardized PR processes and training for committee members and reviewers. Our hypothesis was that medical centers with a higher number of Level 2 (“most experienced and competent clinicians might have managed the case differently”) and Level 3 (“most experienced and competent providers would have managed the case differently”) PR findings would also have lower quality metric scores for processes and outcomes of care.

Methods

We used PR data from fiscal year 2018 and 2019. VHA PR data are available quarterly and are self-reported by each facility to the VHA Office of Clinical Risk Management. These data are broken down by facility. The following data, when available in both fiscal years 2018 and 2019, were used for this analysis: percent and number of PR that are ranked as level 1, 2, or 3; medical center group (MCG) acuity measure assigned by the VHA (1 is highest, 3 is lowest); and number of PR per 100,000 unique veteran encounters in 2019. Measures of facility quality are drawn from Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) data from 2019, which are available quarterly by facility and are rolling for 12 months. SAIL measures processes and outcomes of care. Table 1 indicates which measures are focused on outcomes vs quality processes.

SAS Version 9.2 was used to perform statistical analyses. We used Spearman correlation to estimate the PR and quality relationship.

Results

There were 136 facilities with 2 years of PR data available. The majority of these facilities (89) were highest complexity MCG 1 facilities; 19 were MCG 2, and 28 were MCG 3. Of 13,515 PRs, most of the 9555 PR findings were level 1 (70.7%). The between-facility range of level 2 and 3 findings was large, varying from 3.5% to nearly 70% in 2019 (Table 2). Findings were similar in 2018; facilities level 2 and 3 ratings ranged from 3.6% to 73.5% of all PR findings.

There was no correlation between most quality measures and facility PR findings (Table 3). The only exception was for Global Measures (GM90), an inpatient process of care measure. Unexpectedly, the correlation was positive—facilities with a higher percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings had better inpatient processes of care SAIL score. The strongest correlation was between 2018 and 2019 PR findings.

 

Discussion

We hypothesized that a high percentage of level 2 and 3 PR findings would be negatively associated with objective facility measures of care processes in SAIL but we did not see this association. The only quality measure associated with PR findings was GM90, a score of inpatient care processes. However, the association was positive, with better performance associated with more level 2 and 3 PR findings.

The best predictor of the proportion of a facility’s PR findings is the previous year’s PR findings. With an R = 0.59, the previous year findings explain about 35% of the variability in level assignment. Our analysis may describe a new bias in PR, in which committees consistently assign either low or high proportions of level 2 and 3 findings. This correlation could be due to individual PR committee culture or composition, but it does not relate to objective quality measures.

Strengths

For this study we use objective measures of PR processes, the assignment of levels of care. PR findings should reflect not only outcomes, but also the quality of the care, reflected by adherence to evidence-based processes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor prescription in heart failure. Therefore, we used SAIL scores, an objective and standardized process and outcome quality measures. Additionally, VHA is likely a national leader in the standardization of PR: VHA mandates as well as provides training for reviewers and PR committee members, has a standardized case-referral process, and mandates the documentation of feedback to health care professionals when care did not meet standards. While other publications show that PR has poor interrater reliability, VHA provides an outside contract to perform a second review on a percentage of cases to improve the validity of PR level assignments.

Limitations

Facilities self-report PR outcomes, so there could be errors in reporting. In addition, this study was cross sectional and not longitudinal and it is possible that change in quality measures over time are correlated with PR findings. Future studies using the VHA PR and SAIL data could evaluate whether changes over time, and perhaps in response to level 2 and 3 findings, would be a more sensitive indicator of the impact of the PR process on quality metrics. Future studies could incorporate the relationship between findings from the All Employee Survey, which is conducted annually, such as psychologic safety, as well as the distance the facility has gone on the high reliability organization journey, with PR findings and SAIL metrics. Finally, PR is focused on the practice of an individual clinician, while SAIL quality metrics reflect facility performance. Interventions possibly stay at the clinician level and do not drive subsequent QI processes. This is a missed opportunity, and future studies could evaluate practices by the PR coordinators to determine whether differences in these processes are associated with quality measures.

What does this mean for PR? Since the early 1990s, there have been exhortations from experts to improve PR, by adopting a QI model, or for a deeper integration of PR and QI.^1,2,10 Just culture tools, which include QI, are promoted as a means to improve PR.^8,11,12 Other studies show PR remains problematic in terms of standardization, incorporation of best practices, redesigning systems of care, or demonstrable improvements to facility safety and care quality.^1,4,6,8 Several publications have described interventions to improve PR. Deyo-Svedson discussed a program with standardized training and triggers, much like VHA.¹³ Itri and colleagues standardized PR in radiology to target areas of known diagnostic error, as well as use the issues assessed in PR to perform QI and education. One example of a successful QI effort involved changing the radiology reporting template to make sure areas that are prone to diagnostic error are addressed.⁷

Conclusions

Since 35% of PR level variance is correlated with prior year’s results, PR committees should look at increased standardization in reviews and findings. We endorse a strong focus on standardization, application of just culture tools to case reviews, and tighter linkage between process and outcome metrics measured by SAIL and PR case finding. Studies should be performed to pilot interventions to improve the linkage between PR and quality, so that greater and faster gains can be made in quality processes and, leading from this, outcomes. Additionally, future research should investigate why some facilities consistently choose higher or lower PR ratings.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dr. George “Web” Ross for his helpful edits.

Approximately 50% of melanomas contain BRAF mutations, which occur in a greater proportion of melanomas found on sites of intermittent sun exposure.¹BRAF-mutated melanomas have been associated with high levels of early-life ambient UV exposure, especially between ages 0 and 20 years.² In addition, studies have shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas commonly are found on the trunk and extremities.^1-3BRAF mutations also have been associated with younger age, superficial spreading subtype and low tumor thickness, absence of dermal melanocyte mitosis, low Ki-67 score, low phospho-histone H3 score, pigmented melanoma, advanced melanoma stage, and conjunctival melanoma.^4-7BRAF mutations are found more frequently in metastatic melanoma lesions than primary melanomas, suggesting that BRAF mutations may be acquired during metastasis.⁸ Studies have shown different conclusions on the effect of BRAF mutation on melanoma-related death.^5,9,10

The aim of this study was to identify trends in BRAF V600E–mutated melanoma according to age, sex, and melanoma-specific survival among Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with a first diagnosis of melanoma at 18 to 60 years of age.

Methods

In total, 638 patients aged 18 to 60 years who resided in Olmsted County and had a first lifetime diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma between 1970 and 2009 were retrospectively identified as a part of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). The REP is a health records linkage system that encompasses almost all sources of medical care available to the local population of Olmsted County.¹¹ This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (Rochester, Minnesota).

Of the 638 individuals identified in the REP, 536 had been seen at Mayo Clinic and thus potentially had tissue blocks available for the study of BRAF mutation expression. Of these 536 patients, 156 did not have sufficient residual tissue available. As a result, 380 (60%) of the original 638 patients had available blocks with sufficient tissue for immunohistochemical analysis of BRAF expression. Only primary cutaneous melanomas were included in the present study.

All specimens were reviewed by a board-certified dermatopathologist (J.S.L.) for appropriateness of inclusion, which involved confirmation of the diagnosis of melanoma, histologic type of melanoma, and presence of sufficient residual tissue for immunohistochemical stains.

All specimens were originally diagnosed as malignant melanoma at the time of clinical care by at least 2 board-certified dermatopathologists. For the purposes of this study, all specimens were rereviewed for diagnostic accuracy. We required that specimens exhibit severe cytologic and architectural atypia as well as other features favoring melanoma, such as consumption of rete pegs, pagetosis, confluence of junctional melanocytes, evidence of regression, lack of maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis, or mitotic figures among the dermal melanocyte population.

The available tissue blocks were retrieved, sectioned, confirmed as melanoma, and stained with a mouse antihuman BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1; Spring Bioscience) to determine the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation. BRAF staining was evaluated in conjunction with a review of the associated slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Cytoplasmic staining of melanocytes for BRAF was graded as negative, focal or partial positive (<50% of tumor), or diffuse positive (>50% of tumor)(Figure 1). When a melanoma arose in association with a nevus, we considered only the melanoma component for BRAF staining. We categorized the histologic type as superficial spreading, nodular, or lentigo maligna, and the location as head and neck, trunk, or extremities.

 

Patient characteristics and survival outcomes were gathered through the health record and included age, Breslow thickness, location, decade of diagnosis, histologic type, stage (ie, noninvasive, invasive, or advanced), and follow-up. Pathologic stage 0 was considered noninvasive; stages IA and IB, invasive; and stages IIA or higher, advanced.

Statistical Analysis—Comparisons between the group of patients in the study (n=380) and the group of patients excluded for the reasons stated above (n=258) as well as associations of mutant BRAF status (positive [partial positive and diffuse positive] vs negative) with patient age (young adults [age range, 18–39 years] and middle-aged adults [age range, 40–60 years]), sex, decade of diagnosis, location, histologic type, and stage were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank sum, χ², Fisher exact, or Cochran-Armitage trend tests. Disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the duration of follow-up was calculated from the date of melanoma diagnosis to the date of death or the last follow-up. Associations of mutant BRAF expression status with death from melanoma and death from any cause were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression models and summarized with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Survival analyses were limited to patients with invasive or advanced disease. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS statistical software (SAS version 9.4). All tests were 2-sided, and P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Clinical and Tumor Characteristics—Of the 380 tissue specimens that underwent BRAF V600E analysis, 247 had negative staining; 106 had diffuse strong staining; and 27 had focal or partial staining. In total, 133 (35%) were positive, either partially or diffusely. The median age for patients who had negative staining was 45 years; for those with positive staining, it was 41 years (P=.07).

The patients who met inclusion criteria (n=380) were compared with those who were excluded (n=258)(eTable 1). The groups were similar on the basis of sex; age; and melanoma location, stage, and histologic subtype. However, some evidence showed that patients included in the study received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently (1970-1989, 13.2%; 1990-1999, 28.7%; 2000-2009, 58.2%) than those who were excluded (1970-1989, 24.7%; 1990-1999, 23.5%; 2000-2009, 51.8%)(P=.02).

BRAF V600E expression was more commonly found in superficial spreading (37.7%) and nodular melanomas (35.0%) than in situ melanomas (17.1%)(P=.01). Other characteristics of BRAF V600E expression are described in eTable 2. Overall, invasive and advanced melanomas were significantly more likely to harbor BRAF V600E expression than noninvasive melanomas (39.6% and 37.9%, respectively, vs 17.9%; P=.003). However, advanced melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among women, and invasive melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among men (eTable 2).

Survival—Survival analyses were limited to 297 patients with confirmed invasive or advanced disease. Of these, 180 (61%) had no BRAF V600E staining; 25 (8%) had partial staining; and 92 (31%) had diffuse positive staining. In total, 117 patients (39%) had a BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Among the patients still alive, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 10.2 (7.0-16.8) years. Thirty-nine patients with invasive or advanced disease had died of any cause at a median (IQR) of 3.0 (1.3-10.2) years after diagnosis. In total, 26 patients died of melanoma at a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.5 (1.3-7.4) years after diagnosis. Eight women and 18 men died of malignant melanoma. Five deaths occurred because of malignant melanoma among patients aged 18 to 39 years, and 21 occurred among patients aged 40 to 60 years. In the 18- to 39-year-old group, all 5 deaths were among patients with a BRAF-positive melanoma. Estimated disease-specific survival rate (95% CI; number still at risk) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after diagnosis was 94% (91%-97%; 243), 91% (87%-95%; 142), 89% (85%-94%; 87), and 88% (83%-93%; 45), respectively.

 

In a univariable analysis, the HR for association of positive mutant BRAF expression with death of malignant melanoma was 1.84 (95% CI, 0.85-3.98; P=.12). No statistically significant interaction was observed between decade of diagnosis and BRAF expression (P=.60). However, the interaction between sex and BRAF expression was significant (P=.04), with increased risk of death from melanoma among women with BRAF-mutated melanoma (HR, 10.88; 95% CI, 1.34-88.41; P=.026) but not among men (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.40-2.64; P=.97)(Figures 2A and 2B). The HR for death from malignant melanoma among young adults aged 18 to 39 years with a BRAF-mutated melanoma was 16.4 (95% CI, 0.81-330.10; P=.068), whereas the HR among adults aged 40 to 60 years with a BRAF-mutated melanoma was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.52-2.98; P=.63)(Figures 2C and 2D).

BRAF V600E expression was not significantly associated with death from any cause (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.74-2.61; P=.31) or with decade of diagnosis (P=.13). Similarly, BRAF expression was not associated with death from any cause according to sex (P=.31). However, a statistically significant interaction was seen between age at diagnosis and BRAF expression (P=.003). BRAF expression was significantly associated with death from any cause for adults aged 18 to 39 years (HR, 9.60; 95% CI, 1.15-80.00; P=.04). In comparison, no association of BRAF expression with death was observed for adults aged 40 to 60 years (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.48-2.03; P=.98).

Comment

We found that melanomas with BRAF mutations were more likely in advanced and invasive melanoma. The frequency of BRAF mutations among melanomas that were considered advanced was higher in women than men. Although the number of deaths was limited, women with a melanoma with BRAF expression were more likely to die of melanoma, young adults with a BRAF-mutated melanoma had an almost 10-fold increased risk of dying from any cause, and middle-aged adults showed no increased risk of death. These findings suggest that young adults who are genetically prone to a BRAF-mutated melanoma could be at a disadvantage for all-cause mortality. Although this finding was significant, the 95% CI was large, and further studies would be warranted before sound conclusions could be made.

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence across all age groups in Olmsted County over the last 4 decades.^12-14 However, our results show that the percentage of BRAF-mutated melanomas in this population has been stable over time, with no statistically significant difference by age or sex. Other confounding factors may have an influence, such as increased rates of early detection and diagnosis of melanoma in contemporary times. Our data suggest that patients included in the BRAF-mutation analysis study had received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently than those who were excluded from the study, which could be due to older melanomas being less likely to have adequate tissue specimens available for immunohistochemical staining/evaluation.

Prior research has shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas typically occur on the trunk and are more likely in individuals with more than 14 nevi on the back.² In the present cohort, BRAF-positive melanomas had a predisposition toward the trunk but also were found on the head, neck, and extremities—areas that are more likely to have long-term sun damage. One suggestion is that 2 distinct pathways for melanoma development exist: one associated with a large number of melanocytic nevi (that is more prone to genetic mutations in melanocytes) and the other associated with long-term sun exposure.^15,16 The combination of these hypotheses suggests that individuals who are prone to the development of large numbers of nevi may require sun exposure for the initial insult, but the development of melanoma may be carried out by other factors after this initial sun exposure insult, whereas individuals without large numbers of nevi who may have less genetic risk may require continued long-term sun exposure for melanoma to develop.¹⁷

Our study had limitations, including the small numbers of deaths overall and cause-specific deaths of metastatic melanoma, which limited our ability to conduct more extensive multivariable modeling. Also, the retrospective nature and time frame of looking back 4 decades did not allow us to have information sufficient to categorize some patients as having dysplastic nevus syndrome or not, which would be a potentially interesting variable to include in the analysis. Because the number of deaths in the 18- to 39-year-old cohort was only 5, further statistical comparison regarding tumor type and other variables pertaining to BRAF positivity were not possible. In addition, our data were collected from patients residing in a single geographic county (Olmsted County, Minnesota), which may limit generalizability. Lastly, BRAF V600E mutations were identified through immunostaining only, not molecular data, so it is possible some patients had false-negative immunohistochemistry findings and thus were not identified.

Conclusion

BRAF-mutated melanomas were found in 35% of our cohort, with no significant change in the percentage of melanomas with BRAF V600E mutations over the last 4 decades in this population. In addition, no differences or significant trends existed according to sex and BRAF-mutated melanoma development. Women with BRAF-mutated melanomas were more likely to die of metastatic melanoma than men, and young adults with BRAF-mutated melanomas had a higher all-cause mortality risk. Further research is needed to decipher what effect BRAF-mutated melanomas have on metastasis and cause-specific death in women as well as all-cause mortality in young adults.

Acknowledgment—The authors are indebted to Scientific Publications, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota).

Approximately 50% of melanomas contain BRAF mutations, which occur in a greater proportion of melanomas found on sites of intermittent sun exposure.¹BRAF-mutated melanomas have been associated with high levels of early-life ambient UV exposure, especially between ages 0 and 20 years.² In addition, studies have shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas commonly are found on the trunk and extremities.^1-3BRAF mutations also have been associated with younger age, superficial spreading subtype and low tumor thickness, absence of dermal melanocyte mitosis, low Ki-67 score, low phospho-histone H3 score, pigmented melanoma, advanced melanoma stage, and conjunctival melanoma.^4-7BRAF mutations are found more frequently in metastatic melanoma lesions than primary melanomas, suggesting that BRAF mutations may be acquired during metastasis.⁸ Studies have shown different conclusions on the effect of BRAF mutation on melanoma-related death.^5,9,10

The aim of this study was to identify trends in BRAF V600E–mutated melanoma according to age, sex, and melanoma-specific survival among Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with a first diagnosis of melanoma at 18 to 60 years of age.

Methods

In total, 638 patients aged 18 to 60 years who resided in Olmsted County and had a first lifetime diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma between 1970 and 2009 were retrospectively identified as a part of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). The REP is a health records linkage system that encompasses almost all sources of medical care available to the local population of Olmsted County.¹¹ This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (Rochester, Minnesota).

Of the 638 individuals identified in the REP, 536 had been seen at Mayo Clinic and thus potentially had tissue blocks available for the study of BRAF mutation expression. Of these 536 patients, 156 did not have sufficient residual tissue available. As a result, 380 (60%) of the original 638 patients had available blocks with sufficient tissue for immunohistochemical analysis of BRAF expression. Only primary cutaneous melanomas were included in the present study.

All specimens were reviewed by a board-certified dermatopathologist (J.S.L.) for appropriateness of inclusion, which involved confirmation of the diagnosis of melanoma, histologic type of melanoma, and presence of sufficient residual tissue for immunohistochemical stains.

All specimens were originally diagnosed as malignant melanoma at the time of clinical care by at least 2 board-certified dermatopathologists. For the purposes of this study, all specimens were rereviewed for diagnostic accuracy. We required that specimens exhibit severe cytologic and architectural atypia as well as other features favoring melanoma, such as consumption of rete pegs, pagetosis, confluence of junctional melanocytes, evidence of regression, lack of maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis, or mitotic figures among the dermal melanocyte population.

The available tissue blocks were retrieved, sectioned, confirmed as melanoma, and stained with a mouse antihuman BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1; Spring Bioscience) to determine the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation. BRAF staining was evaluated in conjunction with a review of the associated slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Cytoplasmic staining of melanocytes for BRAF was graded as negative, focal or partial positive (<50% of tumor), or diffuse positive (>50% of tumor)(Figure 1). When a melanoma arose in association with a nevus, we considered only the melanoma component for BRAF staining. We categorized the histologic type as superficial spreading, nodular, or lentigo maligna, and the location as head and neck, trunk, or extremities.

 

Patient characteristics and survival outcomes were gathered through the health record and included age, Breslow thickness, location, decade of diagnosis, histologic type, stage (ie, noninvasive, invasive, or advanced), and follow-up. Pathologic stage 0 was considered noninvasive; stages IA and IB, invasive; and stages IIA or higher, advanced.

Statistical Analysis—Comparisons between the group of patients in the study (n=380) and the group of patients excluded for the reasons stated above (n=258) as well as associations of mutant BRAF status (positive [partial positive and diffuse positive] vs negative) with patient age (young adults [age range, 18–39 years] and middle-aged adults [age range, 40–60 years]), sex, decade of diagnosis, location, histologic type, and stage were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank sum, χ², Fisher exact, or Cochran-Armitage trend tests. Disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the duration of follow-up was calculated from the date of melanoma diagnosis to the date of death or the last follow-up. Associations of mutant BRAF expression status with death from melanoma and death from any cause were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression models and summarized with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Survival analyses were limited to patients with invasive or advanced disease. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS statistical software (SAS version 9.4). All tests were 2-sided, and P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Clinical and Tumor Characteristics—Of the 380 tissue specimens that underwent BRAF V600E analysis, 247 had negative staining; 106 had diffuse strong staining; and 27 had focal or partial staining. In total, 133 (35%) were positive, either partially or diffusely. The median age for patients who had negative staining was 45 years; for those with positive staining, it was 41 years (P=.07).

The patients who met inclusion criteria (n=380) were compared with those who were excluded (n=258)(eTable 1). The groups were similar on the basis of sex; age; and melanoma location, stage, and histologic subtype. However, some evidence showed that patients included in the study received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently (1970-1989, 13.2%; 1990-1999, 28.7%; 2000-2009, 58.2%) than those who were excluded (1970-1989, 24.7%; 1990-1999, 23.5%; 2000-2009, 51.8%)(P=.02).

BRAF V600E expression was more commonly found in superficial spreading (37.7%) and nodular melanomas (35.0%) than in situ melanomas (17.1%)(P=.01). Other characteristics of BRAF V600E expression are described in eTable 2. Overall, invasive and advanced melanomas were significantly more likely to harbor BRAF V600E expression than noninvasive melanomas (39.6% and 37.9%, respectively, vs 17.9%; P=.003). However, advanced melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among women, and invasive melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among men (eTable 2).

Survival—Survival analyses were limited to 297 patients with confirmed invasive or advanced disease. Of these, 180 (61%) had no BRAF V600E staining; 25 (8%) had partial staining; and 92 (31%) had diffuse positive staining. In total, 117 patients (39%) had a BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Among the patients still alive, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 10.2 (7.0-16.8) years. Thirty-nine patients with invasive or advanced disease had died of any cause at a median (IQR) of 3.0 (1.3-10.2) years after diagnosis. In total, 26 patients died of melanoma at a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.5 (1.3-7.4) years after diagnosis. Eight women and 18 men died of malignant melanoma. Five deaths occurred because of malignant melanoma among patients aged 18 to 39 years, and 21 occurred among patients aged 40 to 60 years. In the 18- to 39-year-old group, all 5 deaths were among patients with a BRAF-positive melanoma. Estimated disease-specific survival rate (95% CI; number still at risk) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after diagnosis was 94% (91%-97%; 243), 91% (87%-95%; 142), 89% (85%-94%; 87), and 88% (83%-93%; 45), respectively.

 

In a univariable analysis, the HR for association of positive mutant BRAF expression with death of malignant melanoma was 1.84 (95% CI, 0.85-3.98; P=.12). No statistically significant interaction was observed between decade of diagnosis and BRAF expression (P=.60). However, the interaction between sex and BRAF expression was significant (P=.04), with increased risk of death from melanoma among women with BRAF-mutated melanoma (HR, 10.88; 95% CI, 1.34-88.41; P=.026) but not among men (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.40-2.64; P=.97)(Figures 2A and 2B). The HR for death from malignant melanoma among young adults aged 18 to 39 years with a BRAF-mutated melanoma was 16.4 (95% CI, 0.81-330.10; P=.068), whereas the HR among adults aged 40 to 60 years with a BRAF-mutated melanoma was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.52-2.98; P=.63)(Figures 2C and 2D).

BRAF V600E expression was not significantly associated with death from any cause (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.74-2.61; P=.31) or with decade of diagnosis (P=.13). Similarly, BRAF expression was not associated with death from any cause according to sex (P=.31). However, a statistically significant interaction was seen between age at diagnosis and BRAF expression (P=.003). BRAF expression was significantly associated with death from any cause for adults aged 18 to 39 years (HR, 9.60; 95% CI, 1.15-80.00; P=.04). In comparison, no association of BRAF expression with death was observed for adults aged 40 to 60 years (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.48-2.03; P=.98).

Comment

We found that melanomas with BRAF mutations were more likely in advanced and invasive melanoma. The frequency of BRAF mutations among melanomas that were considered advanced was higher in women than men. Although the number of deaths was limited, women with a melanoma with BRAF expression were more likely to die of melanoma, young adults with a BRAF-mutated melanoma had an almost 10-fold increased risk of dying from any cause, and middle-aged adults showed no increased risk of death. These findings suggest that young adults who are genetically prone to a BRAF-mutated melanoma could be at a disadvantage for all-cause mortality. Although this finding was significant, the 95% CI was large, and further studies would be warranted before sound conclusions could be made.

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence across all age groups in Olmsted County over the last 4 decades.^12-14 However, our results show that the percentage of BRAF-mutated melanomas in this population has been stable over time, with no statistically significant difference by age or sex. Other confounding factors may have an influence, such as increased rates of early detection and diagnosis of melanoma in contemporary times. Our data suggest that patients included in the BRAF-mutation analysis study had received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently than those who were excluded from the study, which could be due to older melanomas being less likely to have adequate tissue specimens available for immunohistochemical staining/evaluation.

Prior research has shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas typically occur on the trunk and are more likely in individuals with more than 14 nevi on the back.² In the present cohort, BRAF-positive melanomas had a predisposition toward the trunk but also were found on the head, neck, and extremities—areas that are more likely to have long-term sun damage. One suggestion is that 2 distinct pathways for melanoma development exist: one associated with a large number of melanocytic nevi (that is more prone to genetic mutations in melanocytes) and the other associated with long-term sun exposure.^15,16 The combination of these hypotheses suggests that individuals who are prone to the development of large numbers of nevi may require sun exposure for the initial insult, but the development of melanoma may be carried out by other factors after this initial sun exposure insult, whereas individuals without large numbers of nevi who may have less genetic risk may require continued long-term sun exposure for melanoma to develop.¹⁷

Our study had limitations, including the small numbers of deaths overall and cause-specific deaths of metastatic melanoma, which limited our ability to conduct more extensive multivariable modeling. Also, the retrospective nature and time frame of looking back 4 decades did not allow us to have information sufficient to categorize some patients as having dysplastic nevus syndrome or not, which would be a potentially interesting variable to include in the analysis. Because the number of deaths in the 18- to 39-year-old cohort was only 5, further statistical comparison regarding tumor type and other variables pertaining to BRAF positivity were not possible. In addition, our data were collected from patients residing in a single geographic county (Olmsted County, Minnesota), which may limit generalizability. Lastly, BRAF V600E mutations were identified through immunostaining only, not molecular data, so it is possible some patients had false-negative immunohistochemistry findings and thus were not identified.

Conclusion

BRAF-mutated melanomas were found in 35% of our cohort, with no significant change in the percentage of melanomas with BRAF V600E mutations over the last 4 decades in this population. In addition, no differences or significant trends existed according to sex and BRAF-mutated melanoma development. Women with BRAF-mutated melanomas were more likely to die of metastatic melanoma than men, and young adults with BRAF-mutated melanomas had a higher all-cause mortality risk. Further research is needed to decipher what effect BRAF-mutated melanomas have on metastasis and cause-specific death in women as well as all-cause mortality in young adults.

Acknowledgment—The authors are indebted to Scientific Publications, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota).

Approximately 50% of melanomas contain BRAF mutations, which occur in a greater proportion of melanomas found on sites of intermittent sun exposure.¹BRAF-mutated melanomas have been associated with high levels of early-life ambient UV exposure, especially between ages 0 and 20 years.² In addition, studies have shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas commonly are found on the trunk and extremities.^1-3BRAF mutations also have been associated with younger age, superficial spreading subtype and low tumor thickness, absence of dermal melanocyte mitosis, low Ki-67 score, low phospho-histone H3 score, pigmented melanoma, advanced melanoma stage, and conjunctival melanoma.^4-7BRAF mutations are found more frequently in metastatic melanoma lesions than primary melanomas, suggesting that BRAF mutations may be acquired during metastasis.⁸ Studies have shown different conclusions on the effect of BRAF mutation on melanoma-related death.^5,9,10

The aim of this study was to identify trends in BRAF V600E–mutated melanoma according to age, sex, and melanoma-specific survival among Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents with a first diagnosis of melanoma at 18 to 60 years of age.

Methods

In total, 638 patients aged 18 to 60 years who resided in Olmsted County and had a first lifetime diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma between 1970 and 2009 were retrospectively identified as a part of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). The REP is a health records linkage system that encompasses almost all sources of medical care available to the local population of Olmsted County.¹¹ This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (Rochester, Minnesota).

Of the 638 individuals identified in the REP, 536 had been seen at Mayo Clinic and thus potentially had tissue blocks available for the study of BRAF mutation expression. Of these 536 patients, 156 did not have sufficient residual tissue available. As a result, 380 (60%) of the original 638 patients had available blocks with sufficient tissue for immunohistochemical analysis of BRAF expression. Only primary cutaneous melanomas were included in the present study.

All specimens were reviewed by a board-certified dermatopathologist (J.S.L.) for appropriateness of inclusion, which involved confirmation of the diagnosis of melanoma, histologic type of melanoma, and presence of sufficient residual tissue for immunohistochemical stains.

All specimens were originally diagnosed as malignant melanoma at the time of clinical care by at least 2 board-certified dermatopathologists. For the purposes of this study, all specimens were rereviewed for diagnostic accuracy. We required that specimens exhibit severe cytologic and architectural atypia as well as other features favoring melanoma, such as consumption of rete pegs, pagetosis, confluence of junctional melanocytes, evidence of regression, lack of maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis, or mitotic figures among the dermal melanocyte population.

The available tissue blocks were retrieved, sectioned, confirmed as melanoma, and stained with a mouse antihuman BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (clone VE1; Spring Bioscience) to determine the presence of a BRAF V600E mutation. BRAF staining was evaluated in conjunction with a review of the associated slides stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Cytoplasmic staining of melanocytes for BRAF was graded as negative, focal or partial positive (<50% of tumor), or diffuse positive (>50% of tumor)(Figure 1). When a melanoma arose in association with a nevus, we considered only the melanoma component for BRAF staining. We categorized the histologic type as superficial spreading, nodular, or lentigo maligna, and the location as head and neck, trunk, or extremities.

 

Patient characteristics and survival outcomes were gathered through the health record and included age, Breslow thickness, location, decade of diagnosis, histologic type, stage (ie, noninvasive, invasive, or advanced), and follow-up. Pathologic stage 0 was considered noninvasive; stages IA and IB, invasive; and stages IIA or higher, advanced.

Statistical Analysis—Comparisons between the group of patients in the study (n=380) and the group of patients excluded for the reasons stated above (n=258) as well as associations of mutant BRAF status (positive [partial positive and diffuse positive] vs negative) with patient age (young adults [age range, 18–39 years] and middle-aged adults [age range, 40–60 years]), sex, decade of diagnosis, location, histologic type, and stage were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank sum, χ², Fisher exact, or Cochran-Armitage trend tests. Disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the duration of follow-up was calculated from the date of melanoma diagnosis to the date of death or the last follow-up. Associations of mutant BRAF expression status with death from melanoma and death from any cause were evaluated with Cox proportional hazard regression models and summarized with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Survival analyses were limited to patients with invasive or advanced disease. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS statistical software (SAS version 9.4). All tests were 2-sided, and P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Clinical and Tumor Characteristics—Of the 380 tissue specimens that underwent BRAF V600E analysis, 247 had negative staining; 106 had diffuse strong staining; and 27 had focal or partial staining. In total, 133 (35%) were positive, either partially or diffusely. The median age for patients who had negative staining was 45 years; for those with positive staining, it was 41 years (P=.07).

The patients who met inclusion criteria (n=380) were compared with those who were excluded (n=258)(eTable 1). The groups were similar on the basis of sex; age; and melanoma location, stage, and histologic subtype. However, some evidence showed that patients included in the study received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently (1970-1989, 13.2%; 1990-1999, 28.7%; 2000-2009, 58.2%) than those who were excluded (1970-1989, 24.7%; 1990-1999, 23.5%; 2000-2009, 51.8%)(P=.02).

BRAF V600E expression was more commonly found in superficial spreading (37.7%) and nodular melanomas (35.0%) than in situ melanomas (17.1%)(P=.01). Other characteristics of BRAF V600E expression are described in eTable 2. Overall, invasive and advanced melanomas were significantly more likely to harbor BRAF V600E expression than noninvasive melanomas (39.6% and 37.9%, respectively, vs 17.9%; P=.003). However, advanced melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among women, and invasive melanomas more commonly expressed BRAF positivity among men (eTable 2).

Survival—Survival analyses were limited to 297 patients with confirmed invasive or advanced disease. Of these, 180 (61%) had no BRAF V600E staining; 25 (8%) had partial staining; and 92 (31%) had diffuse positive staining. In total, 117 patients (39%) had a BRAF-mutated melanoma.

Among the patients still alive, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of follow-up was 10.2 (7.0-16.8) years. Thirty-nine patients with invasive or advanced disease had died of any cause at a median (IQR) of 3.0 (1.3-10.2) years after diagnosis. In total, 26 patients died of melanoma at a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.5 (1.3-7.4) years after diagnosis. Eight women and 18 men died of malignant melanoma. Five deaths occurred because of malignant melanoma among patients aged 18 to 39 years, and 21 occurred among patients aged 40 to 60 years. In the 18- to 39-year-old group, all 5 deaths were among patients with a BRAF-positive melanoma. Estimated disease-specific survival rate (95% CI; number still at risk) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after diagnosis was 94% (91%-97%; 243), 91% (87%-95%; 142), 89% (85%-94%; 87), and 88% (83%-93%; 45), respectively.

 

In a univariable analysis, the HR for association of positive mutant BRAF expression with death of malignant melanoma was 1.84 (95% CI, 0.85-3.98; P=.12). No statistically significant interaction was observed between decade of diagnosis and BRAF expression (P=.60). However, the interaction between sex and BRAF expression was significant (P=.04), with increased risk of death from melanoma among women with BRAF-mutated melanoma (HR, 10.88; 95% CI, 1.34-88.41; P=.026) but not among men (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.40-2.64; P=.97)(Figures 2A and 2B). The HR for death from malignant melanoma among young adults aged 18 to 39 years with a BRAF-mutated melanoma was 16.4 (95% CI, 0.81-330.10; P=.068), whereas the HR among adults aged 40 to 60 years with a BRAF-mutated melanoma was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.52-2.98; P=.63)(Figures 2C and 2D).

BRAF V600E expression was not significantly associated with death from any cause (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.74-2.61; P=.31) or with decade of diagnosis (P=.13). Similarly, BRAF expression was not associated with death from any cause according to sex (P=.31). However, a statistically significant interaction was seen between age at diagnosis and BRAF expression (P=.003). BRAF expression was significantly associated with death from any cause for adults aged 18 to 39 years (HR, 9.60; 95% CI, 1.15-80.00; P=.04). In comparison, no association of BRAF expression with death was observed for adults aged 40 to 60 years (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.48-2.03; P=.98).

Comment

We found that melanomas with BRAF mutations were more likely in advanced and invasive melanoma. The frequency of BRAF mutations among melanomas that were considered advanced was higher in women than men. Although the number of deaths was limited, women with a melanoma with BRAF expression were more likely to die of melanoma, young adults with a BRAF-mutated melanoma had an almost 10-fold increased risk of dying from any cause, and middle-aged adults showed no increased risk of death. These findings suggest that young adults who are genetically prone to a BRAF-mutated melanoma could be at a disadvantage for all-cause mortality. Although this finding was significant, the 95% CI was large, and further studies would be warranted before sound conclusions could be made.

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence across all age groups in Olmsted County over the last 4 decades.^12-14 However, our results show that the percentage of BRAF-mutated melanomas in this population has been stable over time, with no statistically significant difference by age or sex. Other confounding factors may have an influence, such as increased rates of early detection and diagnosis of melanoma in contemporary times. Our data suggest that patients included in the BRAF-mutation analysis study had received the diagnosis of melanoma more recently than those who were excluded from the study, which could be due to older melanomas being less likely to have adequate tissue specimens available for immunohistochemical staining/evaluation.

Prior research has shown that BRAF-mutated melanomas typically occur on the trunk and are more likely in individuals with more than 14 nevi on the back.² In the present cohort, BRAF-positive melanomas had a predisposition toward the trunk but also were found on the head, neck, and extremities—areas that are more likely to have long-term sun damage. One suggestion is that 2 distinct pathways for melanoma development exist: one associated with a large number of melanocytic nevi (that is more prone to genetic mutations in melanocytes) and the other associated with long-term sun exposure.^15,16 The combination of these hypotheses suggests that individuals who are prone to the development of large numbers of nevi may require sun exposure for the initial insult, but the development of melanoma may be carried out by other factors after this initial sun exposure insult, whereas individuals without large numbers of nevi who may have less genetic risk may require continued long-term sun exposure for melanoma to develop.¹⁷

Our study had limitations, including the small numbers of deaths overall and cause-specific deaths of metastatic melanoma, which limited our ability to conduct more extensive multivariable modeling. Also, the retrospective nature and time frame of looking back 4 decades did not allow us to have information sufficient to categorize some patients as having dysplastic nevus syndrome or not, which would be a potentially interesting variable to include in the analysis. Because the number of deaths in the 18- to 39-year-old cohort was only 5, further statistical comparison regarding tumor type and other variables pertaining to BRAF positivity were not possible. In addition, our data were collected from patients residing in a single geographic county (Olmsted County, Minnesota), which may limit generalizability. Lastly, BRAF V600E mutations were identified through immunostaining only, not molecular data, so it is possible some patients had false-negative immunohistochemistry findings and thus were not identified.

Conclusion

BRAF-mutated melanomas were found in 35% of our cohort, with no significant change in the percentage of melanomas with BRAF V600E mutations over the last 4 decades in this population. In addition, no differences or significant trends existed according to sex and BRAF-mutated melanoma development. Women with BRAF-mutated melanomas were more likely to die of metastatic melanoma than men, and young adults with BRAF-mutated melanomas had a higher all-cause mortality risk. Further research is needed to decipher what effect BRAF-mutated melanomas have on metastasis and cause-specific death in women as well as all-cause mortality in young adults.

Acknowledgment—The authors are indebted to Scientific Publications, Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota).

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

 

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

 

 

Comment

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

 

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

 

 

Comment

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes and challenges to medical practice, including new public health measure legislation, local and national medical authority recommendations, nursing home and other ancillary health center protocols, and novel clinical decision-making considerations.^1-3 In July 2020, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) addressed the changing landscape in dermatologic surgery, in part, by publishing recommendations on practice protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴ The guidelines recommended deferred treatment of superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) for 6 months and all other BCC subtypes for 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, the guidelines recommended deferring treatment of all actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) in situ “for now.” Squamous cell carcinoma treatment was to be guided by prognostic variables, such as location, size, depth, differentiation, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, recurrence, and immunosuppression. The guidelines recommended melanoma in situ (MIS) treatment be deferred for 3 months and invasive melanoma with histologic clearance obtained on excisional biopsy for 3 months. Other general recommendations included triaging clinics, rebooking according to clinical priority, using telehealth where possible, screening patients for COVID-19 signs and symptoms, staggering appointment times, spacing patient chairs, limiting support persons to 1, removing possible sources of infection in the waiting room, ensuring all patients sanitized their hands on arrival, rationing personal protective equipment, considering N95 masks for periorificial surgery, and using dissolving sutures to minimize multiple presentations.⁴

The American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), with guidance from its sister societies and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, also communicated COVID-19–related recommendations to its members via intermittent newsletters during the initial peak of the pandemic in March and June 2020.⁵ General social distancing and office recommendations were similar to those released by the AAD. Recommendations for skin cancer treatment included deferring all BCCs for up to 3 months, with exceptions for highly symptomatic cancers and those with potential for substantial rapid growth. Squamous cell carcinoma in situ and small, well-differentiated SCCs were deferred, with priority placed on SCCs that were rapidly enlarging, poorly differentiated, demonstrated perineural invasion, were ulcerated, or were symptomatic. Patients with major risk factors were prioritized for treatment. Melanoma in situ was deferred for 2 to 3 months.⁵

State-level guidance from the Texas Dermatological Society (TDS) communicated in April 2020 stated that skin cancers with a potential for rapid progression and metastasis, such as melanoma and SCC, may require treatment as determined by the physician.⁶ The potential risk of serious adverse medical outcomes from not treating these cancers should be carefully documented. General practice measures for preventing the spread of COVID-19 were also recommended.⁶

In the setting of emerging novel recommendations, the practice of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was notably impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one survey study from the United Kingdom conducted in April and May 2020, 49% of MMS services ceased and 36% were reduced during the infancy of the COVID-19 pandemic.⁷ Mohs micrographic surgery was largely suspended because of a lack of personal protective equipment and safety concerns, according to respondents. Additionally, respondents reported 77% of departments experienced redeployment of physicians and nurses to intensive care and medical wards. Thirty-five percent reported a reduction in the proportion of flaps/grafts to primary closures performed, 74% reported a decrease in outside referrals for repair by other specialties, 81% reported increased usage of dissolvable sutures, and 29% reported an increase in prophylactic antibiotic prescriptions.⁷ Another study from Italy reported a 46.5% reduction in dermatologic surgeries performed during the initial lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients canceled 52.9% of procedures, and 12.5% were cancelled because of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection.⁸ Patient perceptions of MMS have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a survey study of patients in the United Kingdom undergoing MMS during the pandemic, 47% were worried the hospital would cancel their surgery, 54% were anxious about using public transportation to attend their appointment, 30% were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to household or family members, and 19% were worried about their ability to socially distance in the hospital.⁹

Evidence is also emerging that suggests the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with skin cancer. One European study found an increase in Breslow thickness in primary melanomas diagnosed following the initial COVID-19 lockdown (0.88-mm average thickness prelockdown vs 1.96-mm average thickness postlockdown).¹⁰ An Italian study observed similar results—an increase in median Breslow thickness during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period of 0.5 mm from 0.4 mm during the prelockdown time period.¹¹ Also providing evidence for potentially poor patient outcomes, one study modeled the impact of backlog in cutaneous melanoma referrals in the United Kingdom on patient survival and predicted 138 attributable lives lost for a 1-month delay and 1171 lives lost for a 6-month delay. The model further predicted a 3.1% to 12.5% reduction in 10-year net survival incurred from a 3-month delay in melanoma treatment, with the largest reduction seen in the patient population older than 80 years.¹²

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed to impact MMS practice, patient perceptions, and clinical outcomes, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding rapidly evolving recommendations in dermatologic surgery have impacted the characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS.

Our study sought to determine the characteristics of skin cancers treated by MMS during the peak of government-mandated medical practice restrictions and business shutdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with characteristics of skin cancers treated during a prepandemic control period.

 

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted with approval from our institutional review board at the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston, Texas). Included in the chart review were all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our outpatient, office-based surgical center from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020; this period corresponded to the peak of the COVID-19–related government-mandated medical and business shutdowns in our geographic region (southeast Texas). All cases performed were in compliance with national- and state-level guidance. Data were also collected for all cutaneous malignancies treated by MMS at our office from March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, as well as March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018; these periods represented prepandemic control periods.

Data were collected for 516 surgeries performed on 458 patients and included patient age, preoperative clinical size, postoperative defect size, number of Mohs stages to achieve clearance, MMS appropriate use criteria (AUC) location (categorized as high-, medium-, or low-risk tumor location),¹³ and tumor type (categorized as BCC, SCC, or MIS). All variables were examined for unusual or missing values. Five patients with rare tumor types were observed and removed from the data set.

Statistical Analysis—An a priori power analysis for a power set at 0.85 determined sample sizes of 105 per group. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare variables for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods. Continuous outcome variables—Mohs stages, preoperative size, postoperative size, and patient age—were categorized for the analysis. Preoperative tumor size was dichotomized, with less than 2 cm² as the referent category vs 2 cm² or greater, and postoperative defect size was dichotomized with less than 3.6 cm² as the referent category vs 3.6 cm² or greater. Mohs stage was dichotomized as 1 stage (referent) vs more than 1 stage, and patient age was dichotomized as younger than 65 years (referent) vs 65 years or older.

Multivariate analyses were also performed to compare preoperative and postoperative sizes for patients undergoing MMS during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, controlling for Mohs AUC location. Bivariate unadjusted and multivariate analyses were performed using a GENMOD logistic regression procedure in SAS (SAS Institute) to account for correlation in clustered data because a patient could be included for more than 1 surgery in the data set. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 for Windows. Because outcome variables tended to be skewed and not distributed normally, outcome variables were recorded as medians with interquartile ranges where possible to give a more accurate representation of the data than could be demonstrated with means with standard deviations.

Results

One hundred thirty-eight skin cancers were treated during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020, to April 30, 2020, and 378 skin cancers were treated during the prepandemic control periods of March 15, 2019, to April 30, 2019, and March 15, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Tumor type treated during the pandemic period was more likely to be SCC or MIS (representing generally more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared with the prepandemic periods, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.763 (95% CI, 1.17-2.66). This outcome was statistically significant (P=.01).

Tumors treated during the pandemic period were more likely to have necessitated more than one Mohs stage for clearance compared to the prepandemic periods, though this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 1.461; 95% CI, 0.97-2.19; P=.056). Neither AUC location of treated tumors nor age were significantly different between prepandemic and pandemic periods (P=.58 and P=.84, respectively). Table 1 includes all bivariate analysis results.

Additionally, although mean preoperative and postoperative sizes were larger for each AUC location during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, these differences did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (P=.71 and P=.50, respectively)(Table 2).

 

 

Comment

Our practice has followed best practice guidelines dictated by our governing professional societies during the COVID-19 pandemic in the treatment of skin cancers by MMS, specifically highly symptomatic BCCs (in accordance with ACMS guidance), SCCs with high-risk features (in accordance with AAD, ACMS, and TDS guidance), and tumors with high risk for progression and metastasis such as melanomas (in accordance with TDS guidance). Melanoma in situ was also treated during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the latter TDS guidance, particularly in light of the potential for upstaging to melanoma following resection (a phenomenon demonstrated to occur in 5%–29% of biopsied MIS lesions).¹⁴

In following best practice guidelines, our results suggested tumors treated by MMS were more severe, as evidenced by a statistically significant higher proportion of SCC and MIS tumors (representing more severe tumor types) vs BCC when compared to the prepandemic period. Supporting this conclusion, we observed larger pretreatment and posttreatment tumor sizes for all AUC locations and more tumors necessitating 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic vs prepandemic periods, though these differences did not reach statistical significance. We postulate these findings may be attributed to allocation of finite medical resources to the treatment of larger and more aggressive skin cancers. Additionally, these findings may be explained, in part, by limitations on patient case load imposed by social distancing measures and governing body regulations in effect during the study period, including those put forth by the AAD, ACMS, and TDS. Of note, our practice observed no hospitalizations or 911 calls during the studied period. This suggests no allocation of precious hospital resources away from patients with COVID-19 in our treatment of high-risk skin cancers.

The changing characteristics of cutaneous tumors treated by MMS during the pandemic are of clinical relevance. Larger postoperative wound sizes as observed during the pandemic, albeit not statistically significant, presumably affect reconstructive decisions. With larger wounds tending to necessitate repair by techniques higher on the reconstructive ladder, greater patient morbidity and cost are expected.¹⁵ As the cost-effectiveness of dermatology services remains a critical issue, this is an area ripe for future follow-up research. Furthermore, our observation that tumors tended to necessitate 2 or more stages for clearance during the pandemic more often than prepandemic periods, though not statistically significant, presumably affected operating times. Longer operating times during the pandemic may be of importance when making clinical decisions for patients for whom limiting health care exposure may be of particular concern. With more SCC and MIS tumors being treated relative to BCCs during the pandemic, one might expect greater size and severity of the BCCs we observe in the proceeding months to years.

As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the landscape of cutaneous oncology, the need for adaptability is imperative. With 3- and 6-month skin cancer treatment deferrals lapsed, uncertainty surrounds ideal management of existing and new skin cancers arising during the pandemic. This study adds to a growing body of literature elucidating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMS practice; however, further studies and a tincture of time are needed to guide future best practice standards.

Acknowledgment—The authors acknowledge Gwen Baillargeon, MS (Galveston, Texas), who was the statistician for this article.

Epilepsy affects about 1% of the world population and is one of the most burdensome in terms of disability-adjusted life-years.^1,2 Veterans are at increased risk of developing epilepsy when compared with the general population due to a variety of factors, including a higher frequency of traumatic brain injuries.³ A recent study from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that veterans who developed epilepsy during their service not only had a higher rate of mental and physical comorbidities, but also were 2.6 times more likely to die compared with veterans without epilepsy.⁴

Oral antiseizure medications (ASM) remain the mainstay of outpatient epilepsy treatment. Patterns of ASM use are complex within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patient population, particularly within patients at the Epilepsy Centers of Excellence (ECoE). For example, many patients are transitioned from older ASMs with greater adverse effects (AEs) to better tolerated newer generation ASMs or polytherapy regimens with complex pharmacokinetic profiles and drug interactions.⁵ Multiple factors are considered when choosing an ASM, including age, sex, epilepsy/seizure type, comorbidities, past medication trials, AEs, and drug interactions. The complex pharmacologic profile of both older and newer ASMs can confound the optimal management of epilepsy, and suboptimal management can lead to neurologic, psychological, physical, and social consequences, including sudden unexplained death in epilepsy.^6,7 Psychiatric and behavioral problems are seen in up to 30% of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and 50% in those with pharmacoresistant epilepsy.⁸ Early screening, detection, and treatment for psychiatric comorbidities are an integral part of evidence-based care in epilepsy.

Being familiar with ASM AEs and comorbid conditions such as anxiety and depression can allow for quick identification and intervention to improve safety and quality of life. A 2007 population-based study found that measures of suicidality had a strong association with epilepsy, and performing mental health screenings, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), and the Brief Irritability Test (BITe), can assist in identifying those patients at risk.⁹

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become increasingly clear that the health care sector is facing increasing pressure. The combination of patient acuity as well as critical health care professional (HCP) shortages may be of particular concern in certain specialty clinics where access to practitioners may already be limited. While this is a multifaceted problem, a pragmatic approach would be to increase the use of clinicians, such as clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs).

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (WSMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin, is 1 of 17 VA ECoE sites. The VA ECoE provides high-quality, comprehensive epilepsy evaluation and care to veterans. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the 17 sites provided care to 5544 veterans.¹⁰ The WSMVH epilepsy clinic sees about 400 veterans each year, receiving referrals from other VA medical centers, and prescribes ASMs, neuromodulation devices, and resective surgeries for epilepsy. The multidisciplinary team consists of an epileptologist, neurophysiology fellow, psychiatrist, nurse practitioner, CPP, and neurology residents. The WSMVH epilepsy clinic has employed CPPs at their highest level of clinical practice authority since 1991.

The WSMVH epilepsy clinic is open 4 hours once weekly. The clinic offers fourteen 30-minute appointment slots either in person or via telehealth. The epileptologist reviews patient charts prior to clinic and assigns each patient to the appropriate HCP. When making the determination to assign a patient to a CPP or pharmacy resident, the epileptologist considers current treatment response, mental health issues as well as medication-related concerns (eg, potential pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interactions, AEs, adherence). The CPP can independently lead routine follow-up appointments and address acute as well as ongoing ASM therapy needs. Pharmacy residents are fully integrated into the clinic workflow, seeing assigned patients independently when appropriate but ensuring that each patient has access to either the epileptologist, CPP, or psychiatrist prior to finalizing the treatment plan. The epilepsy clinic rotation is required for first-year pharmacy residents and is an elective rotation in the second year.

While this level of service has been in place at WSMVH for more than 3 decades, a systematic evaluation on workload and clinical impact has not been conducted.¹¹ The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate and quantify the breadth and impact of CPPs in this specialty setting. The WSMVH/University of Wisconsin-Madison institutional review board deemed this quality improvement study exempt from review.

Methods

This study was a single-center, retrospective, quality improvement project evaluating the impact of a CPP and clinical pharmacy resident have within the WSMVH epilepsy clinic on access to epilepsy care and medication management. The secondary outcomes were the types of interventions made by the CPP and mental health screening performed.

Between October 2019 and May 2021, 591 appointments were scheduled at the epilepsy clinic for medical, psychiatry, neurosurgery, and pharmacy residents; the epileptologist; CPP; psychiatrist; epilepsy fellow; or nurse practitioner. A retrospective chart review of the 446 patients seen by either a CPP or clinical pharmacy resident from October 2017 to June 2021 assessed pharmacist-led interventions made during each appointment. The following treatment interventions were assessed: medication initiations/discontinuations, dose changes, and nonpharmacologic interventions, including education. Additionally, any mental health screenings completed, consultations to other specialties placed, or laboratory tests ordered were documented.

Results

In the epilepsy clinic, 591 appointments were completed from October 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. Of those appointments, 255 (43.2%) were led by pharmacists; 156 (26.4%) by pharmacy residents and 99 (16.8%) by CPPs (16.8%) (Table 1). Appointments held by other HCPs included 139 (23.5%) by nurse practitioner, 108 (18.3%) by the attending epileptologist, 41 (6.9%) by fellows, 22 (3.7%) by psychiatrists, 19 (3.2) by medical residents, 4 (0.7%) by neurosurgery residents, and 3 (0.5%) by psychiatry residents. Medication interventions included 55 (11.8%) dose increases, 52 (11.1%) medication initiations, and 32 (6.9%) dose decreases (Table 2). Mental health screening was conducted for 229 (49.1%) patients with PHQ-9, 225 (48.3%) with GAD-7, and 111 (23.8) with BITe. Some veterans received multiple screeners at a clinic visit, and others received none (most commonly during telephone follow-up appointments). The mean time spent with each patient was 27 minutes.

Discussion

Within the private sector, access to a neurologist or epileptologist is limited, and the US Health Resources and Services Administration National Center for Workforce Analysis projected that the demand for these specialists would exceed supply by 2025.¹² In 2017, Kobau and colleagues found that only 1 in 10 adults with epilepsy saw a neurologist within the year, similar to previous years. As demand for specialty care exceeds capacity, additional members of the health care team are needed to ensure timely, effective, and safe care for patients with epilepsy.

One way to increase health care access is to use an interdisciplinary model of care, integrating pharmacists in the management of epilepsy in collaboration with other HCPs, a strategy that has been endorsed by the American Epilepsy Society (AES).¹³ As experts in pharmacotherapy, pharmacists can uniquely provide medication management for this complex disease as ASMs continue to remain the first-line treatment.¹⁴

In addition to increased demand for specialty services, there also is an increase in health care spending with a push to limit additional spending. In 2016, despite similar health care use in other high-income countries, health care costs are approximately twice as much in the US, mostly driven by prices of pharmaceuticals and administrative costs.¹⁵ Bond and colleagues evaluated 9380 Medicare patients with epilepsy or seizure disorders throughout US hospitals in 1998.¹⁶ They found that hospitals without pharmacist-managed ASM therapy had Medicare charges that were 11.2% higher than hospitals with pharmacist-managed therapy. Many factors contribute to the rise in cost, including an increase in laboratory charges for serum drug assays, legal litigations related to drug AEs, and an increase in hospital length of stay (about 14 additional days). Similar to pharmacist-managed anticoagulation, vancomycin, and aminoglycoside therapy, direct involvement of pharmacists with ASM management decreases health care costs.¹⁴

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) developed 8 epilepsy quality measures: seizure type and frequency, etiology or epilepsy syndrome, review of electroencephalogram and imaging findings, counseling of ASM AEs, consideration of surgical treatment of intractable epilepsy, epilepsy-specific safety issues, and counseling for women of childbearing potential on contraception and pregnancy. These measures serve as a guide for evidence-based therapy and standardization of epilepsy care.¹⁷ Additionally, bone health, depression, and awareness of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy are increasing in importance when providing quality epilepsy care. Wasade and colleagues surveyed Michigan neurologists and found that only 37% of the respondents addressed ASM AEs at every clinic visit. They also found that just 26% of responding neurologists inquire about depression at every clinic visit, and 17% inquire only once a year. In our practice, screening for depression, suicidality, and counseling on ASM AEs are routinely provided by CPPs during each clinic visit.

Within the VA, CPPs are granted a scope of practice that allows them to perform comprehensive medication management, including but not limited to, prescribing medication regimens, ordering laboratory tests and diagnostic studies, and performing physical assessments. In our practice, the most common interventions made by CPPs were patient-focused counseling, bone health screening, mental health triage and referral, and ASM regimen adjustments. Assessment of ASM adherence also was noted to be an active area of CPP-patient engagement. These most common interventions align well with the AAN quality measures. It is now well recognized that nonadherence in patients with epilepsy not only can lead to loss of seizure control, but injury and death as well.^18,19 Malek and colleagues found that patients with epilepsy who are nonadherent to their ASM regimens have a 3-times greater risk of mortality compared with those who were adherent.²⁰ Adherence to the appropriate medication regimen in epilepsy can result in seizure-freedom in 70% of patients; therefore, exploring nonadherence in this population is crucial.²¹

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated changes to the health care industry, including the heavy reliance on telehealth. Following the Wisconsin stay-at-home order on March 25, 2020, all nonessential face-to-face appointments at the WSMVH halted. The epilepsy clinic transitioned the majority of appointments to either telephone or VA Video Connect (VVC), which is a program on the veteran’s computer, tablet, or mobile device upon which the appointment is held. Although it became more challenging to obtain a mental health screening during virtual appointments and the frequency did decrease, patients were asked for a subjective report of their mood during each telephone or video appointment. The AES has since put forth a statement of support for the continuation of telehealth following the COVID-19 pandemic due to the flexibility that telehealth provides people with epilepsy. Additionally, the AES taskforce provided suggestions for continued pharmacist engagement within the epilepsy care team, including the triaging of patients, management of ASMs, and involvement in the delivery of telehealth.

WSMVH clinic CPPs and clinical pharmacy residents saw a high proportion of all veterans, which allowed the epileptologist time to focus on new consults and higher acuity cases. At WSMVH, screening for depression with the PHQ-9 must be completed at least annually for any patient regardless of their involvement in mental health care. This typically occurs at a patient’s annual primary care visit. Patients who receive epilepsy clinic care will often receive more frequent and thorough depression screening with the PHQ-9, in addition to screening for anxiety, irritability, and sleep disorders. CPPs ability to identify, evaluate, and triage psychiatric concerns ensures that the patient has support and care.

Limitations

There is limited research available on the impact that a CPP has on medication management and access to care within an epilepsy clinic, especially those with a scope of practice. One limitation of this retrospective chart review is that the appropriateness of each medication intervention was not assessed; therefore, the impact of each intervention was not captured. Additionally, this single-site study of veterans may not reflect the general population. However, we believe that this model could be adapted to nonspecialty neurology practices. Of note the scope of this study did not include a comparison of medication interventions for the other specialties within the clinic.

Conclusions

The integration of a CPP and pharmacy residents into the WSMVH epilepsy clinic has allowed for greater and more timely access to care, managing 43.2% of all patients within the clinic during the study. Pharmacy scope of practice allows for collaborative autonomy with ASM adjustments and for the epileptologist time to focus on higher acuity cases. In settings where pharmacists do not have prescriptive status, medication management services, such as comprehensive medication reviews, identifying drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, recognizing adherence barriers, and medication safety surveillance, can still be performed to improve management of epilepsy.

Acknowledgments

Ellina S. Seckel, PharmD, BCACP, DPLA; Anita Kashyap, PharmD, BCACP; Brooke Keenan, NP; Leigh Heffner, PharmD

Epilepsy affects about 1% of the world population and is one of the most burdensome in terms of disability-adjusted life-years.^1,2 Veterans are at increased risk of developing epilepsy when compared with the general population due to a variety of factors, including a higher frequency of traumatic brain injuries.³ A recent study from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that veterans who developed epilepsy during their service not only had a higher rate of mental and physical comorbidities, but also were 2.6 times more likely to die compared with veterans without epilepsy.⁴

Oral antiseizure medications (ASM) remain the mainstay of outpatient epilepsy treatment. Patterns of ASM use are complex within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patient population, particularly within patients at the Epilepsy Centers of Excellence (ECoE). For example, many patients are transitioned from older ASMs with greater adverse effects (AEs) to better tolerated newer generation ASMs or polytherapy regimens with complex pharmacokinetic profiles and drug interactions.⁵ Multiple factors are considered when choosing an ASM, including age, sex, epilepsy/seizure type, comorbidities, past medication trials, AEs, and drug interactions. The complex pharmacologic profile of both older and newer ASMs can confound the optimal management of epilepsy, and suboptimal management can lead to neurologic, psychological, physical, and social consequences, including sudden unexplained death in epilepsy.^6,7 Psychiatric and behavioral problems are seen in up to 30% of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and 50% in those with pharmacoresistant epilepsy.⁸ Early screening, detection, and treatment for psychiatric comorbidities are an integral part of evidence-based care in epilepsy.

Being familiar with ASM AEs and comorbid conditions such as anxiety and depression can allow for quick identification and intervention to improve safety and quality of life. A 2007 population-based study found that measures of suicidality had a strong association with epilepsy, and performing mental health screenings, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), and the Brief Irritability Test (BITe), can assist in identifying those patients at risk.⁹

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become increasingly clear that the health care sector is facing increasing pressure. The combination of patient acuity as well as critical health care professional (HCP) shortages may be of particular concern in certain specialty clinics where access to practitioners may already be limited. While this is a multifaceted problem, a pragmatic approach would be to increase the use of clinicians, such as clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs).

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (WSMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin, is 1 of 17 VA ECoE sites. The VA ECoE provides high-quality, comprehensive epilepsy evaluation and care to veterans. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the 17 sites provided care to 5544 veterans.¹⁰ The WSMVH epilepsy clinic sees about 400 veterans each year, receiving referrals from other VA medical centers, and prescribes ASMs, neuromodulation devices, and resective surgeries for epilepsy. The multidisciplinary team consists of an epileptologist, neurophysiology fellow, psychiatrist, nurse practitioner, CPP, and neurology residents. The WSMVH epilepsy clinic has employed CPPs at their highest level of clinical practice authority since 1991.

The WSMVH epilepsy clinic is open 4 hours once weekly. The clinic offers fourteen 30-minute appointment slots either in person or via telehealth. The epileptologist reviews patient charts prior to clinic and assigns each patient to the appropriate HCP. When making the determination to assign a patient to a CPP or pharmacy resident, the epileptologist considers current treatment response, mental health issues as well as medication-related concerns (eg, potential pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interactions, AEs, adherence). The CPP can independently lead routine follow-up appointments and address acute as well as ongoing ASM therapy needs. Pharmacy residents are fully integrated into the clinic workflow, seeing assigned patients independently when appropriate but ensuring that each patient has access to either the epileptologist, CPP, or psychiatrist prior to finalizing the treatment plan. The epilepsy clinic rotation is required for first-year pharmacy residents and is an elective rotation in the second year.

While this level of service has been in place at WSMVH for more than 3 decades, a systematic evaluation on workload and clinical impact has not been conducted.¹¹ The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate and quantify the breadth and impact of CPPs in this specialty setting. The WSMVH/University of Wisconsin-Madison institutional review board deemed this quality improvement study exempt from review.

Methods

This study was a single-center, retrospective, quality improvement project evaluating the impact of a CPP and clinical pharmacy resident have within the WSMVH epilepsy clinic on access to epilepsy care and medication management. The secondary outcomes were the types of interventions made by the CPP and mental health screening performed.

Between October 2019 and May 2021, 591 appointments were scheduled at the epilepsy clinic for medical, psychiatry, neurosurgery, and pharmacy residents; the epileptologist; CPP; psychiatrist; epilepsy fellow; or nurse practitioner. A retrospective chart review of the 446 patients seen by either a CPP or clinical pharmacy resident from October 2017 to June 2021 assessed pharmacist-led interventions made during each appointment. The following treatment interventions were assessed: medication initiations/discontinuations, dose changes, and nonpharmacologic interventions, including education. Additionally, any mental health screenings completed, consultations to other specialties placed, or laboratory tests ordered were documented.

Results

In the epilepsy clinic, 591 appointments were completed from October 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. Of those appointments, 255 (43.2%) were led by pharmacists; 156 (26.4%) by pharmacy residents and 99 (16.8%) by CPPs (16.8%) (Table 1). Appointments held by other HCPs included 139 (23.5%) by nurse practitioner, 108 (18.3%) by the attending epileptologist, 41 (6.9%) by fellows, 22 (3.7%) by psychiatrists, 19 (3.2) by medical residents, 4 (0.7%) by neurosurgery residents, and 3 (0.5%) by psychiatry residents. Medication interventions included 55 (11.8%) dose increases, 52 (11.1%) medication initiations, and 32 (6.9%) dose decreases (Table 2). Mental health screening was conducted for 229 (49.1%) patients with PHQ-9, 225 (48.3%) with GAD-7, and 111 (23.8) with BITe. Some veterans received multiple screeners at a clinic visit, and others received none (most commonly during telephone follow-up appointments). The mean time spent with each patient was 27 minutes.

Discussion

Within the private sector, access to a neurologist or epileptologist is limited, and the US Health Resources and Services Administration National Center for Workforce Analysis projected that the demand for these specialists would exceed supply by 2025.¹² In 2017, Kobau and colleagues found that only 1 in 10 adults with epilepsy saw a neurologist within the year, similar to previous years. As demand for specialty care exceeds capacity, additional members of the health care team are needed to ensure timely, effective, and safe care for patients with epilepsy.

One way to increase health care access is to use an interdisciplinary model of care, integrating pharmacists in the management of epilepsy in collaboration with other HCPs, a strategy that has been endorsed by the American Epilepsy Society (AES).¹³ As experts in pharmacotherapy, pharmacists can uniquely provide medication management for this complex disease as ASMs continue to remain the first-line treatment.¹⁴

In addition to increased demand for specialty services, there also is an increase in health care spending with a push to limit additional spending. In 2016, despite similar health care use in other high-income countries, health care costs are approximately twice as much in the US, mostly driven by prices of pharmaceuticals and administrative costs.¹⁵ Bond and colleagues evaluated 9380 Medicare patients with epilepsy or seizure disorders throughout US hospitals in 1998.¹⁶ They found that hospitals without pharmacist-managed ASM therapy had Medicare charges that were 11.2% higher than hospitals with pharmacist-managed therapy. Many factors contribute to the rise in cost, including an increase in laboratory charges for serum drug assays, legal litigations related to drug AEs, and an increase in hospital length of stay (about 14 additional days). Similar to pharmacist-managed anticoagulation, vancomycin, and aminoglycoside therapy, direct involvement of pharmacists with ASM management decreases health care costs.¹⁴

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) developed 8 epilepsy quality measures: seizure type and frequency, etiology or epilepsy syndrome, review of electroencephalogram and imaging findings, counseling of ASM AEs, consideration of surgical treatment of intractable epilepsy, epilepsy-specific safety issues, and counseling for women of childbearing potential on contraception and pregnancy. These measures serve as a guide for evidence-based therapy and standardization of epilepsy care.¹⁷ Additionally, bone health, depression, and awareness of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy are increasing in importance when providing quality epilepsy care. Wasade and colleagues surveyed Michigan neurologists and found that only 37% of the respondents addressed ASM AEs at every clinic visit. They also found that just 26% of responding neurologists inquire about depression at every clinic visit, and 17% inquire only once a year. In our practice, screening for depression, suicidality, and counseling on ASM AEs are routinely provided by CPPs during each clinic visit.

Within the VA, CPPs are granted a scope of practice that allows them to perform comprehensive medication management, including but not limited to, prescribing medication regimens, ordering laboratory tests and diagnostic studies, and performing physical assessments. In our practice, the most common interventions made by CPPs were patient-focused counseling, bone health screening, mental health triage and referral, and ASM regimen adjustments. Assessment of ASM adherence also was noted to be an active area of CPP-patient engagement. These most common interventions align well with the AAN quality measures. It is now well recognized that nonadherence in patients with epilepsy not only can lead to loss of seizure control, but injury and death as well.^18,19 Malek and colleagues found that patients with epilepsy who are nonadherent to their ASM regimens have a 3-times greater risk of mortality compared with those who were adherent.²⁰ Adherence to the appropriate medication regimen in epilepsy can result in seizure-freedom in 70% of patients; therefore, exploring nonadherence in this population is crucial.²¹

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated changes to the health care industry, including the heavy reliance on telehealth. Following the Wisconsin stay-at-home order on March 25, 2020, all nonessential face-to-face appointments at the WSMVH halted. The epilepsy clinic transitioned the majority of appointments to either telephone or VA Video Connect (VVC), which is a program on the veteran’s computer, tablet, or mobile device upon which the appointment is held. Although it became more challenging to obtain a mental health screening during virtual appointments and the frequency did decrease, patients were asked for a subjective report of their mood during each telephone or video appointment. The AES has since put forth a statement of support for the continuation of telehealth following the COVID-19 pandemic due to the flexibility that telehealth provides people with epilepsy. Additionally, the AES taskforce provided suggestions for continued pharmacist engagement within the epilepsy care team, including the triaging of patients, management of ASMs, and involvement in the delivery of telehealth.

WSMVH clinic CPPs and clinical pharmacy residents saw a high proportion of all veterans, which allowed the epileptologist time to focus on new consults and higher acuity cases. At WSMVH, screening for depression with the PHQ-9 must be completed at least annually for any patient regardless of their involvement in mental health care. This typically occurs at a patient’s annual primary care visit. Patients who receive epilepsy clinic care will often receive more frequent and thorough depression screening with the PHQ-9, in addition to screening for anxiety, irritability, and sleep disorders. CPPs ability to identify, evaluate, and triage psychiatric concerns ensures that the patient has support and care.

Limitations

There is limited research available on the impact that a CPP has on medication management and access to care within an epilepsy clinic, especially those with a scope of practice. One limitation of this retrospective chart review is that the appropriateness of each medication intervention was not assessed; therefore, the impact of each intervention was not captured. Additionally, this single-site study of veterans may not reflect the general population. However, we believe that this model could be adapted to nonspecialty neurology practices. Of note the scope of this study did not include a comparison of medication interventions for the other specialties within the clinic.

Conclusions

The integration of a CPP and pharmacy residents into the WSMVH epilepsy clinic has allowed for greater and more timely access to care, managing 43.2% of all patients within the clinic during the study. Pharmacy scope of practice allows for collaborative autonomy with ASM adjustments and for the epileptologist time to focus on higher acuity cases. In settings where pharmacists do not have prescriptive status, medication management services, such as comprehensive medication reviews, identifying drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, recognizing adherence barriers, and medication safety surveillance, can still be performed to improve management of epilepsy.

Acknowledgments

Ellina S. Seckel, PharmD, BCACP, DPLA; Anita Kashyap, PharmD, BCACP; Brooke Keenan, NP; Leigh Heffner, PharmD

Epilepsy affects about 1% of the world population and is one of the most burdensome in terms of disability-adjusted life-years.^1,2 Veterans are at increased risk of developing epilepsy when compared with the general population due to a variety of factors, including a higher frequency of traumatic brain injuries.³ A recent study from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that veterans who developed epilepsy during their service not only had a higher rate of mental and physical comorbidities, but also were 2.6 times more likely to die compared with veterans without epilepsy.⁴

Oral antiseizure medications (ASM) remain the mainstay of outpatient epilepsy treatment. Patterns of ASM use are complex within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patient population, particularly within patients at the Epilepsy Centers of Excellence (ECoE). For example, many patients are transitioned from older ASMs with greater adverse effects (AEs) to better tolerated newer generation ASMs or polytherapy regimens with complex pharmacokinetic profiles and drug interactions.⁵ Multiple factors are considered when choosing an ASM, including age, sex, epilepsy/seizure type, comorbidities, past medication trials, AEs, and drug interactions. The complex pharmacologic profile of both older and newer ASMs can confound the optimal management of epilepsy, and suboptimal management can lead to neurologic, psychological, physical, and social consequences, including sudden unexplained death in epilepsy.^6,7 Psychiatric and behavioral problems are seen in up to 30% of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and 50% in those with pharmacoresistant epilepsy.⁸ Early screening, detection, and treatment for psychiatric comorbidities are an integral part of evidence-based care in epilepsy.

Being familiar with ASM AEs and comorbid conditions such as anxiety and depression can allow for quick identification and intervention to improve safety and quality of life. A 2007 population-based study found that measures of suicidality had a strong association with epilepsy, and performing mental health screenings, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), and the Brief Irritability Test (BITe), can assist in identifying those patients at risk.⁹

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become increasingly clear that the health care sector is facing increasing pressure. The combination of patient acuity as well as critical health care professional (HCP) shortages may be of particular concern in certain specialty clinics where access to practitioners may already be limited. While this is a multifaceted problem, a pragmatic approach would be to increase the use of clinicians, such as clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs).

The William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (WSMVH) in Madison, Wisconsin, is 1 of 17 VA ECoE sites. The VA ECoE provides high-quality, comprehensive epilepsy evaluation and care to veterans. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the 17 sites provided care to 5544 veterans.¹⁰ The WSMVH epilepsy clinic sees about 400 veterans each year, receiving referrals from other VA medical centers, and prescribes ASMs, neuromodulation devices, and resective surgeries for epilepsy. The multidisciplinary team consists of an epileptologist, neurophysiology fellow, psychiatrist, nurse practitioner, CPP, and neurology residents. The WSMVH epilepsy clinic has employed CPPs at their highest level of clinical practice authority since 1991.

The WSMVH epilepsy clinic is open 4 hours once weekly. The clinic offers fourteen 30-minute appointment slots either in person or via telehealth. The epileptologist reviews patient charts prior to clinic and assigns each patient to the appropriate HCP. When making the determination to assign a patient to a CPP or pharmacy resident, the epileptologist considers current treatment response, mental health issues as well as medication-related concerns (eg, potential pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interactions, AEs, adherence). The CPP can independently lead routine follow-up appointments and address acute as well as ongoing ASM therapy needs. Pharmacy residents are fully integrated into the clinic workflow, seeing assigned patients independently when appropriate but ensuring that each patient has access to either the epileptologist, CPP, or psychiatrist prior to finalizing the treatment plan. The epilepsy clinic rotation is required for first-year pharmacy residents and is an elective rotation in the second year.

While this level of service has been in place at WSMVH for more than 3 decades, a systematic evaluation on workload and clinical impact has not been conducted.¹¹ The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate and quantify the breadth and impact of CPPs in this specialty setting. The WSMVH/University of Wisconsin-Madison institutional review board deemed this quality improvement study exempt from review.

Methods

This study was a single-center, retrospective, quality improvement project evaluating the impact of a CPP and clinical pharmacy resident have within the WSMVH epilepsy clinic on access to epilepsy care and medication management. The secondary outcomes were the types of interventions made by the CPP and mental health screening performed.

Between October 2019 and May 2021, 591 appointments were scheduled at the epilepsy clinic for medical, psychiatry, neurosurgery, and pharmacy residents; the epileptologist; CPP; psychiatrist; epilepsy fellow; or nurse practitioner. A retrospective chart review of the 446 patients seen by either a CPP or clinical pharmacy resident from October 2017 to June 2021 assessed pharmacist-led interventions made during each appointment. The following treatment interventions were assessed: medication initiations/discontinuations, dose changes, and nonpharmacologic interventions, including education. Additionally, any mental health screenings completed, consultations to other specialties placed, or laboratory tests ordered were documented.

Results

In the epilepsy clinic, 591 appointments were completed from October 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. Of those appointments, 255 (43.2%) were led by pharmacists; 156 (26.4%) by pharmacy residents and 99 (16.8%) by CPPs (16.8%) (Table 1). Appointments held by other HCPs included 139 (23.5%) by nurse practitioner, 108 (18.3%) by the attending epileptologist, 41 (6.9%) by fellows, 22 (3.7%) by psychiatrists, 19 (3.2) by medical residents, 4 (0.7%) by neurosurgery residents, and 3 (0.5%) by psychiatry residents. Medication interventions included 55 (11.8%) dose increases, 52 (11.1%) medication initiations, and 32 (6.9%) dose decreases (Table 2). Mental health screening was conducted for 229 (49.1%) patients with PHQ-9, 225 (48.3%) with GAD-7, and 111 (23.8) with BITe. Some veterans received multiple screeners at a clinic visit, and others received none (most commonly during telephone follow-up appointments). The mean time spent with each patient was 27 minutes.

Discussion

Within the private sector, access to a neurologist or epileptologist is limited, and the US Health Resources and Services Administration National Center for Workforce Analysis projected that the demand for these specialists would exceed supply by 2025.¹² In 2017, Kobau and colleagues found that only 1 in 10 adults with epilepsy saw a neurologist within the year, similar to previous years. As demand for specialty care exceeds capacity, additional members of the health care team are needed to ensure timely, effective, and safe care for patients with epilepsy.

One way to increase health care access is to use an interdisciplinary model of care, integrating pharmacists in the management of epilepsy in collaboration with other HCPs, a strategy that has been endorsed by the American Epilepsy Society (AES).¹³ As experts in pharmacotherapy, pharmacists can uniquely provide medication management for this complex disease as ASMs continue to remain the first-line treatment.¹⁴

In addition to increased demand for specialty services, there also is an increase in health care spending with a push to limit additional spending. In 2016, despite similar health care use in other high-income countries, health care costs are approximately twice as much in the US, mostly driven by prices of pharmaceuticals and administrative costs.¹⁵ Bond and colleagues evaluated 9380 Medicare patients with epilepsy or seizure disorders throughout US hospitals in 1998.¹⁶ They found that hospitals without pharmacist-managed ASM therapy had Medicare charges that were 11.2% higher than hospitals with pharmacist-managed therapy. Many factors contribute to the rise in cost, including an increase in laboratory charges for serum drug assays, legal litigations related to drug AEs, and an increase in hospital length of stay (about 14 additional days). Similar to pharmacist-managed anticoagulation, vancomycin, and aminoglycoside therapy, direct involvement of pharmacists with ASM management decreases health care costs.¹⁴

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) developed 8 epilepsy quality measures: seizure type and frequency, etiology or epilepsy syndrome, review of electroencephalogram and imaging findings, counseling of ASM AEs, consideration of surgical treatment of intractable epilepsy, epilepsy-specific safety issues, and counseling for women of childbearing potential on contraception and pregnancy. These measures serve as a guide for evidence-based therapy and standardization of epilepsy care.¹⁷ Additionally, bone health, depression, and awareness of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy are increasing in importance when providing quality epilepsy care. Wasade and colleagues surveyed Michigan neurologists and found that only 37% of the respondents addressed ASM AEs at every clinic visit. They also found that just 26% of responding neurologists inquire about depression at every clinic visit, and 17% inquire only once a year. In our practice, screening for depression, suicidality, and counseling on ASM AEs are routinely provided by CPPs during each clinic visit.

Within the VA, CPPs are granted a scope of practice that allows them to perform comprehensive medication management, including but not limited to, prescribing medication regimens, ordering laboratory tests and diagnostic studies, and performing physical assessments. In our practice, the most common interventions made by CPPs were patient-focused counseling, bone health screening, mental health triage and referral, and ASM regimen adjustments. Assessment of ASM adherence also was noted to be an active area of CPP-patient engagement. These most common interventions align well with the AAN quality measures. It is now well recognized that nonadherence in patients with epilepsy not only can lead to loss of seizure control, but injury and death as well.^18,19 Malek and colleagues found that patients with epilepsy who are nonadherent to their ASM regimens have a 3-times greater risk of mortality compared with those who were adherent.²⁰ Adherence to the appropriate medication regimen in epilepsy can result in seizure-freedom in 70% of patients; therefore, exploring nonadherence in this population is crucial.²¹

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated changes to the health care industry, including the heavy reliance on telehealth. Following the Wisconsin stay-at-home order on March 25, 2020, all nonessential face-to-face appointments at the WSMVH halted. The epilepsy clinic transitioned the majority of appointments to either telephone or VA Video Connect (VVC), which is a program on the veteran’s computer, tablet, or mobile device upon which the appointment is held. Although it became more challenging to obtain a mental health screening during virtual appointments and the frequency did decrease, patients were asked for a subjective report of their mood during each telephone or video appointment. The AES has since put forth a statement of support for the continuation of telehealth following the COVID-19 pandemic due to the flexibility that telehealth provides people with epilepsy. Additionally, the AES taskforce provided suggestions for continued pharmacist engagement within the epilepsy care team, including the triaging of patients, management of ASMs, and involvement in the delivery of telehealth.

WSMVH clinic CPPs and clinical pharmacy residents saw a high proportion of all veterans, which allowed the epileptologist time to focus on new consults and higher acuity cases. At WSMVH, screening for depression with the PHQ-9 must be completed at least annually for any patient regardless of their involvement in mental health care. This typically occurs at a patient’s annual primary care visit. Patients who receive epilepsy clinic care will often receive more frequent and thorough depression screening with the PHQ-9, in addition to screening for anxiety, irritability, and sleep disorders. CPPs ability to identify, evaluate, and triage psychiatric concerns ensures that the patient has support and care.

Limitations

There is limited research available on the impact that a CPP has on medication management and access to care within an epilepsy clinic, especially those with a scope of practice. One limitation of this retrospective chart review is that the appropriateness of each medication intervention was not assessed; therefore, the impact of each intervention was not captured. Additionally, this single-site study of veterans may not reflect the general population. However, we believe that this model could be adapted to nonspecialty neurology practices. Of note the scope of this study did not include a comparison of medication interventions for the other specialties within the clinic.

Conclusions

The integration of a CPP and pharmacy residents into the WSMVH epilepsy clinic has allowed for greater and more timely access to care, managing 43.2% of all patients within the clinic during the study. Pharmacy scope of practice allows for collaborative autonomy with ASM adjustments and for the epileptologist time to focus on higher acuity cases. In settings where pharmacists do not have prescriptive status, medication management services, such as comprehensive medication reviews, identifying drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, recognizing adherence barriers, and medication safety surveillance, can still be performed to improve management of epilepsy.

Acknowledgments

Ellina S. Seckel, PharmD, BCACP, DPLA; Anita Kashyap, PharmD, BCACP; Brooke Keenan, NP; Leigh Heffner, PharmD

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

Continue to: We developed and piloted...

 

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Continue to: Efficiency and competing priorities

 

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“ Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“ [Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

Continue to: A minority of staff...

 

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Continue to: Almost all respondents...

 

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male-­dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries.¹⁹ Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.

Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs.^8,24 However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE
Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; ktgold@umich.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

Continue to: We developed and piloted...

 

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Continue to: Efficiency and competing priorities

 

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“ Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“ [Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

Continue to: A minority of staff...

 

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Continue to: Almost all respondents...

 

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male-­dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries.¹⁹ Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.

Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs.^8,24 However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE
Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; ktgold@umich.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: Medical assistant (MA) roles have expanded rapidly as primary care has evolved and MAs take on new patient care duties. Research that looks at the MA experience and factors that enhance or reduce efficiency among MAs is limited.

Methods: We surveyed all MAs working in 6 clinics run by a large academic family medicine department in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MAs deemed by peers as “most efficient” were selected for follow-up interviews. We evaluated personal strategies for efficiency, barriers to efficient care, impact of physician actions on efficiency, and satisfaction.

Results: A total of 75/86 MAs (87%) responded to at least some survey questions and 61/86 (71%) completed the full survey. We interviewed 18 MAs face to face. Most saw their role as essential to clinic functioning and viewed health care as a personal calling. MAs identified common strategies to improve efficiency and described the MA role to orchestrate the flow of the clinic day. Staff recognized differing priorities of patients, staff, and physicians and articulated frustrations with hierarchy and competing priorities as well as behaviors that impeded clinic efficiency. Respondents emphasized the importance of feeling valued by others on their team.

Conclusions: With the evolving demands made on MAs’ time, it is critical to understand how the most effective staff members manage their role and highlight the strategies they employ to provide efficient clinical care. Understanding factors that increase or decrease MA job satisfaction can help identify high-efficiency practices and promote a clinic culture that values and supports all staff.

As primary care continues to evolve into more team-based practice, the role of the medical assistant (MA) has rapidly transformed.¹ Staff may assist with patient management, documentation in the electronic medical record, order entry, pre-visit planning, and fulfillment of quality metrics, particularly in a Primary Care Medical Home (PCMH).² From 2012 through 2014, MA job postings per graduate increased from 1.3 to 2.3, suggesting twice as many job postings as graduates.³ As the demand for experienced MAs increases, the ability to recruit and retain high-performing staff members will be critical.

MAs are referenced in medical literature as early as the 1800s.⁴ The American Association of Medical Assistants was founded in 1956, which led to educational standardization and certifications.⁵ Despite the important role that MAs have long played in the proper functioning of a medical clinic—and the knowledge that team configurations impact a clinic’s efficiency and quality^6,7—few investigations have sought out the MA’s perspective.^8,9 Given the increasing clinical demands placed on all members of the primary care team (and the burnout that often results), it seems that MA insights into clinic efficiency could be valuable.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted from February to April 2019 at a large academic institution with 6 regional ambulatory care family medicine clinics, each one with 11,000 to 18,000 patient visits annually. Faculty work at all 6 clinics and residents at 2 of them. All MAs are hired, paid, and managed by a central administrative department rather than by the family medicine department. The family medicine clinics are currently PCMH certified, with a mix of fee-for-service and capitated reimbursement.

Continue to: We developed and piloted...

 

We developed and piloted a voluntary, anonymous 39-question (29 closed-ended and 10 brief open-ended) online Qualtrics survey, which we distributed via an email link to all the MAs in the department. The survey included clinic site, years as an MA, perceptions of the clinic environment, perception of teamwork at their site, identification of efficient practices, and feedback for physicians to improve efficiency and flow. Most questions were Likert-style with 5 choices ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or short answer. Age and gender were omitted to protect confidentiality, as most MAs in the department are female. Participants could opt to enter in a drawing for three $25 gift cards. The survey was reviewed by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt.

Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.”

We asked MAs to nominate peers in their clinic who were “especially efficient and do their jobs well—people that others can learn from.” The staff members who were nominated most frequently by their peers were invited to share additional perspectives via a 10- to 30-minute semi-structured interview with the first author. Interviews covered highly efficient practices, barriers and facilitators to efficient care, and physician behaviors that impaired efficiency. We interviewed a minimum of 2 MAs per clinic and increased the number of interviews through snowball sampling, as needed, to reach data saturation (eg, the point at which we were no longer hearing new content). MAs were assured that all comments would be anonymized. There was no monetary incentive for the interviews. The interviewer had previously met only 3 of the 18 MAs interviewed.

Analysis. Summary statistics were calculated for quantitative data. To compare subgroups (such as individual clinics), a chi-square test was used. In cases when there were small cell sizes (< 5 subjects), we used the Fisher’s Exact test. Qualitative data was collected with real-time typewritten notes during the interviews to capture ideas and verbatim quotes when possible. We also included open-ended comments shared on the Qualtrics survey. Data were organized by theme using a deductive coding approach. Both authors reviewed and discussed observations, and coding was conducted by the first author. Reporting followed the STROBE Statement checklist for cross-sectional studies.¹⁰ Results were shared with MAs, supervisory staff, and physicians, which allowed for feedback and comments and served as “member-checking.” MAs reported that the data reflected their lived experiences.

RESULTS

Surveys were distributed to all 86 MAs working in family medicine clinics. A total of 75 (87%) responded to at least some questions (typically just demographics). We used those who completed the full survey (n = 61; 71%) for data analysis. Eighteen MAs participated in face-to-face interviews. Among respondents, 35 (47%) had worked at least 10 years as an MA and 21 (28%) had worked at least a decade in the family medicine department.

Perception of role

All respondents (n = 61; 100%) somewhat or strongly agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and 58 (95%) reported that working in health care was “a calling” for them. Only 7 (11%) agreed that family medicine was an easier environment for MAs compared to a specialty clinic; 30 (49%) disagreed with this. Among respondents, 32 (53%) strongly or somewhat agreed that their work was very stressful and just half (n = 28; 46%) agreed there were adequate MA staff at their clinic.

Continue to: Efficiency and competing priorities

 

Efficiency and competing priorities

MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included clinic culture (good communication and strong teamwork), as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and doing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy. (See TABLE 1.) They identified ways physicians bolster or hurt efficiency and ways in which the relationship between the physician and the MA shapes the MA’s perception of their value in clinic.

When asked about “pet peeves,” a few MAs advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize.

Communication was emphasized as critical for efficient care, and MAs encouraged the use of preclinic huddles and communication as priorities. Seventy-five percent of MAs reported preclinic huddles to plan for patient care were helpful, but only half said huddles took place “always” or “most of the time.” Many described reviewing the schedule and completing tasks ahead of patient arrival as critical to efficiency.

Participants described the tension between their identified role of orchestrating clinic flow and responding to directives by others that disrupted the flow. Several MAs found it challenging when physicians agreed to see very late patients and felt frustrated when decisions that changed the flow were made by the physician or front desk staff without including the MA. MAs were also able to articulate how they managed competing priorities within the clinic, such as when a patient- or physician-driven need to extend appointments was at odds with maintaining a timely schedule. They were eager to share personal tips for time management and prided themselves on careful and accurate performance and skills they had learned on the job. MAs also described how efficiency could be adversely affected by the behaviors or attitudes of physicians. (See TABLE 2.)

Clinic environment

Thirty-six MAs (59%) reported that other MAs on their team were willing to help them out in clinic “a great deal” or “a lot” of the time, by helping to room a patient, acting as a chaperone for an exam, or doing a point-of-care lab. This sense of support varied across clinics (38% to 91% reported good support), suggesting that cultures vary by site. Some MAs expressed frustration at peers they saw as resistant to helping, exemplified by this verbatim quote from an interview:

“ Some don’t want to help out. They may sigh. It’s how they react—you just know.” (Clinic #1, MA #2 interview)

Efficient MAs stressed the need for situational awareness to recognize when co-workers need help:

“ [Peers often] are not aware that another MA is drowning. There’s 5 people who could have done that, and here I am running around and nobody budged.” (Clinic #5, MA #2 interview)

Continue to: A minority of staff...

 

A minority of staff used the open-ended survey sections to describe clinic hierarchy. When asked about “pet peeves,” a few advised that physicians should not “talk down” to staff and should try to teach rather than criticize. Another asked that physicians not “bark orders” or have “low gratitude” for staff work. MAs found micromanaging stressful—particularly when the physician prompted the MA about patient arrivals:

“[I don’t like] when providers will make a comment about a patient arriving when you already know this information. You then rush to put [the] patient in [a] room, then [the] provider ends up making [the] patient wait an extensive amount of time. I’m perfectly capable of knowing when a patient arrives.” (Clinic #6, survey)

MAs did not like physicians “talking bad about us” or blaming the MA if the clinic is running behind.

Despite these concerns, most MAs reported feeling appreciated for the job they do. Only 10 (16%) reported that the people they work with rarely say “thank you,” and 2 (3%) stated they were not well supported by the physicians in clinic. Most (n = 38; 62%) strongly agreed or agreed that they felt part of the team and that their opinions matter. In the interviews, many expanded on this idea:

“I really feel like I’m valued, so I want to do everything I can to make [my doctor’s] day go better. If you want a good clinic, the best thing a doc can do is make the MA feel valued.” (Clinic #1, MA #1 interview)

DISCUSSION

Participants described their role much as an orchestra director, with MAs as the key to clinic flow and timeliness.⁹ Respondents articulated multiple common strategies used to increase their own efficiency and clinic flow; these may be considered best practices and incorporated as part of the basic training. Most MAs reported their day-to-day jobs were stressful and believed this was underrecognized, so efficiency strategies are critical. With staff completing multiple time-sensitive tasks during clinic, consistent co-worker support is crucial and may impact efficiency.⁸ Proper training of managers to provide that support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial.

Several comments reflected the power differential within medical offices. One study reported that MAs and physicians “occupy roles at opposite ends of social and occupational hierarchies.”¹¹ It’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.⁹ Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.¹² If there is a fundamental lack of trust between the 2 groups, this will undoubtedly hinder team-building. Attention to this issue is key to a more favorable work environment.

Continue to: Almost all respondents...

 

Almost all respondents reported health care was a “calling,” which mirrors physician research that suggests seeing work as a “calling” is protective against burnout.^13,14 Open-ended comments indicated great pride in contributions, and most staff members felt appreciated by their teams. Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier. Staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients.¹⁵ We also uncovered some MA “pet peeves” that hinder efficiency and could be shared with physicians to emphasize the importance of patience and civility.

One barrier to expansion of MA roles within PCMH practices is the limited pay and career ladder for MAs who adopt new job responsibilities that require advanced skills or training.^1,2 The mean MA salary at our institution ($37,372) is higher than in our state overall ($33,760), which may impact satisfaction.¹⁶ In addition, 93% of MAs are women; thus, they may continue to struggle more with lower pay than do workers in male-­dominated professions.^17,18 Expected job growth from 2018-2028 is predicted at 23%, which may help to boost salaries.¹⁹ Prior studies describe the lack of a job ladder or promotion opportunities as a challenge^1,20; this was not formally assessed in our study.

Prior research has found that MAs have higher perceptions of their own competence than do the physicians working with them.

MAs see work in family medicine as much harder than it is in other specialty clinics. Being trusted with more responsibility, greater autonomy,^21-23 and expanded patient care roles can boost MA self-efficacy, which can reduce burnout for both physicians and MAs.^8,24 However, new responsibilities should include appropriate training, support, and compensation, and match staff interests.⁷

Study limitations. The study was limited to 6 clinics in 1 department at a large academic medical center. Interviewed participants were selected by convenience and snowball sampling and thus, the results cannot be generalized to the population of MAs as a whole. As the initial interview goal was simply to gather efficiency tips, the project was not designed to be formal qualitative research. However, the discussions built on open-ended comments from the written survey helped contextualize our quantitative findings about efficiency. Notes were documented in real time by a single interviewer with rapid typing skills, which allowed capture of quotes verbatim. Subsequent studies would benefit from more formal qualitative research methods (recording and transcribing interviews, multiple coders to reduce risk of bias, and more complex thematic analysis).

Our research demonstrated how MAs perceive their roles in primary care and the facilitators and barriers to high efficiency in the workplace, which begins to fill an important knowledge gap in primary care. Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.

CORRESPONDENCE
Katherine J. Gold, MD, MSW, MS, Department of Family Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1213; ktgold@umich.edu

Medical education has seen major changes over the last decade. The allotted time for preclinical education has decreased from 24 months to 18 months or less at most institutions, with an increased focus on content associated with health care delivery and health system science.^1,2 Many schools now include at least some blended learning with online delivery of preclinical education.³ On the other hand, the clinical portion of medical education has remained largely unchanged prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the apprenticeship framework allowing the experienced physician to observe, mentor, and pass on practical knowledge so that the apprentice can one day gain independence after demonstrating adequate proficiency.⁴

With respect to dermatology education, skin disorders are in the top 5 reported reasons for visits to primary care⁵; however, a 2009 survey found that only 0.24% to 0.30% of medical schools’ curricula are spent on dermatology.⁶ Moreover, one institution found that fourth-year medical students received an average of 46.6% on a 15-item quiz designed to assess the ability to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions, and within that same cohort, 87.6% of students felt that they received inadequate training in dermatology during medical school.⁷

COVID-19 caused an unprecedented paradigm shift when medical schools throughout the country, including our own, canceled clinical rotations at the end of March 2020 to protect students and control the spread of infection. To enable clinical and preclinical learning to continue, institutions around the globe turned to either online learning or participation in telehealth as a substitute for clinical rotations.^8-10 At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Bethesda, Maryland), one of the many online clinical courses offered included a distance learning (DL) dermatology course. Herein, we describe the results of a prospective study evaluating short-term information recall and comprehension as well as students’ confidence in their ability to apply course objectives over 3 months of an online DL dermatology course.

Methods

Between April and July 2020, 14 students at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Table 1) enrolled in 1 of 3 four-week DL dermatology classes. The students independently completed the Basic Dermatology Curriculum, a set of online modules with demonstrated efficacy from the American Academy of Dermatology, over 4 weeks.¹¹ Additionally, students were instructed to review an hour of clinical dermatology images daily from online dermatology atlases and e-books accessed through our medical school’s virtual library. Optional Free Open Access Meducation resources also were provided. The course syllabus provided the students with clear expectations, links to the resources, and a recommended daily schedule.

An online video conferencing platform was utilized for an orientation session and 4 subsequent weekly 1.5-hour virtual meetings. The weekly DL meetings focused on a discussion of clinical images pertinent to the American Academy of Dermatology modules covered for the week. These interactive analytic sessions were referred to as Clinpic sessions. With instructor guidance, the students learned to describe images, and they provided differential diagnoses, workup, and treatments for various skin diseases. The virtual meetings included supplemental lectures detailing the use of teledermatology and laser therapy in the Military Health System and a journal review on the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19.

A 40-question, image-based pretest and posttest utilized during clinical rotations evaluated knowledge recall and comprehension. A precourse and postcourse survey using a 5-point Likert scale (1=not confident; 5=extremely confident) assessed students’ confidence levels across course objectives: general knowledge of dermatology, working knowledge of teledermatology, ability to accurately describe skin lesions, generate sound differential diagnoses, and formulate a reasonable treatment plan. Statistical analysis was performed using free online statistical software at statskingdom.com.¹²

Results

All 14 student enrollees completed the precourse and postcourse tests and surveys. Pretest and posttest scores followed a normal distribution and therefore met criteria for utilization of a parametric test. The precourse test average of 67% (range, 40%–90%) improved to 84% postcourse (range, 70%–98%; P<.001; 95% CI, 11-23 by paired t test). Not surprisingly, the 2 students who had completed a dermatology rotation had higher average pretest and posttest scores (pretest, 87%; posttest, 94%). Students’ confidence with the course objectives were mostly at the somewhat confident level on the 5-point Likert scale precourse survey. By the end of the course, student survey responses increased to confident and very confident levels, corresponding to an overall improvement of 1.3 points (P<.001 by paired t test)(Table 2) when the mean of the survey results was aggregated across every question. Instructor evaluation of student performance mirrored student assessments.

 

 

Comment

The DL dermatology course succeeded in helping the enrolled students attain course objectives and offered a reasonable solution when in-person interaction was restricted. The students in the DL course made notable improvements in their dermatology knowledge and improved their communication, diagnosis, and management skills. Although a blended dermatology curriculum with e-learning combined with clinical experience has been shown to increase knowledge acquisition,^13,14 our results suggest that an online-only program also can increase comprehension as well as students’ confidence in their abilities.

A major challenge for the DL course was the lack of opportunity to perform common dermatology procedures. The addition of a hands-on skin procedure module would have been a great supplement to the course but was not possible due to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The small sample size and voluntary enrollment were limitations to this study.

Conclusion

Although the traditional dermatology rotation remains the gold standard for clinical instruction, a well-organized DL teaching environment allowed for a more controlled learning experience with a broader coverage of topics to include potentially greater exposure to rare skin disorders not typically encountered in everyday practice. A DL dermatology course may serve as an enduring curriculum for those who wish to learn dermatology more broadly and are not interested in performing skin procedures or direct patient exposure (eg, those pursuing non–primary care specialties, pathology, or radiology). It also may be attractive to students who have had a prior clinical dermatology rotation and desire a different learning experience with a wide coverage of topics.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank Thomas Darling, MD, PhD (Bethesda, Maryland), for coining the term Clinpic and providing critical feedback throughout the course. The authors also thank Sorana Raiciulescu, MS (Bethesda, Maryland), for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Medical education has seen major changes over the last decade. The allotted time for preclinical education has decreased from 24 months to 18 months or less at most institutions, with an increased focus on content associated with health care delivery and health system science.^1,2 Many schools now include at least some blended learning with online delivery of preclinical education.³ On the other hand, the clinical portion of medical education has remained largely unchanged prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the apprenticeship framework allowing the experienced physician to observe, mentor, and pass on practical knowledge so that the apprentice can one day gain independence after demonstrating adequate proficiency.⁴

With respect to dermatology education, skin disorders are in the top 5 reported reasons for visits to primary care⁵; however, a 2009 survey found that only 0.24% to 0.30% of medical schools’ curricula are spent on dermatology.⁶ Moreover, one institution found that fourth-year medical students received an average of 46.6% on a 15-item quiz designed to assess the ability to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions, and within that same cohort, 87.6% of students felt that they received inadequate training in dermatology during medical school.⁷

COVID-19 caused an unprecedented paradigm shift when medical schools throughout the country, including our own, canceled clinical rotations at the end of March 2020 to protect students and control the spread of infection. To enable clinical and preclinical learning to continue, institutions around the globe turned to either online learning or participation in telehealth as a substitute for clinical rotations.^8-10 At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Bethesda, Maryland), one of the many online clinical courses offered included a distance learning (DL) dermatology course. Herein, we describe the results of a prospective study evaluating short-term information recall and comprehension as well as students’ confidence in their ability to apply course objectives over 3 months of an online DL dermatology course.

Methods

Between April and July 2020, 14 students at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Table 1) enrolled in 1 of 3 four-week DL dermatology classes. The students independently completed the Basic Dermatology Curriculum, a set of online modules with demonstrated efficacy from the American Academy of Dermatology, over 4 weeks.¹¹ Additionally, students were instructed to review an hour of clinical dermatology images daily from online dermatology atlases and e-books accessed through our medical school’s virtual library. Optional Free Open Access Meducation resources also were provided. The course syllabus provided the students with clear expectations, links to the resources, and a recommended daily schedule.

An online video conferencing platform was utilized for an orientation session and 4 subsequent weekly 1.5-hour virtual meetings. The weekly DL meetings focused on a discussion of clinical images pertinent to the American Academy of Dermatology modules covered for the week. These interactive analytic sessions were referred to as Clinpic sessions. With instructor guidance, the students learned to describe images, and they provided differential diagnoses, workup, and treatments for various skin diseases. The virtual meetings included supplemental lectures detailing the use of teledermatology and laser therapy in the Military Health System and a journal review on the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19.

A 40-question, image-based pretest and posttest utilized during clinical rotations evaluated knowledge recall and comprehension. A precourse and postcourse survey using a 5-point Likert scale (1=not confident; 5=extremely confident) assessed students’ confidence levels across course objectives: general knowledge of dermatology, working knowledge of teledermatology, ability to accurately describe skin lesions, generate sound differential diagnoses, and formulate a reasonable treatment plan. Statistical analysis was performed using free online statistical software at statskingdom.com.¹²

Results

All 14 student enrollees completed the precourse and postcourse tests and surveys. Pretest and posttest scores followed a normal distribution and therefore met criteria for utilization of a parametric test. The precourse test average of 67% (range, 40%–90%) improved to 84% postcourse (range, 70%–98%; P<.001; 95% CI, 11-23 by paired t test). Not surprisingly, the 2 students who had completed a dermatology rotation had higher average pretest and posttest scores (pretest, 87%; posttest, 94%). Students’ confidence with the course objectives were mostly at the somewhat confident level on the 5-point Likert scale precourse survey. By the end of the course, student survey responses increased to confident and very confident levels, corresponding to an overall improvement of 1.3 points (P<.001 by paired t test)(Table 2) when the mean of the survey results was aggregated across every question. Instructor evaluation of student performance mirrored student assessments.

 

 

Comment

The DL dermatology course succeeded in helping the enrolled students attain course objectives and offered a reasonable solution when in-person interaction was restricted. The students in the DL course made notable improvements in their dermatology knowledge and improved their communication, diagnosis, and management skills. Although a blended dermatology curriculum with e-learning combined with clinical experience has been shown to increase knowledge acquisition,^13,14 our results suggest that an online-only program also can increase comprehension as well as students’ confidence in their abilities.

A major challenge for the DL course was the lack of opportunity to perform common dermatology procedures. The addition of a hands-on skin procedure module would have been a great supplement to the course but was not possible due to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The small sample size and voluntary enrollment were limitations to this study.

Conclusion

Although the traditional dermatology rotation remains the gold standard for clinical instruction, a well-organized DL teaching environment allowed for a more controlled learning experience with a broader coverage of topics to include potentially greater exposure to rare skin disorders not typically encountered in everyday practice. A DL dermatology course may serve as an enduring curriculum for those who wish to learn dermatology more broadly and are not interested in performing skin procedures or direct patient exposure (eg, those pursuing non–primary care specialties, pathology, or radiology). It also may be attractive to students who have had a prior clinical dermatology rotation and desire a different learning experience with a wide coverage of topics.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank Thomas Darling, MD, PhD (Bethesda, Maryland), for coining the term Clinpic and providing critical feedback throughout the course. The authors also thank Sorana Raiciulescu, MS (Bethesda, Maryland), for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Medical education has seen major changes over the last decade. The allotted time for preclinical education has decreased from 24 months to 18 months or less at most institutions, with an increased focus on content associated with health care delivery and health system science.^1,2 Many schools now include at least some blended learning with online delivery of preclinical education.³ On the other hand, the clinical portion of medical education has remained largely unchanged prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the apprenticeship framework allowing the experienced physician to observe, mentor, and pass on practical knowledge so that the apprentice can one day gain independence after demonstrating adequate proficiency.⁴

With respect to dermatology education, skin disorders are in the top 5 reported reasons for visits to primary care⁵; however, a 2009 survey found that only 0.24% to 0.30% of medical schools’ curricula are spent on dermatology.⁶ Moreover, one institution found that fourth-year medical students received an average of 46.6% on a 15-item quiz designed to assess the ability to diagnose and treat common dermatologic conditions, and within that same cohort, 87.6% of students felt that they received inadequate training in dermatology during medical school.⁷

COVID-19 caused an unprecedented paradigm shift when medical schools throughout the country, including our own, canceled clinical rotations at the end of March 2020 to protect students and control the spread of infection. To enable clinical and preclinical learning to continue, institutions around the globe turned to either online learning or participation in telehealth as a substitute for clinical rotations.^8-10 At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Bethesda, Maryland), one of the many online clinical courses offered included a distance learning (DL) dermatology course. Herein, we describe the results of a prospective study evaluating short-term information recall and comprehension as well as students’ confidence in their ability to apply course objectives over 3 months of an online DL dermatology course.

Methods

Between April and July 2020, 14 students at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (Table 1) enrolled in 1 of 3 four-week DL dermatology classes. The students independently completed the Basic Dermatology Curriculum, a set of online modules with demonstrated efficacy from the American Academy of Dermatology, over 4 weeks.¹¹ Additionally, students were instructed to review an hour of clinical dermatology images daily from online dermatology atlases and e-books accessed through our medical school’s virtual library. Optional Free Open Access Meducation resources also were provided. The course syllabus provided the students with clear expectations, links to the resources, and a recommended daily schedule.

An online video conferencing platform was utilized for an orientation session and 4 subsequent weekly 1.5-hour virtual meetings. The weekly DL meetings focused on a discussion of clinical images pertinent to the American Academy of Dermatology modules covered for the week. These interactive analytic sessions were referred to as Clinpic sessions. With instructor guidance, the students learned to describe images, and they provided differential diagnoses, workup, and treatments for various skin diseases. The virtual meetings included supplemental lectures detailing the use of teledermatology and laser therapy in the Military Health System and a journal review on the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19.

A 40-question, image-based pretest and posttest utilized during clinical rotations evaluated knowledge recall and comprehension. A precourse and postcourse survey using a 5-point Likert scale (1=not confident; 5=extremely confident) assessed students’ confidence levels across course objectives: general knowledge of dermatology, working knowledge of teledermatology, ability to accurately describe skin lesions, generate sound differential diagnoses, and formulate a reasonable treatment plan. Statistical analysis was performed using free online statistical software at statskingdom.com.¹²

Results

All 14 student enrollees completed the precourse and postcourse tests and surveys. Pretest and posttest scores followed a normal distribution and therefore met criteria for utilization of a parametric test. The precourse test average of 67% (range, 40%–90%) improved to 84% postcourse (range, 70%–98%; P<.001; 95% CI, 11-23 by paired t test). Not surprisingly, the 2 students who had completed a dermatology rotation had higher average pretest and posttest scores (pretest, 87%; posttest, 94%). Students’ confidence with the course objectives were mostly at the somewhat confident level on the 5-point Likert scale precourse survey. By the end of the course, student survey responses increased to confident and very confident levels, corresponding to an overall improvement of 1.3 points (P<.001 by paired t test)(Table 2) when the mean of the survey results was aggregated across every question. Instructor evaluation of student performance mirrored student assessments.

 

 

Comment

The DL dermatology course succeeded in helping the enrolled students attain course objectives and offered a reasonable solution when in-person interaction was restricted. The students in the DL course made notable improvements in their dermatology knowledge and improved their communication, diagnosis, and management skills. Although a blended dermatology curriculum with e-learning combined with clinical experience has been shown to increase knowledge acquisition,^13,14 our results suggest that an online-only program also can increase comprehension as well as students’ confidence in their abilities.

A major challenge for the DL course was the lack of opportunity to perform common dermatology procedures. The addition of a hands-on skin procedure module would have been a great supplement to the course but was not possible due to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The small sample size and voluntary enrollment were limitations to this study.

Conclusion

Although the traditional dermatology rotation remains the gold standard for clinical instruction, a well-organized DL teaching environment allowed for a more controlled learning experience with a broader coverage of topics to include potentially greater exposure to rare skin disorders not typically encountered in everyday practice. A DL dermatology course may serve as an enduring curriculum for those who wish to learn dermatology more broadly and are not interested in performing skin procedures or direct patient exposure (eg, those pursuing non–primary care specialties, pathology, or radiology). It also may be attractive to students who have had a prior clinical dermatology rotation and desire a different learning experience with a wide coverage of topics.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank Thomas Darling, MD, PhD (Bethesda, Maryland), for coining the term Clinpic and providing critical feedback throughout the course. The authors also thank Sorana Raiciulescu, MS (Bethesda, Maryland), for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Chronic pain is persistent or recurring pain lasting more than 3 months past normal healing time. Primary care professionals usually refer patients experiencing chronic pain to pain specialists to better identify, treat, and manage the pain. Chronic noncancer-related pain affects more Americans than diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, and cancer combined.¹ Veterans are no exception. The prevalence of severe pain was significantly higher in veterans compared with that of nonveterans who had back pain (21.6 vs 16.7%, respectively), jaw pain (37.5 vs 22.9%, respectively), severe headaches or migraine (26.4 vs 15.9%, respectively), and neck pain (27.7 vs 21.4%, respectively).² At an individual level, those who experience chronic pain can expect impaired functional capacity, reduced ability to work, sleep disturbance, reduced social interactions, and considerable psychological distress. At a societal level, the cost of treating chronic pain is exorbitant, exceeding $600 billion annually, yet treatment outcomes remain variable at best.³ Greater efforts are needed to improve and standardize patient outcomes.

Interventional pain procedures performed under fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance by specialist physicians have shown mixed responses in previous studies. Past systematic reviews demonstrate reductions in pain scores after lumbar or caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) and radiofrequency ablation of nerves supplying lumbar and thoracic facet joints.^4-7 However, one review found insufficient evidence to support injection therapy for chronic low back pain.⁸ Unfortunately, the majority of the included studies evaluated outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS) or other limited factors, such as physical examination findings. Current biopsychosocial conceptualizations of chronic pain are beginning to recognize the complex nature of the experience of pain and highlighting the significance of multimodal management.⁹ It is vital that our assessment of chronic pain, like our treatment options, be multidimensional and reflect these underpinning principles.

The Pain Outcomes Questionnaire-For Veterans (POQ-VA) was developed within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) by Clark and colleagues in 2003. It represents a brief but psychometrically sound pain outcomes instrument that assesses all key domains and meets accreditation body standards. The POQ-VA is valid and reliable for evaluating effectiveness of treatment of chronic noncancer pain in veterans in routine clinical practice.¹⁰ This review is the first study to use the POQ-VA to assess the impact of interventional pain procedures on veterans with chronic noncancer pain.

The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective review of POQ-VA scores before and after injection-based interventional treatment for chronic pain to determine whether the procedure affected patient outcomes. We hypothesized that POQ-VA scores would improve across multiple domains in the veteran population postprocedure. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB-2018-053) at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Rhode Island.

Methods

Using the Computerized Patient Record System, all adult veteran patients who had attended at least 2 appointments between April 1, 2009, and April 1, 2019 at the Providence VAMC interventional pain clinic were identified. POQ-VA reports were extracted provided the following criteria were met: (1) the veteran received an injection-based interventional treatment for chronic pain, including trigger point injections, ESIs, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency ablations; (2) the veteran completed POQ-VA both pre- and posttreatment; and (3) posttreatment POQ-VA reports were completed within 6 months of treatment. All patients who did not fit these criteria were excluded from the study.

After deidentification, 112 pre- and posttreatment POQ-VA reports were identified. All subsequent statistical analyses were conducted using Stata SE version 15. Descriptive statistics including mean, range, SD, and percent change were computed for POQ-VA domain—pain, mobility, activities of daily living (ADL), vitality, negative affect, fear, and total raw score—as well as for each POQ-VA question. Given that POQ-VA domain scores were found to be approximately normally distributed without outliers, domain scores were treated as continuous variables, and a paired samples t test was conducted to compare means among POQ-VA domains. Individual question responses were analyzed using nonparametric testing methods to account for the lack of normal distribution in each question, treating the range of 0 to 10 as an ordinal variable. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was conducted to compare means among individual question responses before and after treatment.

Results

Of 112 included patients, 102 (91%) were male and 10 (9%) were female. The mean age was 62 years (range, 35-90). Diagnosis and procedures varied due to patient symptoms varying from muscle pain, nerve pain, degenerative disc disease, and osteoarthritis.

POQ-VA scores across all domains, including total raw score, showed statistically significant improvement after treatment (Table 1). Directionally, the POQ-VA scores for all 20 questions reflect a positive treatment response and 17 had statistically significant changes (P < .05) (Table 2). The changes in self-perceived energy level, safety, and feelings of tension were not statistically significant. Esteem had the greatest magnitude decrease, falling from 5.2 preprocedure to 3.8 postprocedure (P < .001). Other similarly significant magnitudes of improvement were seen from pre- to postprocedure in questions pertaining to grooming (2.2 to 1.6, P = .003) and the ability to use the bathroom (3.4 to 2.6, P < .001).

 

Discussion

The most important finding of this study was the ability of the POQ-VA to detect statistically significant positive responses to injection therapy across all domains. The largest improvements were in self-reported pain intensity, pain-related impairment in mobility and ADLs, and self-reported dysphoric effects. The single largest improvement posttreatment was a reduction in scores related to low self-esteem.

Chronic pain can be assessed in a variety of ways ranging from physical examination findings and subjective numerical ratings to extensive patient-reported questionnaires. The International Association for the Study of Pain acknowledges that pain is a complex experience and recommends assessment should be comprehensive.¹¹ Many patient-reported questionnaires are available to clinicians, including some that address pain in a specific body part, such as the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, or those that focus on depression or quality-of-life measures, such as the SF-36.^12,13

One major benefit of using the POQ-VA is its potential to demonstrate benefits across multiple domains, reflecting the complex nature of chronic pain. The POQ-VA also separates domain or scale scores, allowing clinicians to identify individuals with different patterns of dysfunction across domains.¹⁰ This separation also provides insight into which treatment options are best for chronic pain patients with predominant patterns or lower scores in certain domains. The use of a single summary score, as seen in other questionnaires such as the Roland-Morris Activity Scale, may conceal treatment-induced changes in specific outcome domains.¹⁴ Additionally, like many other similar instruments, the POQ-VA is easy to understand and use, requires no special training, takes little time to complete, and can be completed in person or over the phone.

As chronic pain has been studied further and its complexity recognized, more instruments have been developed and modified to reflect these new elements. There is no one scale applicable to all populations. A discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of each available assessment tool is outside the scope of this review. However, to date, the POQ-VA is the only instrument that has been validated to detect change following treatment of chronic pain in an exclusively veteran population.¹⁰ This validation emphasizes the importance of this study as it supports the use of this outcome measure to monitor treatment of pain in VA facilities.

One of the secondary findings indicated that injection therapy improved veterans’ physical activity levels and self-esteem and lowered pain scores as well as kinesiophobia and anxiety. The role of interventional procedures has been well established in the field of chronic pain, but their efficacy has been less clear. Injections are costly and not without risk, and these factors relegate them to fourth-line treatment options in most situations.¹⁵ Several meta-analyses have demonstrated small improvements in pain scores and patient-reported questionnaires after medial branch blocks, and lumbar or caudal ESIs for chronic back pain.^5-7 However, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low back pain.⁸ The review acknowledged the limited methodologic quality of the trials and could not definitively report that injection therapy did not have benefits for certain subgroups of patients. The ability of researchers to detect benefit from an intervention is intrinsically linked to how outcomes are determined. The most interesting finding of our study was the patient-reported improved self-esteem scores. Many trials included in the systematic reviews discussed used outcome measures that did not have the multidimensional scope to demonstrate such a potential benefit.

Limitations

Our relatively small sample size represents the main shortcoming of this study. Because many posttreatment questionnaires were never collected, unfortunately, much potential data was lost. Most procedures performed were corticosteroid injections for the treatment of low back pain. This represented a combination of lumbar ESI, caudal ESI, medial branch blocks, and sacroiliac joint injections. The limited numbers meant that a further regression analysis of each injection type was not possible. Since few interventions treated pain in other areas of the body, it is difficult to determine whether procedures such as hip joint injections and ilioinguinal nerve blocks provided overall benefit. In the same vein, there is an inability to comment on which injection for chronic low back pain was the most efficacious.

The veteran population, while similar to the general population experiencing chronic pain, is more likely to experience PTSD and other mental health conditions.² According to medical literature, no randomized controlled trials have been published examining pain interventions exclusively in veterans, so the applicability of these results needs further investigation. This study suggests there are potential benefits for the veteran population, not solely perhaps from receiving injection therapy, but to having access to an interventional pain clinic led by a pain physician within a network of other specialties. While limited by the inherent biases of a retrospective review, this study highlights the potential value in continuing to study this subgroup of patients, especially in the setting of an interdisciplinary approach.

 

Recent literature suggests interdisciplinary chronic pain management represents the best outcomes for patients’ physical, emotional, and social health, though these kinds of focused outpatient programs have not been studied on a large scale.¹⁶ The evolution of pain management in recent years to incorporating a biopsychosocial model has revolutionized how pain is treated and assessed, with multiple studies suggesting the greatest benefits lie in a multipronged approach.^16,17 Past studies assessing individual interventions for chronic pain tend not to show strongly positive results, further reinforcing the idea that the answer does not lie in a specific treatment. Many veterans who were included in this study possibly had received or were receiving adjunct therapies such as physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acupuncture for pain management, as well as oral and topical medications. Unfortunately, due to the selected methodology, it was not possible for us to gather those data. In turn, we were unable to determine how much these additional factors played a role in changing patient scores, alongside injection therapy. This inability to control variables in this type of research continues to present a challenge to data interpretation, even in the highest quality of research, as acknowledged by Staal and colleagues.⁸

Future research may be best focused by expanding our knowledge of outpatient interdisciplinary pain management programs. Some interventions may be more relevant for a particular group within a program, and this information can be useful to direct resources.¹⁸ Future prospects will require an appropriate multidimensional assessment tool, and the POQ-VA is an example of a valid and reliable option for monitoring progress in pain management in the veteran population.

Conclusions

The POQ-VA is the only instrument to date that has been validated to detect change following treatment of chronic pain in an exclusively veteran population. Our study is the first univariate analysis since the instrument’s validation in 2003. Our descriptive and inferential statistics suggest that the majority of veterans undergoing injection therapy for chronic pain had statistically significant improvements in POQ-VA measures within a 6-month period following treatment. In order to conduct more rigorous, multivariate studies, continued and more widespread use of the POQ-VA instrument is warranted.

Chronic pain is persistent or recurring pain lasting more than 3 months past normal healing time. Primary care professionals usually refer patients experiencing chronic pain to pain specialists to better identify, treat, and manage the pain. Chronic noncancer-related pain affects more Americans than diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, and cancer combined.¹ Veterans are no exception. The prevalence of severe pain was significantly higher in veterans compared with that of nonveterans who had back pain (21.6 vs 16.7%, respectively), jaw pain (37.5 vs 22.9%, respectively), severe headaches or migraine (26.4 vs 15.9%, respectively), and neck pain (27.7 vs 21.4%, respectively).² At an individual level, those who experience chronic pain can expect impaired functional capacity, reduced ability to work, sleep disturbance, reduced social interactions, and considerable psychological distress. At a societal level, the cost of treating chronic pain is exorbitant, exceeding $600 billion annually, yet treatment outcomes remain variable at best.³ Greater efforts are needed to improve and standardize patient outcomes.

Interventional pain procedures performed under fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance by specialist physicians have shown mixed responses in previous studies. Past systematic reviews demonstrate reductions in pain scores after lumbar or caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) and radiofrequency ablation of nerves supplying lumbar and thoracic facet joints.^4-7 However, one review found insufficient evidence to support injection therapy for chronic low back pain.⁸ Unfortunately, the majority of the included studies evaluated outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS) or other limited factors, such as physical examination findings. Current biopsychosocial conceptualizations of chronic pain are beginning to recognize the complex nature of the experience of pain and highlighting the significance of multimodal management.⁹ It is vital that our assessment of chronic pain, like our treatment options, be multidimensional and reflect these underpinning principles.

The Pain Outcomes Questionnaire-For Veterans (POQ-VA) was developed within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) by Clark and colleagues in 2003. It represents a brief but psychometrically sound pain outcomes instrument that assesses all key domains and meets accreditation body standards. The POQ-VA is valid and reliable for evaluating effectiveness of treatment of chronic noncancer pain in veterans in routine clinical practice.¹⁰ This review is the first study to use the POQ-VA to assess the impact of interventional pain procedures on veterans with chronic noncancer pain.

The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective review of POQ-VA scores before and after injection-based interventional treatment for chronic pain to determine whether the procedure affected patient outcomes. We hypothesized that POQ-VA scores would improve across multiple domains in the veteran population postprocedure. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB-2018-053) at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Rhode Island.

Methods

Using the Computerized Patient Record System, all adult veteran patients who had attended at least 2 appointments between April 1, 2009, and April 1, 2019 at the Providence VAMC interventional pain clinic were identified. POQ-VA reports were extracted provided the following criteria were met: (1) the veteran received an injection-based interventional treatment for chronic pain, including trigger point injections, ESIs, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency ablations; (2) the veteran completed POQ-VA both pre- and posttreatment; and (3) posttreatment POQ-VA reports were completed within 6 months of treatment. All patients who did not fit these criteria were excluded from the study.

After deidentification, 112 pre- and posttreatment POQ-VA reports were identified. All subsequent statistical analyses were conducted using Stata SE version 15. Descriptive statistics including mean, range, SD, and percent change were computed for POQ-VA domain—pain, mobility, activities of daily living (ADL), vitality, negative affect, fear, and total raw score—as well as for each POQ-VA question. Given that POQ-VA domain scores were found to be approximately normally distributed without outliers, domain scores were treated as continuous variables, and a paired samples t test was conducted to compare means among POQ-VA domains. Individual question responses were analyzed using nonparametric testing methods to account for the lack of normal distribution in each question, treating the range of 0 to 10 as an ordinal variable. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was conducted to compare means among individual question responses before and after treatment.

Results

Of 112 included patients, 102 (91%) were male and 10 (9%) were female. The mean age was 62 years (range, 35-90). Diagnosis and procedures varied due to patient symptoms varying from muscle pain, nerve pain, degenerative disc disease, and osteoarthritis.

POQ-VA scores across all domains, including total raw score, showed statistically significant improvement after treatment (Table 1). Directionally, the POQ-VA scores for all 20 questions reflect a positive treatment response and 17 had statistically significant changes (P < .05) (Table 2). The changes in self-perceived energy level, safety, and feelings of tension were not statistically significant. Esteem had the greatest magnitude decrease, falling from 5.2 preprocedure to 3.8 postprocedure (P < .001). Other similarly significant magnitudes of improvement were seen from pre- to postprocedure in questions pertaining to grooming (2.2 to 1.6, P = .003) and the ability to use the bathroom (3.4 to 2.6, P < .001).

 

Discussion

The most important finding of this study was the ability of the POQ-VA to detect statistically significant positive responses to injection therapy across all domains. The largest improvements were in self-reported pain intensity, pain-related impairment in mobility and ADLs, and self-reported dysphoric effects. The single largest improvement posttreatment was a reduction in scores related to low self-esteem.

Chronic pain can be assessed in a variety of ways ranging from physical examination findings and subjective numerical ratings to extensive patient-reported questionnaires. The International Association for the Study of Pain acknowledges that pain is a complex experience and recommends assessment should be comprehensive.¹¹ Many patient-reported questionnaires are available to clinicians, including some that address pain in a specific body part, such as the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, or those that focus on depression or quality-of-life measures, such as the SF-36.^12,13

One major benefit of using the POQ-VA is its potential to demonstrate benefits across multiple domains, reflecting the complex nature of chronic pain. The POQ-VA also separates domain or scale scores, allowing clinicians to identify individuals with different patterns of dysfunction across domains.¹⁰ This separation also provides insight into which treatment options are best for chronic pain patients with predominant patterns or lower scores in certain domains. The use of a single summary score, as seen in other questionnaires such as the Roland-Morris Activity Scale, may conceal treatment-induced changes in specific outcome domains.¹⁴ Additionally, like many other similar instruments, the POQ-VA is easy to understand and use, requires no special training, takes little time to complete, and can be completed in person or over the phone.

As chronic pain has been studied further and its complexity recognized, more instruments have been developed and modified to reflect these new elements. There is no one scale applicable to all populations. A discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of each available assessment tool is outside the scope of this review. However, to date, the POQ-VA is the only instrument that has been validated to detect change following treatment of chronic pain in an exclusively veteran population.¹⁰ This validation emphasizes the importance of this study as it supports the use of this outcome measure to monitor treatment of pain in VA facilities.

One of the secondary findings indicated that injection therapy improved veterans’ physical activity levels and self-esteem and lowered pain scores as well as kinesiophobia and anxiety. The role of interventional procedures has been well established in the field of chronic pain, but their efficacy has been less clear. Injections are costly and not without risk, and these factors relegate them to fourth-line treatment options in most situations.¹⁵ Several meta-analyses have demonstrated small improvements in pain scores and patient-reported questionnaires after medial branch blocks, and lumbar or caudal ESIs for chronic back pain.^5-7 However, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low back pain.⁸ The review acknowledged the limited methodologic quality of the trials and could not definitively report that injection therapy did not have benefits for certain subgroups of patients. The ability of researchers to detect benefit from an intervention is intrinsically linked to how outcomes are determined. The most interesting finding of our study was the patient-reported improved self-esteem scores. Many trials included in the systematic reviews discussed used outcome measures that did not have the multidimensional scope to demonstrate such a potential benefit.

Limitations

Our relatively small sample size represents the main shortcoming of this study. Because many posttreatment questionnaires were never collected, unfortunately, much potential data was lost. Most procedures performed were corticosteroid injections for the treatment of low back pain. This represented a combination of lumbar ESI, caudal ESI, medial branch blocks, and sacroiliac joint injections. The limited numbers meant that a further regression analysis of each injection type was not possible. Since few interventions treated pain in other areas of the body, it is difficult to determine whether procedures such as hip joint injections and ilioinguinal nerve blocks provided overall benefit. In the same vein, there is an inability to comment on which injection for chronic low back pain was the most efficacious.

The veteran population, while similar to the general population experiencing chronic pain, is more likely to experience PTSD and other mental health conditions.² According to medical literature, no randomized controlled trials have been published examining pain interventions exclusively in veterans, so the applicability of these results needs further investigation. This study suggests there are potential benefits for the veteran population, not solely perhaps from receiving injection therapy, but to having access to an interventional pain clinic led by a pain physician within a network of other specialties. While limited by the inherent biases of a retrospective review, this study highlights the potential value in continuing to study this subgroup of patients, especially in the setting of an interdisciplinary approach.

 

Recent literature suggests interdisciplinary chronic pain management represents the best outcomes for patients’ physical, emotional, and social health, though these kinds of focused outpatient programs have not been studied on a large scale.¹⁶ The evolution of pain management in recent years to incorporating a biopsychosocial model has revolutionized how pain is treated and assessed, with multiple studies suggesting the greatest benefits lie in a multipronged approach.^16,17 Past studies assessing individual interventions for chronic pain tend not to show strongly positive results, further reinforcing the idea that the answer does not lie in a specific treatment. Many veterans who were included in this study possibly had received or were receiving adjunct therapies such as physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acupuncture for pain management, as well as oral and topical medications. Unfortunately, due to the selected methodology, it was not possible for us to gather those data. In turn, we were unable to determine how much these additional factors played a role in changing patient scores, alongside injection therapy. This inability to control variables in this type of research continues to present a challenge to data interpretation, even in the highest quality of research, as acknowledged by Staal and colleagues.⁸

Future research may be best focused by expanding our knowledge of outpatient interdisciplinary pain management programs. Some interventions may be more relevant for a particular group within a program, and this information can be useful to direct resources.¹⁸ Future prospects will require an appropriate multidimensional assessment tool, and the POQ-VA is an example of a valid and reliable option for monitoring progress in pain management in the veteran population.

Conclusions

The POQ-VA is the only instrument to date that has been validated to detect change following treatment of chronic pain in an exclusively veteran population. Our study is the first univariate analysis since the instrument’s validation in 2003. Our descriptive and inferential statistics suggest that the majority of veterans undergoing injection therapy for chronic pain had statistically significant improvements in POQ-VA measures within a 6-month period following treatment. In order to conduct more rigorous, multivariate studies, continued and more widespread use of the POQ-VA instrument is warranted.

Chronic pain is persistent or recurring pain lasting more than 3 months past normal healing time. Primary care professionals usually refer patients experiencing chronic pain to pain specialists to better identify, treat, and manage the pain. Chronic noncancer-related pain affects more Americans than diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, and cancer combined.¹ Veterans are no exception. The prevalence of severe pain was significantly higher in veterans compared with that of nonveterans who had back pain (21.6 vs 16.7%, respectively), jaw pain (37.5 vs 22.9%, respectively), severe headaches or migraine (26.4 vs 15.9%, respectively), and neck pain (27.7 vs 21.4%, respectively).² At an individual level, those who experience chronic pain can expect impaired functional capacity, reduced ability to work, sleep disturbance, reduced social interactions, and considerable psychological distress. At a societal level, the cost of treating chronic pain is exorbitant, exceeding $600 billion annually, yet treatment outcomes remain variable at best.³ Greater efforts are needed to improve and standardize patient outcomes.

Interventional pain procedures performed under fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance by specialist physicians have shown mixed responses in previous studies. Past systematic reviews demonstrate reductions in pain scores after lumbar or caudal epidural steroid injections (ESIs) and radiofrequency ablation of nerves supplying lumbar and thoracic facet joints.^4-7 However, one review found insufficient evidence to support injection therapy for chronic low back pain.⁸ Unfortunately, the majority of the included studies evaluated outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS) or other limited factors, such as physical examination findings. Current biopsychosocial conceptualizations of chronic pain are beginning to recognize the complex nature of the experience of pain and highlighting the significance of multimodal management.⁹ It is vital that our assessment of chronic pain, like our treatment options, be multidimensional and reflect these underpinning principles.

The Pain Outcomes Questionnaire-For Veterans (POQ-VA) was developed within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) by Clark and colleagues in 2003. It represents a brief but psychometrically sound pain outcomes instrument that assesses all key domains and meets accreditation body standards. The POQ-VA is valid and reliable for evaluating effectiveness of treatment of chronic noncancer pain in veterans in routine clinical practice.¹⁰ This review is the first study to use the POQ-VA to assess the impact of interventional pain procedures on veterans with chronic noncancer pain.

The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective review of POQ-VA scores before and after injection-based interventional treatment for chronic pain to determine whether the procedure affected patient outcomes. We hypothesized that POQ-VA scores would improve across multiple domains in the veteran population postprocedure. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB-2018-053) at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Rhode Island.

Methods

Using the Computerized Patient Record System, all adult veteran patients who had attended at least 2 appointments between April 1, 2009, and April 1, 2019 at the Providence VAMC interventional pain clinic were identified. POQ-VA reports were extracted provided the following criteria were met: (1) the veteran received an injection-based interventional treatment for chronic pain, including trigger point injections, ESIs, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency ablations; (2) the veteran completed POQ-VA both pre- and posttreatment; and (3) posttreatment POQ-VA reports were completed within 6 months of treatment. All patients who did not fit these criteria were excluded from the study.

After deidentification, 112 pre- and posttreatment POQ-VA reports were identified. All subsequent statistical analyses were conducted using Stata SE version 15. Descriptive statistics including mean, range, SD, and percent change were computed for POQ-VA domain—pain, mobility, activities of daily living (ADL), vitality, negative affect, fear, and total raw score—as well as for each POQ-VA question. Given that POQ-VA domain scores were found to be approximately normally distributed without outliers, domain scores were treated as continuous variables, and a paired samples t test was conducted to compare means among POQ-VA domains. Individual question responses were analyzed using nonparametric testing methods to account for the lack of normal distribution in each question, treating the range of 0 to 10 as an ordinal variable. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was conducted to compare means among individual question responses before and after treatment.

Results

Of 112 included patients, 102 (91%) were male and 10 (9%) were female. The mean age was 62 years (range, 35-90). Diagnosis and procedures varied due to patient symptoms varying from muscle pain, nerve pain, degenerative disc disease, and osteoarthritis.

POQ-VA scores across all domains, including total raw score, showed statistically significant improvement after treatment (Table 1). Directionally, the POQ-VA scores for all 20 questions reflect a positive treatment response and 17 had statistically significant changes (P < .05) (Table 2). The changes in self-perceived energy level, safety, and feelings of tension were not statistically significant. Esteem had the greatest magnitude decrease, falling from 5.2 preprocedure to 3.8 postprocedure (P < .001). Other similarly significant magnitudes of improvement were seen from pre- to postprocedure in questions pertaining to grooming (2.2 to 1.6, P = .003) and the ability to use the bathroom (3.4 to 2.6, P < .001).

 

Discussion

The most important finding of this study was the ability of the POQ-VA to detect statistically significant positive responses to injection therapy across all domains. The largest improvements were in self-reported pain intensity, pain-related impairment in mobility and ADLs, and self-reported dysphoric effects. The single largest improvement posttreatment was a reduction in scores related to low self-esteem.

Chronic pain can be assessed in a variety of ways ranging from physical examination findings and subjective numerical ratings to extensive patient-reported questionnaires. The International Association for the Study of Pain acknowledges that pain is a complex experience and recommends assessment should be comprehensive.¹¹ Many patient-reported questionnaires are available to clinicians, including some that address pain in a specific body part, such as the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, or those that focus on depression or quality-of-life measures, such as the SF-36.^12,13

One major benefit of using the POQ-VA is its potential to demonstrate benefits across multiple domains, reflecting the complex nature of chronic pain. The POQ-VA also separates domain or scale scores, allowing clinicians to identify individuals with different patterns of dysfunction across domains.¹⁰ This separation also provides insight into which treatment options are best for chronic pain patients with predominant patterns or lower scores in certain domains. The use of a single summary score, as seen in other questionnaires such as the Roland-Morris Activity Scale, may conceal treatment-induced changes in specific outcome domains.¹⁴ Additionally, like many other similar instruments, the POQ-VA is easy to understand and use, requires no special training, takes little time to complete, and can be completed in person or over the phone.

As chronic pain has been studied further and its complexity recognized, more instruments have been developed and modified to reflect these new elements. There is no one scale applicable to all populations. A discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of each available assessment tool is outside the scope of this review. However, to date, the POQ-VA is the only instrument that has been validated to detect change following treatment of chronic pain in an exclusively veteran population.¹⁰ This validation emphasizes the importance of this study as it supports the use of this outcome measure to monitor treatment of pain in VA facilities.

One of the secondary findings indicated that injection therapy improved veterans’ physical activity levels and self-esteem and lowered pain scores as well as kinesiophobia and anxiety. The role of interventional procedures has been well established in the field of chronic pain, but their efficacy has been less clear. Injections are costly and not without risk, and these factors relegate them to fourth-line treatment options in most situations.¹⁵ Several meta-analyses have demonstrated small improvements in pain scores and patient-reported questionnaires after medial branch blocks, and lumbar or caudal ESIs for chronic back pain.^5-7 However, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of injection therapy in subacute and chronic low back pain.⁸ The review acknowledged the limited methodologic quality of the trials and could not definitively report that injection therapy did not have benefits for certain subgroups of patients. The ability of researchers to detect benefit from an intervention is intrinsically linked to how outcomes are determined. The most interesting finding of our study was the patient-reported improved self-esteem scores. Many trials included in the systematic reviews discussed used outcome measures that did not have the multidimensional scope to demonstrate such a potential benefit.

Limitations

Our relatively small sample size represents the main shortcoming of this study. Because many posttreatment questionnaires were never collected, unfortunately, much potential data was lost. Most procedures performed were corticosteroid injections for the treatment of low back pain. This represented a combination of lumbar ESI, caudal ESI, medial branch blocks, and sacroiliac joint injections. The limited numbers meant that a further regression analysis of each injection type was not possible. Since few interventions treated pain in other areas of the body, it is difficult to determine whether procedures such as hip joint injections and ilioinguinal nerve blocks provided overall benefit. In the same vein, there is an inability to comment on which injection for chronic low back pain was the most efficacious.

The veteran population, while similar to the general population experiencing chronic pain, is more likely to experience PTSD and other mental health conditions.² According to medical literature, no randomized controlled trials have been published examining pain interventions exclusively in veterans, so the applicability of these results needs further investigation. This study suggests there are potential benefits for the veteran population, not solely perhaps from receiving injection therapy, but to having access to an interventional pain clinic led by a pain physician within a network of other specialties. While limited by the inherent biases of a retrospective review, this study highlights the potential value in continuing to study this subgroup of patients, especially in the setting of an interdisciplinary approach.

 

Recent literature suggests interdisciplinary chronic pain management represents the best outcomes for patients’ physical, emotional, and social health, though these kinds of focused outpatient programs have not been studied on a large scale.¹⁶ The evolution of pain management in recent years to incorporating a biopsychosocial model has revolutionized how pain is treated and assessed, with multiple studies suggesting the greatest benefits lie in a multipronged approach.^16,17 Past studies assessing individual interventions for chronic pain tend not to show strongly positive results, further reinforcing the idea that the answer does not lie in a specific treatment. Many veterans who were included in this study possibly had received or were receiving adjunct therapies such as physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and acupuncture for pain management, as well as oral and topical medications. Unfortunately, due to the selected methodology, it was not possible for us to gather those data. In turn, we were unable to determine how much these additional factors played a role in changing patient scores, alongside injection therapy. This inability to control variables in this type of research continues to present a challenge to data interpretation, even in the highest quality of research, as acknowledged by Staal and colleagues.⁸

Future research may be best focused by expanding our knowledge of outpatient interdisciplinary pain management programs. Some interventions may be more relevant for a particular group within a program, and this information can be useful to direct resources.¹⁸ Future prospects will require an appropriate multidimensional assessment tool, and the POQ-VA is an example of a valid and reliable option for monitoring progress in pain management in the veteran population.

Conclusions

The POQ-VA is the only instrument to date that has been validated to detect change following treatment of chronic pain in an exclusively veteran population. Our study is the first univariate analysis since the instrument’s validation in 2003. Our descriptive and inferential statistics suggest that the majority of veterans undergoing injection therapy for chronic pain had statistically significant improvements in POQ-VA measures within a 6-month period following treatment. In order to conduct more rigorous, multivariate studies, continued and more widespread use of the POQ-VA instrument is warranted.