Program Profile

Social risk factors and social needs have significant, often cumulative, impacts on health outcomes and are closely tied to health inequities. Defined as the individual-level adverse social conditions associated with poor health, social risk factors broadly include experiences such as food insecurity and housing instability; whereas the term social needs incorporates a person’s perceptions of and priorities related to their health-related needs.¹ One recent study examining data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) found a 27% higher odds of mortality with each additional identified social risk, underscoring the critical link between social risks and veteran health outcomes.²

Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN), a collaborative quality improvement initiative conducted in partnership with the VHA Office of Health Equity and VHA National Social Work Program, Care Management and Social Work Services, is a social risk screening and referral program that aims to systematically identify and address unmet social needs among veterans to improve health and advance health equity.^3,4 ACORN consists of 2 components: (1) a veteran-tailored screener to identify social risks within 9 domains; and (2) provision of relevant VA and community resources and referrals to address identified needs.^3,5 Veterans who screen positive for ≥ 1 need receive referrals to a social worker or other relevant services, such as nutrition and food services or mental health, support navigating resources, and/or geographically tailored resource guides. This article describes the development and use of resource guides as a cross-cutting intervention component to address unmet social needs in diverse clinical settings and shares lessons learned from implementation in VHA outpatient clinics.

BACKGROUND

Unequal distribution of resources combined with historical discriminatory policies and practices, often linked to institutionalized racism, create inequities that lead to health disparities and hinder advancements in population health.^6,7 Although health care systems alone cannot eliminate all health inequities, they can implement programs to identify social risks and address individual-level needs as 1 component of the multilevel approach needed to achieve health equity.⁸

As a national health care system serving > 9 million veterans, the VHA is well positioned to address social needs as an essential part of health. The VHA routinely screens for certain social risks, including housing instability, food insecurity, and intimate partner violence, and has a robust system of supports to address these and other needs among veterans, such as supportive housing services, vocational rehabilitation, assistance for justice-involved veterans, technology access support, and peer-support services.^9-11 However, the VHA lacks a systematic approach to broader screening for social risks.

To address this gap, ACORN was developed in 2018 by an advisory board of subject matter experts, including clinical leaders, clinical psychologists, social workers, and health services researchers with content expertise in social risks and social needs.³ This interprofessional team sought to develop a veteran-tailored screener and resource referral initiative that could be scaled efficiently across VHA clinical settings.

Although health care organizations are increasingly implementing screening and interventions for social risks within clinical care, best practices and evidence-based tools to support clinical staff in these efforts are limited.¹² Resource guides—curated lists of supportive services and organizations—may serve as a scalable “low-touch” intervention to help clinical staff address needs either alone or with more intensive interventions, such as social worker case management or patient navigation services.¹³

RESOURCE GUIDES—A Cross-Cutting Tool

The VHA has a uniquely robust network of nearly 18,000 social workers with clinical expertise in identifying, comprehensively assessing, and addressing social risks and needs among veterans. Interprofessional patient aligned care teams (PACTs)—a patient-centered medical home initiative that includes embedding social workers into primary care teams—facilitate the VHA’s capacity to address both medical and social needs.¹⁴ Social workers in PACTs and other care settings provide in-depth assessment and case management services to veterans who have a range of complex social needs. However, despite these comprehensive social services, in the setting of universal screening with a tool such as ACORN, it may not be feasible or practical to refer all patients who screen positive to a social worker for immediate follow-up, particularly in settings with capacity or resource limitations. For example, rates of screening positive on ACORN for ≥ 1 social risk have ranged from 48% of veterans in primary care sites and 80% in social work sites to nearly 100% in a PACT clinic for veterans experiencing homelessness.¹⁵

Additionally, a key challenge in the design of social needs interventions is determining how to optimize intervention intensity based on individual patient needs, acuity, and preferences. A substantial proportion of individuals who screen positive for social risks decline offered assistance, such as referrals.¹⁶ Resource guides are a cross-cutting tool that can be offered to veterans across a variety of settings, including primary care, specialty clinics, or emergency departments, as either a standalone intervention or one provided in combination with other resources or services. For patients who may not be interested in or feel comfortable accepting assistance at the time of screening or for those who prefer to research and navigate resources on their own, tailored resource guides can serve as a lower touch intervention to ensure interprofessional clinical staff across a range of settings and specialties have accessible, reliable, and up-to-date information to give to patients at the point of clinical care.¹⁷

Resource guides also can be used with higher touch clinical social work interventions, such as crisis management, supportive counseling, and case management. For example, social workers can use resource guides to provide education on VHA or community resources during clinical encounters with veterans and/or provide the guides to veterans to reference for future needs. Resource guides can further be used as a tool to support community resource navigation provided by nonclinical staff, such as peer specialists or community health workers.

How to BUILD RESOURCE GUIDES

Our team created resource guides (Figure) to provide veterans with concise, geographically tailored lists of VHA and other federal, state, and community services for the social risk domains included on the ACORN screener. To inform and develop a framework for building and maintaining ACORN guides, we first reviewed existing models that use this approach, including Boston Medical Center's WE CARE (Well Child Care, Evaluation, Community Resources, Advocacy, Referral, Education) and Thrive programs. We provide an overview of our process, which can be applied to clinical settings both within and outside the VHA.^18,19

Partnerships

Active collaboration with frontline clinical social workers and local social work leadership is a critical part of identifying and prioritizing quality resources. Equipped with the knowledge of the local resource landscape, social workers can provide recommendations pertaining to national or federal, state, and local programs that have a history of being responsive to patients’ expressed needs.²⁰ VHA social workers have robust knowledge of the veteran-specific resources available at VHA medical centers and nationally, and their clinical training equips them with the expertise to provide guidance about which resources to prioritize for inclusion in the guides.²⁰

After receiving initial guidance from clinical social workers, our team began outreach to compile detailed program information, gauge program serviceability, and build relationships with both VHA and community-based services. Aligning with programs that share a similar mission in addressing social needs has proved crucial when developing the resource guides. Beyond ensuring the accuracy of program information, regular contact provides an opportunity to address capacity and workflow concerns that may arise from increased referrals. Additionally, open lines of communication with various supportive services facilitate connections with additional organizations and resources within the area.

The value of these relationships was evident at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the ACORN resource guides in use by our clinical site partners required frequent modifications to reflect rapid changes in services (eg, closures, transition to fully virtual programs, social distancing and masking requirements). Having established connections with community organizations was essential to navigating the evolving landscape of available programs and supports.

Curating Quality Resources

ACORN currently screens for social risks in 9 domains: food, housing, utilities, transportation, education, employment, legal, social isolation/loneliness, and digital needs. Each resource guide pertains to a specific social risk domain and associated question(s) in the screener, allowing staff to quickly identify which guides a veteran may benefit from based on their screening responses. The guides are meant to be short and comprehensive but not exhaustive lists of programs and services. We limit the length of the guides to one single-sided page to provide high-yield, geographically tailored resources in an easy-to-use format. The guides should reflect the geographic area served by the VHA medical center or the community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) where a veteran receives clinical care, but they also may include national- and state-level resources that provide services and programs to veterans.

Although there is local variation in the availability and accessibility of services across social risk domains, some domains have an abundance of resources and organizations at federal or national, state, and/or community levels. To narrow the list of resources to the highest yield programs, we developed a series of questions that serve as selection criteria to inform resource inclusion (Table).

Because the resource guides are intended to be broadly applicable to a large number of veterans, we prioritize generalizable resources over those with narrow eligibility criteria and/or services. When more intensive support is needed, social workers and other VHA clinical and nonclinical staff can supplement the resources on the guides with additional, more tailored resources that are based on individual factors, such as physical residence, income, transportation access, or household composition (eg, veteran families with children or older adults).

Formatting Resource Guides

Along with relevant information, such as the program name, location, and a specific point of contact, brief program descriptions provide information about services offered, eligibility criteria, application requirements, alternate contacts and locations, and website links. At the bottom of each guide, a section is included with the name and direct contact information for a social worker (often the individual assigned to the clinic where the veteran completed the ACORN screener) or another VHA staff member who can be reached for further assistance. These staff members are familiar with the content included on the guides and provide veterans with additional information or higher touch support as necessary. This contact information is useful for veterans who initially decline assistance or referrals but later want to follow up with staff for support or questions.

Visual consistency is a key feature of the ACORN resource guides, and layout and design elements are used to maximize space and enhance usability. Corresponding font colors for all program titles, contact information, and website links assist in visually separating and drawing attention to pertinent contact information. QR codes linked to program websites also are incorporated for veterans to easily access resource information from their smartphone or other electronic device.

Maintaining Resource Guides

To ensure continued accuracy, resource guides are updated about every 6 months to reflect changes in closures, transitions to virtual/in-person services, changes in location, new points of contact, and modifications to services or eligibility requirements. Notations also are made if any changes to services or eligibility are temporary or permanent. Recording these temporary adjustments was critical early in the COVID-19 pandemic as service offerings, eligibility requirements, and application processes changed often.

Updating the guides also facilitates continuous relationship building and connections with VHA and community-based services. Resource guides are living documents: they maintain lines of communication with designated contacts, allow for opportunities to improve the presentation of evolving program information in the guides, and offer the chance to learn about additional programs in the area that may meet veterans' needs.

Creating a Manual for ACORN Resource Guide Development

To facilitate dissemination of ACORN across VHA clinical settings and locations, our team developed a Resource Guide Manual to aid ACORN clinical sites in developing resource guides.²¹ The manual provides step-by-step guidance from recommendations for identifying resources to formatting and layout considerations. Supplemental materials include a checklist to ensure each program description includes the necessary information for veterans to successfully access the resource, as well as page templates and style suggestions to maximize usability. These templates standardize formatting across the social risk domain guides and include options for electronic and paper distribution.

RESOURCE GUIDE LIMITATIONS

The labor involved in building and maintaining multiple guides is considerable and requires a time investment both upfront and long term, which may not be feasible for clinical sites with limited staff. However, many VHA social workers maintain lists of resource and referral services for veterans as part of their routine clinical case management. These lists can serve as a valuable and timesaving starting point in curating high-yield resources for formal resource guides. To further reduce the time needed to develop guides, sites can use ACORN resource guide templates rather than designing and formatting guides from scratch. In addition to informing veterans of relevant services and programs, resource guides also can be provided to new staff, such as social workers or peer specialists, during onboarding to help familiarize them with available services to address veterans’ unmet needs.

Resources included on the guides also are geographically tailored, based on the physical location of the VHA medical center or CBOC. Some community-based services listed may not be as relevant, accessible, available, or convenient to veterans who live far from the clinic, which is relevant for nearly 25% of veterans who live in rural communities.²² This is a circumstance in which the expertise of VHA social workers should be used to recommend more appropriately tailored resources to a veteran. Use of free, publicly available electronic resource databases (eg, 211 Helpline Center) also can provide social workers and patients with an overview of all available resources within their community. There are paid referral platform services that health systems can contract with as well.²³ However, the potential drawbacks to these alternative platforms include high startup costs or costly user-license fees for medical centers or clinics, inconsistent updates to resource information, and lack of compatibility with some electronic health record systems.²³

Resource guides are not intended to take the place of a clinical social worker or other health professional but rather to serve in a supplemental capacity to clinical services. Certain circumstances necessitate a more comprehensive clinical assessment and/or a warm handoff to a social worker, including assistance with urgent food or housing needs, and ACORN workflows are created with urgent needs pathways in mind. Determining how to optimize intervention intensity based on individual patients’ expressed needs, preferences, and acuity remains a challenge for health care organizations conducting social risk screening.¹² While distribution of geographically tailored resource guides can be a useful low touch intervention for some veterans, others will require more intensive case management to address or meet their needs. Some veterans also may fall in the middle of this spectrum, where a resource guide is not enough but intensive case management services facilitated by social workers are not needed or wanted by the patient. Integration of peer specialists, patient navigators, or community health workers who can work with veterans to support them in identifying, connecting with, and receiving support from relevant programs may help fill this gap. Given their knowledge and lived experience, these professionals also can promote patient-centered care as part of the health care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether used as a low-touch, standalone intervention or in combination with higher touch services (eg, case management or resource navigation), resource guides are a valuable tool for health care organizations working to address social needs as a component of efforts to advance health equity, reduce health disparities, and promote population health. We provide a pragmatic framework for developing and maintaining resource guides used in the ACORN initiative. However, additional work is needed to optimize the design, content, and format of resource guides for both usability and effectiveness as a social risk intervention across health care settings.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Health Equity and the VHA National Social Work Program, Care Management and Social Work Services for their support of the Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN) initiative. We also express our appreciation for those who supported the initial screener development as part of the ACORN Advisory Board, including Stacey Curran, BA; Charles Drebing, PhD; J. Stewart Evans, MD, MSc; Edward Federman, PhD; Maneesha Gulati, LICSW, ACSW; Nancy Kressin, PhD; Kenneth Link, LICSW; Monica Sharma, MD; and Jacqueline Spencer, MD, MPH. We also express our appreciation for those who supported the initial ACORN resource guide development, including Chuck Drebing, PhD, Ed Federman, PhD, and Ken Link, LICSW, and for the clinical care team members, especially the social workers and nurses, at our ACORN partner sites as well as the community-based partners who have helped us develop comprehensive resource guides for veterans. This work was supported by funding from the VHA Office of Health Equity and by resources and use of facilities at the VA Bedford Healthcare System, VA New England Healthcare System, and VA Providence Healthcare System. Alicia J. Cohen was additionally supported by a VA HSR&D Career Development Award (CDA 20-037).

Social risk factors and social needs have significant, often cumulative, impacts on health outcomes and are closely tied to health inequities. Defined as the individual-level adverse social conditions associated with poor health, social risk factors broadly include experiences such as food insecurity and housing instability; whereas the term social needs incorporates a person’s perceptions of and priorities related to their health-related needs.¹ One recent study examining data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) found a 27% higher odds of mortality with each additional identified social risk, underscoring the critical link between social risks and veteran health outcomes.²

Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN), a collaborative quality improvement initiative conducted in partnership with the VHA Office of Health Equity and VHA National Social Work Program, Care Management and Social Work Services, is a social risk screening and referral program that aims to systematically identify and address unmet social needs among veterans to improve health and advance health equity.^3,4 ACORN consists of 2 components: (1) a veteran-tailored screener to identify social risks within 9 domains; and (2) provision of relevant VA and community resources and referrals to address identified needs.^3,5 Veterans who screen positive for ≥ 1 need receive referrals to a social worker or other relevant services, such as nutrition and food services or mental health, support navigating resources, and/or geographically tailored resource guides. This article describes the development and use of resource guides as a cross-cutting intervention component to address unmet social needs in diverse clinical settings and shares lessons learned from implementation in VHA outpatient clinics.

BACKGROUND

Unequal distribution of resources combined with historical discriminatory policies and practices, often linked to institutionalized racism, create inequities that lead to health disparities and hinder advancements in population health.^6,7 Although health care systems alone cannot eliminate all health inequities, they can implement programs to identify social risks and address individual-level needs as 1 component of the multilevel approach needed to achieve health equity.⁸

As a national health care system serving > 9 million veterans, the VHA is well positioned to address social needs as an essential part of health. The VHA routinely screens for certain social risks, including housing instability, food insecurity, and intimate partner violence, and has a robust system of supports to address these and other needs among veterans, such as supportive housing services, vocational rehabilitation, assistance for justice-involved veterans, technology access support, and peer-support services.^9-11 However, the VHA lacks a systematic approach to broader screening for social risks.

To address this gap, ACORN was developed in 2018 by an advisory board of subject matter experts, including clinical leaders, clinical psychologists, social workers, and health services researchers with content expertise in social risks and social needs.³ This interprofessional team sought to develop a veteran-tailored screener and resource referral initiative that could be scaled efficiently across VHA clinical settings.

Although health care organizations are increasingly implementing screening and interventions for social risks within clinical care, best practices and evidence-based tools to support clinical staff in these efforts are limited.¹² Resource guides—curated lists of supportive services and organizations—may serve as a scalable “low-touch” intervention to help clinical staff address needs either alone or with more intensive interventions, such as social worker case management or patient navigation services.¹³

RESOURCE GUIDES—A Cross-Cutting Tool

The VHA has a uniquely robust network of nearly 18,000 social workers with clinical expertise in identifying, comprehensively assessing, and addressing social risks and needs among veterans. Interprofessional patient aligned care teams (PACTs)—a patient-centered medical home initiative that includes embedding social workers into primary care teams—facilitate the VHA’s capacity to address both medical and social needs.¹⁴ Social workers in PACTs and other care settings provide in-depth assessment and case management services to veterans who have a range of complex social needs. However, despite these comprehensive social services, in the setting of universal screening with a tool such as ACORN, it may not be feasible or practical to refer all patients who screen positive to a social worker for immediate follow-up, particularly in settings with capacity or resource limitations. For example, rates of screening positive on ACORN for ≥ 1 social risk have ranged from 48% of veterans in primary care sites and 80% in social work sites to nearly 100% in a PACT clinic for veterans experiencing homelessness.¹⁵

Additionally, a key challenge in the design of social needs interventions is determining how to optimize intervention intensity based on individual patient needs, acuity, and preferences. A substantial proportion of individuals who screen positive for social risks decline offered assistance, such as referrals.¹⁶ Resource guides are a cross-cutting tool that can be offered to veterans across a variety of settings, including primary care, specialty clinics, or emergency departments, as either a standalone intervention or one provided in combination with other resources or services. For patients who may not be interested in or feel comfortable accepting assistance at the time of screening or for those who prefer to research and navigate resources on their own, tailored resource guides can serve as a lower touch intervention to ensure interprofessional clinical staff across a range of settings and specialties have accessible, reliable, and up-to-date information to give to patients at the point of clinical care.¹⁷

Resource guides also can be used with higher touch clinical social work interventions, such as crisis management, supportive counseling, and case management. For example, social workers can use resource guides to provide education on VHA or community resources during clinical encounters with veterans and/or provide the guides to veterans to reference for future needs. Resource guides can further be used as a tool to support community resource navigation provided by nonclinical staff, such as peer specialists or community health workers.

How to BUILD RESOURCE GUIDES

Our team created resource guides (Figure) to provide veterans with concise, geographically tailored lists of VHA and other federal, state, and community services for the social risk domains included on the ACORN screener. To inform and develop a framework for building and maintaining ACORN guides, we first reviewed existing models that use this approach, including Boston Medical Center's WE CARE (Well Child Care, Evaluation, Community Resources, Advocacy, Referral, Education) and Thrive programs. We provide an overview of our process, which can be applied to clinical settings both within and outside the VHA.^18,19

Partnerships

Active collaboration with frontline clinical social workers and local social work leadership is a critical part of identifying and prioritizing quality resources. Equipped with the knowledge of the local resource landscape, social workers can provide recommendations pertaining to national or federal, state, and local programs that have a history of being responsive to patients’ expressed needs.²⁰ VHA social workers have robust knowledge of the veteran-specific resources available at VHA medical centers and nationally, and their clinical training equips them with the expertise to provide guidance about which resources to prioritize for inclusion in the guides.²⁰

After receiving initial guidance from clinical social workers, our team began outreach to compile detailed program information, gauge program serviceability, and build relationships with both VHA and community-based services. Aligning with programs that share a similar mission in addressing social needs has proved crucial when developing the resource guides. Beyond ensuring the accuracy of program information, regular contact provides an opportunity to address capacity and workflow concerns that may arise from increased referrals. Additionally, open lines of communication with various supportive services facilitate connections with additional organizations and resources within the area.

The value of these relationships was evident at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the ACORN resource guides in use by our clinical site partners required frequent modifications to reflect rapid changes in services (eg, closures, transition to fully virtual programs, social distancing and masking requirements). Having established connections with community organizations was essential to navigating the evolving landscape of available programs and supports.

Curating Quality Resources

ACORN currently screens for social risks in 9 domains: food, housing, utilities, transportation, education, employment, legal, social isolation/loneliness, and digital needs. Each resource guide pertains to a specific social risk domain and associated question(s) in the screener, allowing staff to quickly identify which guides a veteran may benefit from based on their screening responses. The guides are meant to be short and comprehensive but not exhaustive lists of programs and services. We limit the length of the guides to one single-sided page to provide high-yield, geographically tailored resources in an easy-to-use format. The guides should reflect the geographic area served by the VHA medical center or the community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) where a veteran receives clinical care, but they also may include national- and state-level resources that provide services and programs to veterans.

Although there is local variation in the availability and accessibility of services across social risk domains, some domains have an abundance of resources and organizations at federal or national, state, and/or community levels. To narrow the list of resources to the highest yield programs, we developed a series of questions that serve as selection criteria to inform resource inclusion (Table).

Because the resource guides are intended to be broadly applicable to a large number of veterans, we prioritize generalizable resources over those with narrow eligibility criteria and/or services. When more intensive support is needed, social workers and other VHA clinical and nonclinical staff can supplement the resources on the guides with additional, more tailored resources that are based on individual factors, such as physical residence, income, transportation access, or household composition (eg, veteran families with children or older adults).

Formatting Resource Guides

Along with relevant information, such as the program name, location, and a specific point of contact, brief program descriptions provide information about services offered, eligibility criteria, application requirements, alternate contacts and locations, and website links. At the bottom of each guide, a section is included with the name and direct contact information for a social worker (often the individual assigned to the clinic where the veteran completed the ACORN screener) or another VHA staff member who can be reached for further assistance. These staff members are familiar with the content included on the guides and provide veterans with additional information or higher touch support as necessary. This contact information is useful for veterans who initially decline assistance or referrals but later want to follow up with staff for support or questions.

Visual consistency is a key feature of the ACORN resource guides, and layout and design elements are used to maximize space and enhance usability. Corresponding font colors for all program titles, contact information, and website links assist in visually separating and drawing attention to pertinent contact information. QR codes linked to program websites also are incorporated for veterans to easily access resource information from their smartphone or other electronic device.

Maintaining Resource Guides

To ensure continued accuracy, resource guides are updated about every 6 months to reflect changes in closures, transitions to virtual/in-person services, changes in location, new points of contact, and modifications to services or eligibility requirements. Notations also are made if any changes to services or eligibility are temporary or permanent. Recording these temporary adjustments was critical early in the COVID-19 pandemic as service offerings, eligibility requirements, and application processes changed often.

Updating the guides also facilitates continuous relationship building and connections with VHA and community-based services. Resource guides are living documents: they maintain lines of communication with designated contacts, allow for opportunities to improve the presentation of evolving program information in the guides, and offer the chance to learn about additional programs in the area that may meet veterans' needs.

Creating a Manual for ACORN Resource Guide Development

To facilitate dissemination of ACORN across VHA clinical settings and locations, our team developed a Resource Guide Manual to aid ACORN clinical sites in developing resource guides.²¹ The manual provides step-by-step guidance from recommendations for identifying resources to formatting and layout considerations. Supplemental materials include a checklist to ensure each program description includes the necessary information for veterans to successfully access the resource, as well as page templates and style suggestions to maximize usability. These templates standardize formatting across the social risk domain guides and include options for electronic and paper distribution.

RESOURCE GUIDE LIMITATIONS

The labor involved in building and maintaining multiple guides is considerable and requires a time investment both upfront and long term, which may not be feasible for clinical sites with limited staff. However, many VHA social workers maintain lists of resource and referral services for veterans as part of their routine clinical case management. These lists can serve as a valuable and timesaving starting point in curating high-yield resources for formal resource guides. To further reduce the time needed to develop guides, sites can use ACORN resource guide templates rather than designing and formatting guides from scratch. In addition to informing veterans of relevant services and programs, resource guides also can be provided to new staff, such as social workers or peer specialists, during onboarding to help familiarize them with available services to address veterans’ unmet needs.

Resources included on the guides also are geographically tailored, based on the physical location of the VHA medical center or CBOC. Some community-based services listed may not be as relevant, accessible, available, or convenient to veterans who live far from the clinic, which is relevant for nearly 25% of veterans who live in rural communities.²² This is a circumstance in which the expertise of VHA social workers should be used to recommend more appropriately tailored resources to a veteran. Use of free, publicly available electronic resource databases (eg, 211 Helpline Center) also can provide social workers and patients with an overview of all available resources within their community. There are paid referral platform services that health systems can contract with as well.²³ However, the potential drawbacks to these alternative platforms include high startup costs or costly user-license fees for medical centers or clinics, inconsistent updates to resource information, and lack of compatibility with some electronic health record systems.²³

Resource guides are not intended to take the place of a clinical social worker or other health professional but rather to serve in a supplemental capacity to clinical services. Certain circumstances necessitate a more comprehensive clinical assessment and/or a warm handoff to a social worker, including assistance with urgent food or housing needs, and ACORN workflows are created with urgent needs pathways in mind. Determining how to optimize intervention intensity based on individual patients’ expressed needs, preferences, and acuity remains a challenge for health care organizations conducting social risk screening.¹² While distribution of geographically tailored resource guides can be a useful low touch intervention for some veterans, others will require more intensive case management to address or meet their needs. Some veterans also may fall in the middle of this spectrum, where a resource guide is not enough but intensive case management services facilitated by social workers are not needed or wanted by the patient. Integration of peer specialists, patient navigators, or community health workers who can work with veterans to support them in identifying, connecting with, and receiving support from relevant programs may help fill this gap. Given their knowledge and lived experience, these professionals also can promote patient-centered care as part of the health care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether used as a low-touch, standalone intervention or in combination with higher touch services (eg, case management or resource navigation), resource guides are a valuable tool for health care organizations working to address social needs as a component of efforts to advance health equity, reduce health disparities, and promote population health. We provide a pragmatic framework for developing and maintaining resource guides used in the ACORN initiative. However, additional work is needed to optimize the design, content, and format of resource guides for both usability and effectiveness as a social risk intervention across health care settings.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Health Equity and the VHA National Social Work Program, Care Management and Social Work Services for their support of the Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN) initiative. We also express our appreciation for those who supported the initial screener development as part of the ACORN Advisory Board, including Stacey Curran, BA; Charles Drebing, PhD; J. Stewart Evans, MD, MSc; Edward Federman, PhD; Maneesha Gulati, LICSW, ACSW; Nancy Kressin, PhD; Kenneth Link, LICSW; Monica Sharma, MD; and Jacqueline Spencer, MD, MPH. We also express our appreciation for those who supported the initial ACORN resource guide development, including Chuck Drebing, PhD, Ed Federman, PhD, and Ken Link, LICSW, and for the clinical care team members, especially the social workers and nurses, at our ACORN partner sites as well as the community-based partners who have helped us develop comprehensive resource guides for veterans. This work was supported by funding from the VHA Office of Health Equity and by resources and use of facilities at the VA Bedford Healthcare System, VA New England Healthcare System, and VA Providence Healthcare System. Alicia J. Cohen was additionally supported by a VA HSR&D Career Development Award (CDA 20-037).

Social risk factors and social needs have significant, often cumulative, impacts on health outcomes and are closely tied to health inequities. Defined as the individual-level adverse social conditions associated with poor health, social risk factors broadly include experiences such as food insecurity and housing instability; whereas the term social needs incorporates a person’s perceptions of and priorities related to their health-related needs.¹ One recent study examining data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) found a 27% higher odds of mortality with each additional identified social risk, underscoring the critical link between social risks and veteran health outcomes.²

Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN), a collaborative quality improvement initiative conducted in partnership with the VHA Office of Health Equity and VHA National Social Work Program, Care Management and Social Work Services, is a social risk screening and referral program that aims to systematically identify and address unmet social needs among veterans to improve health and advance health equity.^3,4 ACORN consists of 2 components: (1) a veteran-tailored screener to identify social risks within 9 domains; and (2) provision of relevant VA and community resources and referrals to address identified needs.^3,5 Veterans who screen positive for ≥ 1 need receive referrals to a social worker or other relevant services, such as nutrition and food services or mental health, support navigating resources, and/or geographically tailored resource guides. This article describes the development and use of resource guides as a cross-cutting intervention component to address unmet social needs in diverse clinical settings and shares lessons learned from implementation in VHA outpatient clinics.

BACKGROUND

Unequal distribution of resources combined with historical discriminatory policies and practices, often linked to institutionalized racism, create inequities that lead to health disparities and hinder advancements in population health.^6,7 Although health care systems alone cannot eliminate all health inequities, they can implement programs to identify social risks and address individual-level needs as 1 component of the multilevel approach needed to achieve health equity.⁸

As a national health care system serving > 9 million veterans, the VHA is well positioned to address social needs as an essential part of health. The VHA routinely screens for certain social risks, including housing instability, food insecurity, and intimate partner violence, and has a robust system of supports to address these and other needs among veterans, such as supportive housing services, vocational rehabilitation, assistance for justice-involved veterans, technology access support, and peer-support services.^9-11 However, the VHA lacks a systematic approach to broader screening for social risks.

To address this gap, ACORN was developed in 2018 by an advisory board of subject matter experts, including clinical leaders, clinical psychologists, social workers, and health services researchers with content expertise in social risks and social needs.³ This interprofessional team sought to develop a veteran-tailored screener and resource referral initiative that could be scaled efficiently across VHA clinical settings.

Although health care organizations are increasingly implementing screening and interventions for social risks within clinical care, best practices and evidence-based tools to support clinical staff in these efforts are limited.¹² Resource guides—curated lists of supportive services and organizations—may serve as a scalable “low-touch” intervention to help clinical staff address needs either alone or with more intensive interventions, such as social worker case management or patient navigation services.¹³

RESOURCE GUIDES—A Cross-Cutting Tool

The VHA has a uniquely robust network of nearly 18,000 social workers with clinical expertise in identifying, comprehensively assessing, and addressing social risks and needs among veterans. Interprofessional patient aligned care teams (PACTs)—a patient-centered medical home initiative that includes embedding social workers into primary care teams—facilitate the VHA’s capacity to address both medical and social needs.¹⁴ Social workers in PACTs and other care settings provide in-depth assessment and case management services to veterans who have a range of complex social needs. However, despite these comprehensive social services, in the setting of universal screening with a tool such as ACORN, it may not be feasible or practical to refer all patients who screen positive to a social worker for immediate follow-up, particularly in settings with capacity or resource limitations. For example, rates of screening positive on ACORN for ≥ 1 social risk have ranged from 48% of veterans in primary care sites and 80% in social work sites to nearly 100% in a PACT clinic for veterans experiencing homelessness.¹⁵

Additionally, a key challenge in the design of social needs interventions is determining how to optimize intervention intensity based on individual patient needs, acuity, and preferences. A substantial proportion of individuals who screen positive for social risks decline offered assistance, such as referrals.¹⁶ Resource guides are a cross-cutting tool that can be offered to veterans across a variety of settings, including primary care, specialty clinics, or emergency departments, as either a standalone intervention or one provided in combination with other resources or services. For patients who may not be interested in or feel comfortable accepting assistance at the time of screening or for those who prefer to research and navigate resources on their own, tailored resource guides can serve as a lower touch intervention to ensure interprofessional clinical staff across a range of settings and specialties have accessible, reliable, and up-to-date information to give to patients at the point of clinical care.¹⁷

Resource guides also can be used with higher touch clinical social work interventions, such as crisis management, supportive counseling, and case management. For example, social workers can use resource guides to provide education on VHA or community resources during clinical encounters with veterans and/or provide the guides to veterans to reference for future needs. Resource guides can further be used as a tool to support community resource navigation provided by nonclinical staff, such as peer specialists or community health workers.

How to BUILD RESOURCE GUIDES

Our team created resource guides (Figure) to provide veterans with concise, geographically tailored lists of VHA and other federal, state, and community services for the social risk domains included on the ACORN screener. To inform and develop a framework for building and maintaining ACORN guides, we first reviewed existing models that use this approach, including Boston Medical Center's WE CARE (Well Child Care, Evaluation, Community Resources, Advocacy, Referral, Education) and Thrive programs. We provide an overview of our process, which can be applied to clinical settings both within and outside the VHA.^18,19

Partnerships

Active collaboration with frontline clinical social workers and local social work leadership is a critical part of identifying and prioritizing quality resources. Equipped with the knowledge of the local resource landscape, social workers can provide recommendations pertaining to national or federal, state, and local programs that have a history of being responsive to patients’ expressed needs.²⁰ VHA social workers have robust knowledge of the veteran-specific resources available at VHA medical centers and nationally, and their clinical training equips them with the expertise to provide guidance about which resources to prioritize for inclusion in the guides.²⁰

After receiving initial guidance from clinical social workers, our team began outreach to compile detailed program information, gauge program serviceability, and build relationships with both VHA and community-based services. Aligning with programs that share a similar mission in addressing social needs has proved crucial when developing the resource guides. Beyond ensuring the accuracy of program information, regular contact provides an opportunity to address capacity and workflow concerns that may arise from increased referrals. Additionally, open lines of communication with various supportive services facilitate connections with additional organizations and resources within the area.

The value of these relationships was evident at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the ACORN resource guides in use by our clinical site partners required frequent modifications to reflect rapid changes in services (eg, closures, transition to fully virtual programs, social distancing and masking requirements). Having established connections with community organizations was essential to navigating the evolving landscape of available programs and supports.

Curating Quality Resources

ACORN currently screens for social risks in 9 domains: food, housing, utilities, transportation, education, employment, legal, social isolation/loneliness, and digital needs. Each resource guide pertains to a specific social risk domain and associated question(s) in the screener, allowing staff to quickly identify which guides a veteran may benefit from based on their screening responses. The guides are meant to be short and comprehensive but not exhaustive lists of programs and services. We limit the length of the guides to one single-sided page to provide high-yield, geographically tailored resources in an easy-to-use format. The guides should reflect the geographic area served by the VHA medical center or the community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) where a veteran receives clinical care, but they also may include national- and state-level resources that provide services and programs to veterans.

Although there is local variation in the availability and accessibility of services across social risk domains, some domains have an abundance of resources and organizations at federal or national, state, and/or community levels. To narrow the list of resources to the highest yield programs, we developed a series of questions that serve as selection criteria to inform resource inclusion (Table).

Because the resource guides are intended to be broadly applicable to a large number of veterans, we prioritize generalizable resources over those with narrow eligibility criteria and/or services. When more intensive support is needed, social workers and other VHA clinical and nonclinical staff can supplement the resources on the guides with additional, more tailored resources that are based on individual factors, such as physical residence, income, transportation access, or household composition (eg, veteran families with children or older adults).

Formatting Resource Guides

Along with relevant information, such as the program name, location, and a specific point of contact, brief program descriptions provide information about services offered, eligibility criteria, application requirements, alternate contacts and locations, and website links. At the bottom of each guide, a section is included with the name and direct contact information for a social worker (often the individual assigned to the clinic where the veteran completed the ACORN screener) or another VHA staff member who can be reached for further assistance. These staff members are familiar with the content included on the guides and provide veterans with additional information or higher touch support as necessary. This contact information is useful for veterans who initially decline assistance or referrals but later want to follow up with staff for support or questions.

Visual consistency is a key feature of the ACORN resource guides, and layout and design elements are used to maximize space and enhance usability. Corresponding font colors for all program titles, contact information, and website links assist in visually separating and drawing attention to pertinent contact information. QR codes linked to program websites also are incorporated for veterans to easily access resource information from their smartphone or other electronic device.

Maintaining Resource Guides

To ensure continued accuracy, resource guides are updated about every 6 months to reflect changes in closures, transitions to virtual/in-person services, changes in location, new points of contact, and modifications to services or eligibility requirements. Notations also are made if any changes to services or eligibility are temporary or permanent. Recording these temporary adjustments was critical early in the COVID-19 pandemic as service offerings, eligibility requirements, and application processes changed often.

Updating the guides also facilitates continuous relationship building and connections with VHA and community-based services. Resource guides are living documents: they maintain lines of communication with designated contacts, allow for opportunities to improve the presentation of evolving program information in the guides, and offer the chance to learn about additional programs in the area that may meet veterans' needs.

Creating a Manual for ACORN Resource Guide Development

To facilitate dissemination of ACORN across VHA clinical settings and locations, our team developed a Resource Guide Manual to aid ACORN clinical sites in developing resource guides.²¹ The manual provides step-by-step guidance from recommendations for identifying resources to formatting and layout considerations. Supplemental materials include a checklist to ensure each program description includes the necessary information for veterans to successfully access the resource, as well as page templates and style suggestions to maximize usability. These templates standardize formatting across the social risk domain guides and include options for electronic and paper distribution.

RESOURCE GUIDE LIMITATIONS

The labor involved in building and maintaining multiple guides is considerable and requires a time investment both upfront and long term, which may not be feasible for clinical sites with limited staff. However, many VHA social workers maintain lists of resource and referral services for veterans as part of their routine clinical case management. These lists can serve as a valuable and timesaving starting point in curating high-yield resources for formal resource guides. To further reduce the time needed to develop guides, sites can use ACORN resource guide templates rather than designing and formatting guides from scratch. In addition to informing veterans of relevant services and programs, resource guides also can be provided to new staff, such as social workers or peer specialists, during onboarding to help familiarize them with available services to address veterans’ unmet needs.

Resources included on the guides also are geographically tailored, based on the physical location of the VHA medical center or CBOC. Some community-based services listed may not be as relevant, accessible, available, or convenient to veterans who live far from the clinic, which is relevant for nearly 25% of veterans who live in rural communities.²² This is a circumstance in which the expertise of VHA social workers should be used to recommend more appropriately tailored resources to a veteran. Use of free, publicly available electronic resource databases (eg, 211 Helpline Center) also can provide social workers and patients with an overview of all available resources within their community. There are paid referral platform services that health systems can contract with as well.²³ However, the potential drawbacks to these alternative platforms include high startup costs or costly user-license fees for medical centers or clinics, inconsistent updates to resource information, and lack of compatibility with some electronic health record systems.²³

Resource guides are not intended to take the place of a clinical social worker or other health professional but rather to serve in a supplemental capacity to clinical services. Certain circumstances necessitate a more comprehensive clinical assessment and/or a warm handoff to a social worker, including assistance with urgent food or housing needs, and ACORN workflows are created with urgent needs pathways in mind. Determining how to optimize intervention intensity based on individual patients’ expressed needs, preferences, and acuity remains a challenge for health care organizations conducting social risk screening.¹² While distribution of geographically tailored resource guides can be a useful low touch intervention for some veterans, others will require more intensive case management to address or meet their needs. Some veterans also may fall in the middle of this spectrum, where a resource guide is not enough but intensive case management services facilitated by social workers are not needed or wanted by the patient. Integration of peer specialists, patient navigators, or community health workers who can work with veterans to support them in identifying, connecting with, and receiving support from relevant programs may help fill this gap. Given their knowledge and lived experience, these professionals also can promote patient-centered care as part of the health care team.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether used as a low-touch, standalone intervention or in combination with higher touch services (eg, case management or resource navigation), resource guides are a valuable tool for health care organizations working to address social needs as a component of efforts to advance health equity, reduce health disparities, and promote population health. We provide a pragmatic framework for developing and maintaining resource guides used in the ACORN initiative. However, additional work is needed to optimize the design, content, and format of resource guides for both usability and effectiveness as a social risk intervention across health care settings.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Health Equity and the VHA National Social Work Program, Care Management and Social Work Services for their support of the Assessing Circumstances and Offering Resources for Needs (ACORN) initiative. We also express our appreciation for those who supported the initial screener development as part of the ACORN Advisory Board, including Stacey Curran, BA; Charles Drebing, PhD; J. Stewart Evans, MD, MSc; Edward Federman, PhD; Maneesha Gulati, LICSW, ACSW; Nancy Kressin, PhD; Kenneth Link, LICSW; Monica Sharma, MD; and Jacqueline Spencer, MD, MPH. We also express our appreciation for those who supported the initial ACORN resource guide development, including Chuck Drebing, PhD, Ed Federman, PhD, and Ken Link, LICSW, and for the clinical care team members, especially the social workers and nurses, at our ACORN partner sites as well as the community-based partners who have helped us develop comprehensive resource guides for veterans. This work was supported by funding from the VHA Office of Health Equity and by resources and use of facilities at the VA Bedford Healthcare System, VA New England Healthcare System, and VA Providence Healthcare System. Alicia J. Cohen was additionally supported by a VA HSR&D Career Development Award (CDA 20-037).

The hospital is altogether the most complex human organization ever devised. Peter Drucker ¹

The ever-changing landscape of today’s increasingly complex health care system depends on implementing multifaceted, team-based methods of care delivery to provide safe, effective patient care.²Critical to establishing and sustaining exceptionally safe, effective patient care is open, transparent communication among members of interprofessional teams with senior leaders.³ However, current evidence shows thatpoor communication among interprofessional health care teams and leadership is commonplace and a significant contributing factor to inefficiencies, medical errors, and poor outcomes.⁴ One strategy for improving communication is through the implementation of leader rounding for high reliability. The concept of high reliability pertains to organizations that operate in high-risk environments for prolonged periods without serious adverse events or catastrophic failures.⁵ The overarching goal of implementation is to ensure that efficient communication exists among members of the health care team, which is essential for providing safe, quality patient care.

We describe the importance of leader rounding for high reliability as an approach to improving patient safety.Based on a review of the literature, our experiences, and lessons learned, we offer recommendations for how health care organizations on the journey to high reliability can improve patient safety.

Rounding in health care is not new. In fact, rounding has been a strong principal practice globally for more than 2 decades.⁶ During this time, varied rounding approaches have emerged, oftentimes focused on areas of interest, such as patient care, environmental services, facilities management, and discharge planning.^4,7 Variations also might involve the location of the rounds, such as a patient’s bedside, unit hallways, and conference rooms as well as the naming of rounds, such as interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary, teaching, and walkrounds.^7-10

A different type of rounding that is characteristic of high reliability organizations (HROs) is leader rounding for high reliability. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) formally launched its journey to becoming an enterprise HRO in February 2019, using 3 cohorts. At the Veterans Affairs Bedford Healthcare System (VABHS) in Massachusetts, the journey commenced in 2021 as part of the third cohort. Leader rounding for high reliability is one of VHAs 4 HRO foundational practices for achieving a culture of safety (Figure 1).¹¹

Leader rounding for high reliability includes regularly scheduled, structured visits, with interdisciplinary teams to discuss high reliability, safety, and improvement efforts.The specific aim of these particular rounds is for senior leaders to be visible where teams are located and learn from staff (especially those on the frontlines of care) about day-to-day challenges that may contribute to patient harm.^12,13 Leader rounding for high reliability is also an important approach to improving leadership visibility across the organization, demonstrating a commitment to high reliability, and building trust and relationships with staff through open and honest dialogue. It is also an important approach to increasing leadership understanding of operational, clinical, nonclinical, patient experience issues, and concern related to safety.¹¹ This opportunity enables leaders to provide and receive real-time feedback from staff.^9,11 This experience also gives leaders an opportunity to reinforce the VHA’s 3 pillars, 5 principles, and 7 values related to high reliability (Figure 2)¹⁴ as well as to recognize behaviors that support a culture of safety.¹⁵

In preparation for implementing a leader rounding for high reliability process at the VABHS, we conducted an extensive literature review for peer-reviewed publications published between January 2015 and September 2022 regarding how other organizations implemented leader rounding. This search found a dearth of evidence as it specifically relates to leader rounding for high reliability. This motivated us to create a process for developing and implementing leader rounding for high reliability in pursuit of improving patient safety. With this objective in mind, we created and piloted a process in the fall of 2023. The first 3 months were focused on the medical center director rounding with other members of the executive leadership team to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the process. In December 2023, members of the executive leadership team began conducting leader rounding for high reliability separately. The following steps are based on the lessons we have gleaned from evolving evidence, our experiences, and developing and implementing an approach to leader rounding for high reliability.

ESTABLISH A PROCESS

Leader rounding for high reliability is performed by health care organization executive leadership, directors, managers, and supervisors. When properly conducted, increased levels of teamwork and more effective bidirectional communication take place, resulting in a united team motivated to improve patient safety.^16,17 Important early steps for implementing leader rounding for high reliability include establishing a process and getting leadership buy-in.Purposeful attention to planning is critical as is understanding the organizational factors that might deter success.Establishing a process should consider facilitators and barriers to implementation, which can include high vs low leadership turnover, structured vs unstructured rounding, and time for rounding vs competing demands.^18,19 We have learned thateffective planning is important for ensuring that leadership teams are well prepared and ambitious about leader rounding for high reliability.

Leader rounding for high reliability involves brief 10-to-15-minute interactions with interdisciplinary teams, including frontline staff. For health care organizations beginning to implement this approach, having scripts or checklists accessible might be of help. If possible, the rounds should be scheduled in advance. This helps to avoid rounding in areas at their busiest times. When possible, leader rounding for high reliability should occur as planned. Canceling rounds sends the message that leader rounding for high reliability and the valuable interactions they support are a low priority. When conflicts arise, another leader should be sent to participate. Developing a list of questions in advance helps to underscore key messages to be shared as well as reinforce principles, practices, behaviors, and attitudes related to high reliability (Appendix 1).¹¹

Finally, closing the loop is critical to the leader rounding process and to improve bidirectional communication. Closed-loop communication, following up on and/or closing out an area of discussion, not only promotes a shared understanding of information but has been found to improve patient safety.¹⁹ Effective leader rounding for high reliability includes summarizing issues and opportunities, deciding on a date for resolution for open action items, and identifying who is responsible for taking action. Senior leaders are not responsible for resolving all issues. If a team or manager of a work area can solve any issues identified, this should be encouraged and supported so accountability is maintained at the most appropriate level of the organization.

Instrumental to leader rounding for high reliability is establishing a cadence for when leaders will visit work areas.¹⁴ The most critical strategy, especially in times of change, is consistency in rounding.¹¹ At the start of implementation, we decided on a biweekly cadence. Initially leaders visited areas of the organization within their respective reporting structure. Once this was established, leaders periodically round in areas outside their scope of responsibility. This affords leaders the opportunity to observe other areas of the organization. As noted, it is important for leaders to be flexible with the rounding process especially in areas where direct patient care is being provided.

Tracking

Developing a tracking tool also is important for an effective leader rounding process. This tool is used to document issues and concerns identified during the rounding process, assign accountability, track the status of items, and close the loop when completed. One of the most commonly reported hurdles to staff sharing information to promote a culture of safety is the lack of feedback on what actions were taken to address the concern or issue raised with leadership. Closed-loop communication is critical for keeping staff continually engaged in efforts to promote a culture of safety.²⁰ We have found that a tracking tool helps to ensure that closed-loop communication takes place.

Various platforms can be used for tracking items and providing follow-up, including paper worksheets, spreadsheets, databases, or third party software (eg, SharePoint, TruthPoint Rounds, GetWell Rounds). The tracking tool should have a standardized approach for prioritizing issues.

Measuring Impact

Measuring the impact is a critical step to determine the overall effectiveness of leader rounding for high reliability. It can be as simple as requesting candid feedback from frontline staff, supervisors, managers, and service chiefs. For example, 4 months into the implementation process, the VABHS administered a brief staff survey on the overall process, perceived benefits, and challenges experienced (Appendix 2). Potential measures include the counts of leaders rounding, total rounds, rounds cancelled, and staff members actively participating in rounds. Outcomes that can be measured include issues identified, addressed, elevated, and remaining open; number of extended workdays due to rounds; staff staying overtime; and delays in patient care activities.²³ Other measures to consider are the effects of rounding on staff as well as patient/family satisfaction, increase in the number of errors and near-miss events reported per month in a health care organizations’ patient safety reporting system, and increased engagement of staff members in continuous process improvement activities. Since the inception of leader rounding for high reliability, the VABHS has seen a slight increase in the number of events entered in the patient safety reporting system. Other factors that may have contributed to this change, including encouragement of reporting at safety forums, and tiered safety huddles.

DISCUSSION

This initiative involved the development and implementation of a leader rounding for high reliability process at the VABHS with the overarching goal of ensuring efficient communication exists among members of the health care team for delivering safe, quality patient care. The initiative was well received by staff from senior leadership to frontline personnel and promoted significant interest in efforts to improve safety across the health care system.

The pilot phase permitted us to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the process to leadership as well as frontline staff. The insight gained and lessons learned through the implementation process helped us make revisions where needed and develop the tools to ensure success. In the second phase of implementation, which commenced in December 2023, each executive leadership team member began leader rounding for high reliability with their respective department service chiefs. Throughout this phase, feedback will be sought on the overall process, perceived benefits, and challenges experienced to make improvements or changes as needed. We also will continue to monitor the number of events entered in the patient safety reporting system. Future efforts will focus on developing a robust program of evaluation to explore the impact of the program on patient/family satisfaction as well as safety outcomes.

Limitations

Developing and implementing a process for leader rounding for high reliability was undertaken to support the VABHS and VHA journey to high reliability. Other health care organizations and integrated systems might identify different processes for improving patient safety and to support their journey to becoming an HRO.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of leader rounding for high reliability to improve patient safety cannot be emphasized enough in a time where health care systems have become increasingly complex. Health care is a complex adaptive system that requires effective, bidirectional communication and collaboration among all disciplines. One of the most useful, evidence-based strategies for promoting this communication and collaboration to improve a culture of safety is leader rounding for high reliability.

The hospital is altogether the most complex human organization ever devised. Peter Drucker ¹

The ever-changing landscape of today’s increasingly complex health care system depends on implementing multifaceted, team-based methods of care delivery to provide safe, effective patient care.²Critical to establishing and sustaining exceptionally safe, effective patient care is open, transparent communication among members of interprofessional teams with senior leaders.³ However, current evidence shows thatpoor communication among interprofessional health care teams and leadership is commonplace and a significant contributing factor to inefficiencies, medical errors, and poor outcomes.⁴ One strategy for improving communication is through the implementation of leader rounding for high reliability. The concept of high reliability pertains to organizations that operate in high-risk environments for prolonged periods without serious adverse events or catastrophic failures.⁵ The overarching goal of implementation is to ensure that efficient communication exists among members of the health care team, which is essential for providing safe, quality patient care.

We describe the importance of leader rounding for high reliability as an approach to improving patient safety.Based on a review of the literature, our experiences, and lessons learned, we offer recommendations for how health care organizations on the journey to high reliability can improve patient safety.

Rounding in health care is not new. In fact, rounding has been a strong principal practice globally for more than 2 decades.⁶ During this time, varied rounding approaches have emerged, oftentimes focused on areas of interest, such as patient care, environmental services, facilities management, and discharge planning.^4,7 Variations also might involve the location of the rounds, such as a patient’s bedside, unit hallways, and conference rooms as well as the naming of rounds, such as interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary, teaching, and walkrounds.^7-10

A different type of rounding that is characteristic of high reliability organizations (HROs) is leader rounding for high reliability. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) formally launched its journey to becoming an enterprise HRO in February 2019, using 3 cohorts. At the Veterans Affairs Bedford Healthcare System (VABHS) in Massachusetts, the journey commenced in 2021 as part of the third cohort. Leader rounding for high reliability is one of VHAs 4 HRO foundational practices for achieving a culture of safety (Figure 1).¹¹

Leader rounding for high reliability includes regularly scheduled, structured visits, with interdisciplinary teams to discuss high reliability, safety, and improvement efforts.The specific aim of these particular rounds is for senior leaders to be visible where teams are located and learn from staff (especially those on the frontlines of care) about day-to-day challenges that may contribute to patient harm.^12,13 Leader rounding for high reliability is also an important approach to improving leadership visibility across the organization, demonstrating a commitment to high reliability, and building trust and relationships with staff through open and honest dialogue. It is also an important approach to increasing leadership understanding of operational, clinical, nonclinical, patient experience issues, and concern related to safety.¹¹ This opportunity enables leaders to provide and receive real-time feedback from staff.^9,11 This experience also gives leaders an opportunity to reinforce the VHA’s 3 pillars, 5 principles, and 7 values related to high reliability (Figure 2)¹⁴ as well as to recognize behaviors that support a culture of safety.¹⁵

In preparation for implementing a leader rounding for high reliability process at the VABHS, we conducted an extensive literature review for peer-reviewed publications published between January 2015 and September 2022 regarding how other organizations implemented leader rounding. This search found a dearth of evidence as it specifically relates to leader rounding for high reliability. This motivated us to create a process for developing and implementing leader rounding for high reliability in pursuit of improving patient safety. With this objective in mind, we created and piloted a process in the fall of 2023. The first 3 months were focused on the medical center director rounding with other members of the executive leadership team to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the process. In December 2023, members of the executive leadership team began conducting leader rounding for high reliability separately. The following steps are based on the lessons we have gleaned from evolving evidence, our experiences, and developing and implementing an approach to leader rounding for high reliability.

ESTABLISH A PROCESS

Leader rounding for high reliability is performed by health care organization executive leadership, directors, managers, and supervisors. When properly conducted, increased levels of teamwork and more effective bidirectional communication take place, resulting in a united team motivated to improve patient safety.^16,17 Important early steps for implementing leader rounding for high reliability include establishing a process and getting leadership buy-in.Purposeful attention to planning is critical as is understanding the organizational factors that might deter success.Establishing a process should consider facilitators and barriers to implementation, which can include high vs low leadership turnover, structured vs unstructured rounding, and time for rounding vs competing demands.^18,19 We have learned thateffective planning is important for ensuring that leadership teams are well prepared and ambitious about leader rounding for high reliability.

Leader rounding for high reliability involves brief 10-to-15-minute interactions with interdisciplinary teams, including frontline staff. For health care organizations beginning to implement this approach, having scripts or checklists accessible might be of help. If possible, the rounds should be scheduled in advance. This helps to avoid rounding in areas at their busiest times. When possible, leader rounding for high reliability should occur as planned. Canceling rounds sends the message that leader rounding for high reliability and the valuable interactions they support are a low priority. When conflicts arise, another leader should be sent to participate. Developing a list of questions in advance helps to underscore key messages to be shared as well as reinforce principles, practices, behaviors, and attitudes related to high reliability (Appendix 1).¹¹

Finally, closing the loop is critical to the leader rounding process and to improve bidirectional communication. Closed-loop communication, following up on and/or closing out an area of discussion, not only promotes a shared understanding of information but has been found to improve patient safety.¹⁹ Effective leader rounding for high reliability includes summarizing issues and opportunities, deciding on a date for resolution for open action items, and identifying who is responsible for taking action. Senior leaders are not responsible for resolving all issues. If a team or manager of a work area can solve any issues identified, this should be encouraged and supported so accountability is maintained at the most appropriate level of the organization.

Instrumental to leader rounding for high reliability is establishing a cadence for when leaders will visit work areas.¹⁴ The most critical strategy, especially in times of change, is consistency in rounding.¹¹ At the start of implementation, we decided on a biweekly cadence. Initially leaders visited areas of the organization within their respective reporting structure. Once this was established, leaders periodically round in areas outside their scope of responsibility. This affords leaders the opportunity to observe other areas of the organization. As noted, it is important for leaders to be flexible with the rounding process especially in areas where direct patient care is being provided.

Tracking

Developing a tracking tool also is important for an effective leader rounding process. This tool is used to document issues and concerns identified during the rounding process, assign accountability, track the status of items, and close the loop when completed. One of the most commonly reported hurdles to staff sharing information to promote a culture of safety is the lack of feedback on what actions were taken to address the concern or issue raised with leadership. Closed-loop communication is critical for keeping staff continually engaged in efforts to promote a culture of safety.²⁰ We have found that a tracking tool helps to ensure that closed-loop communication takes place.

Various platforms can be used for tracking items and providing follow-up, including paper worksheets, spreadsheets, databases, or third party software (eg, SharePoint, TruthPoint Rounds, GetWell Rounds). The tracking tool should have a standardized approach for prioritizing issues.

Measuring Impact

Measuring the impact is a critical step to determine the overall effectiveness of leader rounding for high reliability. It can be as simple as requesting candid feedback from frontline staff, supervisors, managers, and service chiefs. For example, 4 months into the implementation process, the VABHS administered a brief staff survey on the overall process, perceived benefits, and challenges experienced (Appendix 2). Potential measures include the counts of leaders rounding, total rounds, rounds cancelled, and staff members actively participating in rounds. Outcomes that can be measured include issues identified, addressed, elevated, and remaining open; number of extended workdays due to rounds; staff staying overtime; and delays in patient care activities.²³ Other measures to consider are the effects of rounding on staff as well as patient/family satisfaction, increase in the number of errors and near-miss events reported per month in a health care organizations’ patient safety reporting system, and increased engagement of staff members in continuous process improvement activities. Since the inception of leader rounding for high reliability, the VABHS has seen a slight increase in the number of events entered in the patient safety reporting system. Other factors that may have contributed to this change, including encouragement of reporting at safety forums, and tiered safety huddles.

DISCUSSION

This initiative involved the development and implementation of a leader rounding for high reliability process at the VABHS with the overarching goal of ensuring efficient communication exists among members of the health care team for delivering safe, quality patient care. The initiative was well received by staff from senior leadership to frontline personnel and promoted significant interest in efforts to improve safety across the health care system.

The pilot phase permitted us to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the process to leadership as well as frontline staff. The insight gained and lessons learned through the implementation process helped us make revisions where needed and develop the tools to ensure success. In the second phase of implementation, which commenced in December 2023, each executive leadership team member began leader rounding for high reliability with their respective department service chiefs. Throughout this phase, feedback will be sought on the overall process, perceived benefits, and challenges experienced to make improvements or changes as needed. We also will continue to monitor the number of events entered in the patient safety reporting system. Future efforts will focus on developing a robust program of evaluation to explore the impact of the program on patient/family satisfaction as well as safety outcomes.

Limitations

Developing and implementing a process for leader rounding for high reliability was undertaken to support the VABHS and VHA journey to high reliability. Other health care organizations and integrated systems might identify different processes for improving patient safety and to support their journey to becoming an HRO.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of leader rounding for high reliability to improve patient safety cannot be emphasized enough in a time where health care systems have become increasingly complex. Health care is a complex adaptive system that requires effective, bidirectional communication and collaboration among all disciplines. One of the most useful, evidence-based strategies for promoting this communication and collaboration to improve a culture of safety is leader rounding for high reliability.

The hospital is altogether the most complex human organization ever devised. Peter Drucker ¹

The ever-changing landscape of today’s increasingly complex health care system depends on implementing multifaceted, team-based methods of care delivery to provide safe, effective patient care.²Critical to establishing and sustaining exceptionally safe, effective patient care is open, transparent communication among members of interprofessional teams with senior leaders.³ However, current evidence shows thatpoor communication among interprofessional health care teams and leadership is commonplace and a significant contributing factor to inefficiencies, medical errors, and poor outcomes.⁴ One strategy for improving communication is through the implementation of leader rounding for high reliability. The concept of high reliability pertains to organizations that operate in high-risk environments for prolonged periods without serious adverse events or catastrophic failures.⁵ The overarching goal of implementation is to ensure that efficient communication exists among members of the health care team, which is essential for providing safe, quality patient care.

We describe the importance of leader rounding for high reliability as an approach to improving patient safety.Based on a review of the literature, our experiences, and lessons learned, we offer recommendations for how health care organizations on the journey to high reliability can improve patient safety.

Rounding in health care is not new. In fact, rounding has been a strong principal practice globally for more than 2 decades.⁶ During this time, varied rounding approaches have emerged, oftentimes focused on areas of interest, such as patient care, environmental services, facilities management, and discharge planning.^4,7 Variations also might involve the location of the rounds, such as a patient’s bedside, unit hallways, and conference rooms as well as the naming of rounds, such as interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary, teaching, and walkrounds.^7-10

A different type of rounding that is characteristic of high reliability organizations (HROs) is leader rounding for high reliability. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) formally launched its journey to becoming an enterprise HRO in February 2019, using 3 cohorts. At the Veterans Affairs Bedford Healthcare System (VABHS) in Massachusetts, the journey commenced in 2021 as part of the third cohort. Leader rounding for high reliability is one of VHAs 4 HRO foundational practices for achieving a culture of safety (Figure 1).¹¹

Leader rounding for high reliability includes regularly scheduled, structured visits, with interdisciplinary teams to discuss high reliability, safety, and improvement efforts.The specific aim of these particular rounds is for senior leaders to be visible where teams are located and learn from staff (especially those on the frontlines of care) about day-to-day challenges that may contribute to patient harm.^12,13 Leader rounding for high reliability is also an important approach to improving leadership visibility across the organization, demonstrating a commitment to high reliability, and building trust and relationships with staff through open and honest dialogue. It is also an important approach to increasing leadership understanding of operational, clinical, nonclinical, patient experience issues, and concern related to safety.¹¹ This opportunity enables leaders to provide and receive real-time feedback from staff.^9,11 This experience also gives leaders an opportunity to reinforce the VHA’s 3 pillars, 5 principles, and 7 values related to high reliability (Figure 2)¹⁴ as well as to recognize behaviors that support a culture of safety.¹⁵

In preparation for implementing a leader rounding for high reliability process at the VABHS, we conducted an extensive literature review for peer-reviewed publications published between January 2015 and September 2022 regarding how other organizations implemented leader rounding. This search found a dearth of evidence as it specifically relates to leader rounding for high reliability. This motivated us to create a process for developing and implementing leader rounding for high reliability in pursuit of improving patient safety. With this objective in mind, we created and piloted a process in the fall of 2023. The first 3 months were focused on the medical center director rounding with other members of the executive leadership team to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the process. In December 2023, members of the executive leadership team began conducting leader rounding for high reliability separately. The following steps are based on the lessons we have gleaned from evolving evidence, our experiences, and developing and implementing an approach to leader rounding for high reliability.

ESTABLISH A PROCESS

Leader rounding for high reliability is performed by health care organization executive leadership, directors, managers, and supervisors. When properly conducted, increased levels of teamwork and more effective bidirectional communication take place, resulting in a united team motivated to improve patient safety.^16,17 Important early steps for implementing leader rounding for high reliability include establishing a process and getting leadership buy-in.Purposeful attention to planning is critical as is understanding the organizational factors that might deter success.Establishing a process should consider facilitators and barriers to implementation, which can include high vs low leadership turnover, structured vs unstructured rounding, and time for rounding vs competing demands.^18,19 We have learned thateffective planning is important for ensuring that leadership teams are well prepared and ambitious about leader rounding for high reliability.

Leader rounding for high reliability involves brief 10-to-15-minute interactions with interdisciplinary teams, including frontline staff. For health care organizations beginning to implement this approach, having scripts or checklists accessible might be of help. If possible, the rounds should be scheduled in advance. This helps to avoid rounding in areas at their busiest times. When possible, leader rounding for high reliability should occur as planned. Canceling rounds sends the message that leader rounding for high reliability and the valuable interactions they support are a low priority. When conflicts arise, another leader should be sent to participate. Developing a list of questions in advance helps to underscore key messages to be shared as well as reinforce principles, practices, behaviors, and attitudes related to high reliability (Appendix 1).¹¹

Finally, closing the loop is critical to the leader rounding process and to improve bidirectional communication. Closed-loop communication, following up on and/or closing out an area of discussion, not only promotes a shared understanding of information but has been found to improve patient safety.¹⁹ Effective leader rounding for high reliability includes summarizing issues and opportunities, deciding on a date for resolution for open action items, and identifying who is responsible for taking action. Senior leaders are not responsible for resolving all issues. If a team or manager of a work area can solve any issues identified, this should be encouraged and supported so accountability is maintained at the most appropriate level of the organization.

Instrumental to leader rounding for high reliability is establishing a cadence for when leaders will visit work areas.¹⁴ The most critical strategy, especially in times of change, is consistency in rounding.¹¹ At the start of implementation, we decided on a biweekly cadence. Initially leaders visited areas of the organization within their respective reporting structure. Once this was established, leaders periodically round in areas outside their scope of responsibility. This affords leaders the opportunity to observe other areas of the organization. As noted, it is important for leaders to be flexible with the rounding process especially in areas where direct patient care is being provided.

Tracking

Developing a tracking tool also is important for an effective leader rounding process. This tool is used to document issues and concerns identified during the rounding process, assign accountability, track the status of items, and close the loop when completed. One of the most commonly reported hurdles to staff sharing information to promote a culture of safety is the lack of feedback on what actions were taken to address the concern or issue raised with leadership. Closed-loop communication is critical for keeping staff continually engaged in efforts to promote a culture of safety.²⁰ We have found that a tracking tool helps to ensure that closed-loop communication takes place.

Various platforms can be used for tracking items and providing follow-up, including paper worksheets, spreadsheets, databases, or third party software (eg, SharePoint, TruthPoint Rounds, GetWell Rounds). The tracking tool should have a standardized approach for prioritizing issues.

Measuring Impact

Measuring the impact is a critical step to determine the overall effectiveness of leader rounding for high reliability. It can be as simple as requesting candid feedback from frontline staff, supervisors, managers, and service chiefs. For example, 4 months into the implementation process, the VABHS administered a brief staff survey on the overall process, perceived benefits, and challenges experienced (Appendix 2). Potential measures include the counts of leaders rounding, total rounds, rounds cancelled, and staff members actively participating in rounds. Outcomes that can be measured include issues identified, addressed, elevated, and remaining open; number of extended workdays due to rounds; staff staying overtime; and delays in patient care activities.²³ Other measures to consider are the effects of rounding on staff as well as patient/family satisfaction, increase in the number of errors and near-miss events reported per month in a health care organizations’ patient safety reporting system, and increased engagement of staff members in continuous process improvement activities. Since the inception of leader rounding for high reliability, the VABHS has seen a slight increase in the number of events entered in the patient safety reporting system. Other factors that may have contributed to this change, including encouragement of reporting at safety forums, and tiered safety huddles.

DISCUSSION

This initiative involved the development and implementation of a leader rounding for high reliability process at the VABHS with the overarching goal of ensuring efficient communication exists among members of the health care team for delivering safe, quality patient care. The initiative was well received by staff from senior leadership to frontline personnel and promoted significant interest in efforts to improve safety across the health care system.

The pilot phase permitted us to examine the feasibility and acceptability of the process to leadership as well as frontline staff. The insight gained and lessons learned through the implementation process helped us make revisions where needed and develop the tools to ensure success. In the second phase of implementation, which commenced in December 2023, each executive leadership team member began leader rounding for high reliability with their respective department service chiefs. Throughout this phase, feedback will be sought on the overall process, perceived benefits, and challenges experienced to make improvements or changes as needed. We also will continue to monitor the number of events entered in the patient safety reporting system. Future efforts will focus on developing a robust program of evaluation to explore the impact of the program on patient/family satisfaction as well as safety outcomes.

Limitations

Developing and implementing a process for leader rounding for high reliability was undertaken to support the VABHS and VHA journey to high reliability. Other health care organizations and integrated systems might identify different processes for improving patient safety and to support their journey to becoming an HRO.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of leader rounding for high reliability to improve patient safety cannot be emphasized enough in a time where health care systems have become increasingly complex. Health care is a complex adaptive system that requires effective, bidirectional communication and collaboration among all disciplines. One of the most useful, evidence-based strategies for promoting this communication and collaboration to improve a culture of safety is leader rounding for high reliability.

The Central Texas Veteran’s Health Care System (CTVHCS) in Temple, Texas, is a 189-bed teaching hospital. CTVHCS opened the Center for Innovation and Learning (CIL) in 2022. The CIL has about 279 m² of simulation space that includes high- and low-fidelity simulation equipment and multiple laboratories, which can be used to simulate inpatient and outpatient settings. The CIL high-fidelity manikins and environment allow learners to be immersed in the simulation for maximum realism. Computer and video systems provide clear viewing of training, which allows for more in-depth debriefing and learning. CIL simulation training is used by CTVHCS staff, medical residents, and medical and physician assistant students.

The utility of technology in medical education is rapidly evolving. As noted in many studies, simulation creates an environment that can imitate real patients in the format of a lifelike manikin, anatomic regions stations, clinical tasks, and many real-life circumstances.¹ Task trainers for procedure simulation have been widely used and studied. A 2020 study noted that simulation training is effective for developing procedural skills in surgery and prevents the decay of surgical skills.²

In reviewing health care education curriculums, we noted that most of the rapid response situations are learned through active patient experiences. Rapid responses are managed by the intensive care unit and primary care teams during the day but at night are run primarily by the postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) night resident and intern. Knowing these logistics and current studies, we decided to build a rapid response simulation curriculum to improve preparedness for PGY1 residents, medical students, and physician assistant students.

Curriculum Planning

Planning the simulation curriculum began with the CTVHCS internal medicine chief resident and registered nurse (RN) educator. CTVHCS data were reviewed to identify the 3 most common rapid response calls from the past 3 years; research on the most common systems affected by rapid responses also was evaluated.

A 2019 study by Lyons and colleagues evaluated 402,023 rapid response activations across 360 hospitals and found that respiratory scenarios made up 38% and cardiac scenarios made up 37%.³ In addition, the CTVHCS has limited support in stroke neurology. Therefore, the internal medicine chief resident and RN educator decided to run 3 evolving rapid response scenarios per session that included cardiac, respiratory, and neurological scenarios. Capabilities and limitations of different high-fidelity manikins were discussed to identify and use the most appropriate simulator for each situation. Objectives that met both general medicine and site-specific education were discussed, and the program was formulated.

Program Description

Nightmare on CIL Street is a simulation-based program designed for new internal medicine residents and students to encounter difficult situations (late at night, on call, or when resources are limited; ie, weekends/holidays) in a controlled simulation environment. During the simulation, learners will be unable to transfer the patient and no additional help is available. Each learner must determine a differential diagnosis and make appropriate medical interventions with only the assistance of a nurse. Scenarios are derived from common rapid response team calls and low-volume/high-impact situations where clinical decisions must be made quickly to ensure the best patient outcomes. High-fidelity manikins that have abilities to respond to questions, simulate breathing, reproduce pathological heart and breath sounds and more are used to create a realistic patient environment.

This program aligns with 2 national Veterans Health Administration priorities: (1) connect veterans to the soonest and best care; and (2) accelerate the Veterans Health Administration journey to be a high-reliability organization (sensitivity to operations, preoccupation with failure, commitment to resilience, and deference to expertise). Nightmare on CIL Street has 3 clinical episodes: 2 cardiac (A Tell-Tale Heart), respiratory (Don’t Breathe), and neurologic (Brain Scan). Additional clinical episodes will be added based on learner feedback and assessed need.

Each simulation event encompassed all 3 episodes that an individual or a team of 2 learners rotate through in a round-robin fashion. The overarching theme for each episode was a rapid response team call with minimal resources that the learner would have to provide care and stabilization. A literature search for rapid response team training programs found few results, but the literature assisted with providing a foundation for Nightmare on CIL Street.^4,5 The goal was to completely envelop the learners in a nightmare scenario that required a solution.

After the safety brief and predata collection, learners received a phone call with minimal information about a patient in need of care. The learners responded to the requested area and provided treatment to the emergency over 25 minutes with the bedside nurse (who is an embedded participant). At the conclusion of the scenario, a physician subject matter expert who has been observing, provided a personalized 10-minute debriefing to the learner, which presented specific learning points and opportunities for the learner’s educational development. After the debriefing, learners returned to a conference room and awaited the next call. After all learners completed the 3 episodes, a group debriefing was conducted using the gather, analyze, summarize debriefing framework. The debriefing begins with an open-ended forum for learners to express their thoughts. Then, each scenario is discussed and broken down by key learning objectives. Starting with cardiac and ending with neurology, the logistics of the cases are discussed based on the trajectory of the learners during the scenarios. Each objective is discussed, and learners are allowed to ask questions before moving to the next scenario. After the debriefing, postevent data were gathered.

Objectives

The program objective was to educate residents and students on common rapid response scenarios. We devised each scenario as an evolving simulation where various interventions would improve or worsen vital signs and symptoms. Each scenario had an end goal: cardioversion (cardiac), intubation (respiratory), and transfer (neurologic). Objectives were tailored to the trainees present during the specific simulation (Table).

IMPLEMENTATION

The initial run of the simulation curriculum was implemented on February 22, 2023, and ended on May 17, 2023, with 5 events. Participants included internal medicine PGY1 residents, third-year medical students, and fourth-year physician assistant students. Internal medicine residents ran each scenario with a subject matter expert monitoring; the undergraduate medical trainees partnered with another student. Students were pulled from their ward rotations to attend the simulation, and residents were pulled from electives and wards. Each trainee was able to experience each planned scenario. They were then briefed, participated in each scenario, and ended with a debriefing, discussing each case in detail. Two subject matter experts were always available, and occasionally 4 were present to provide additional knowledge transfer to learners. These included board-certified physicians in internal medicine and pulmonary critical care. Most scenarios were conducted on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday.

The CIL provided 6 staff minimum for every event. The staff controlled the manikins and acted as embedded players for the learners to interact and work with at the bedside. Every embedded RN was provided the same script: They were a new nurse just off orientation and did not know what to do. In addition, they were instructed that no matter who the learner wanted to call/page, that person or service was not answering or unavailable. This forced learners to respond and treat the simulated patient on their own.

Survey Responses

To evaluate the effect of this program on medical education, we administered surveys to the trainees before and after the simulation (Appendix). All questions were evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale (1, minimal comfort; 10, maximum comfort). The postsurvey added an additional Likert scale question and an open-ended question.

Sixteen trainees underwent the simulation curriculum during the 2022 to 2023 academic year, 9 internal medicine PGY1 residents, 4 medical students, and 3 physician assistant students. Postsimulation surveys indicated a mean 2.2 point increase in comfort compared with the presimulation surveys across all questions and participants.

DISCUSSION

The simulation curriculum proved to be successful for all parties, including trainees, medical educators, and simulation staff. Trainees expressed gratitude for the teaching ability of the simulation and the challenge of confronting an evolving scenario. Students also stated that the simulation allowed them to identify knowledge weaknesses.

Medical technology is rapidly advancing. A study evaluating high-fidelity medical simulations between 1969 and 2003 found that they are educationally effective and complement other medical education modalities.⁶ It is also noted that care provided by junior physicians with a lack of prior exposure to emergencies and unusual clinical syndromes can lead to more adverse effects.⁷ Simulation curriculums can be used to educate junior physicians as well as trainees on a multitude of medical emergencies, teach systematic approaches to medical scenarios, and increase exposure to unfamiliar experiences.

The goals of this article are to share program details and encourage other training programs with similar capabilities to incorporate simulation into medical education. Using pre- and postsimulation surveys, there was a concrete improvement in the value obtained by participating in this simulation. The Nightmare on CIL Street learners experienced a mean 2.2 point improvement from presimulation survey to postsimulation survey. Some notable improvements were the feelings of preparedness for rapid response situations and developing a systematic approach. As the students who participated in our Nightmare on CIL Street simulation were early in training, we believe the improvement in preparation and developing a systematic approach can be key to their success in their practical environments.

From a site-specific standpoint, improvement in confidence working through cardiac, respiratory, and neurological emergencies will be very useful. The anesthesiology service intubates during respiratory failures and there is no stroke neurologist available at the CTVHCS hospital. Giving trainees experience in these conditions may allow them to better understand their role in coordination during these times and potentially improve patient outcomes. A follow-up questionnaire administered a year after this simulation may be useful in ascertaining the usefulness of the simulation and what items may have been approached differently. We encourage other institutions to build in aspects of their site-specific challenges to improve trainee awareness in approaches to critical scenarios.

Challenges

The greatest challenge for Nightmare on CIL Street was the ability to pull internal medicine residents from their clinical duties to participate in the simulation. As there are many moving parts to their clinical scheduling, residents do not always have sufficient coverage to participate in training. There were also instances where residents needed to cover for another resident preventing them from attending the simulation. In the future, this program will schedule residents months in advance and will have the simulation training built into their rotations.

Medical and physician assistant students were pulled from their ward rotations as well. They rotate on a 2-to-4-week basis and often had already experienced the simulation the week prior, leaving out students for the following week. With more longitudinal planning, students can be pulled on a rotating monthly basis to maximize their participation. Another challenge was deciding whether residents should partner or experience the simulation on their own. After some feedback, it was noted that residents preferred to experience the simulation on their own as this improves their learning value. With the limited resources available, only rotating 3 residents on a scenario limits the number of trainees who can be reached with the program. Running this program throughout an academic year can help to reach more trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating trainees on rapid response scenarios by using a simulation curriculum provides many benefits. Our trainees reported improvement in addressing cardiac, respiratory, and neurological rapid response scenarios after experiencing the simulation. They felt better prepared and had developed a better systematic approach for the future.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Pawan Sikka, MD, George Martinez, MD and Braden Anderson, MD for participating as physician experts and educating our students. We thank Naomi Devers; Dinetra Jones; Stephanie Garrett; Sara Holton; Evelina Bartnick; Tanelle Smith; Michael Lomax; Shaun Kelemen for their participation as nurses, assistants, and simulation technology experts.

The Central Texas Veteran’s Health Care System (CTVHCS) in Temple, Texas, is a 189-bed teaching hospital. CTVHCS opened the Center for Innovation and Learning (CIL) in 2022. The CIL has about 279 m² of simulation space that includes high- and low-fidelity simulation equipment and multiple laboratories, which can be used to simulate inpatient and outpatient settings. The CIL high-fidelity manikins and environment allow learners to be immersed in the simulation for maximum realism. Computer and video systems provide clear viewing of training, which allows for more in-depth debriefing and learning. CIL simulation training is used by CTVHCS staff, medical residents, and medical and physician assistant students.

The utility of technology in medical education is rapidly evolving. As noted in many studies, simulation creates an environment that can imitate real patients in the format of a lifelike manikin, anatomic regions stations, clinical tasks, and many real-life circumstances.¹ Task trainers for procedure simulation have been widely used and studied. A 2020 study noted that simulation training is effective for developing procedural skills in surgery and prevents the decay of surgical skills.²

In reviewing health care education curriculums, we noted that most of the rapid response situations are learned through active patient experiences. Rapid responses are managed by the intensive care unit and primary care teams during the day but at night are run primarily by the postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) night resident and intern. Knowing these logistics and current studies, we decided to build a rapid response simulation curriculum to improve preparedness for PGY1 residents, medical students, and physician assistant students.

Curriculum Planning

Planning the simulation curriculum began with the CTVHCS internal medicine chief resident and registered nurse (RN) educator. CTVHCS data were reviewed to identify the 3 most common rapid response calls from the past 3 years; research on the most common systems affected by rapid responses also was evaluated.

A 2019 study by Lyons and colleagues evaluated 402,023 rapid response activations across 360 hospitals and found that respiratory scenarios made up 38% and cardiac scenarios made up 37%.³ In addition, the CTVHCS has limited support in stroke neurology. Therefore, the internal medicine chief resident and RN educator decided to run 3 evolving rapid response scenarios per session that included cardiac, respiratory, and neurological scenarios. Capabilities and limitations of different high-fidelity manikins were discussed to identify and use the most appropriate simulator for each situation. Objectives that met both general medicine and site-specific education were discussed, and the program was formulated.

Program Description

Nightmare on CIL Street is a simulation-based program designed for new internal medicine residents and students to encounter difficult situations (late at night, on call, or when resources are limited; ie, weekends/holidays) in a controlled simulation environment. During the simulation, learners will be unable to transfer the patient and no additional help is available. Each learner must determine a differential diagnosis and make appropriate medical interventions with only the assistance of a nurse. Scenarios are derived from common rapid response team calls and low-volume/high-impact situations where clinical decisions must be made quickly to ensure the best patient outcomes. High-fidelity manikins that have abilities to respond to questions, simulate breathing, reproduce pathological heart and breath sounds and more are used to create a realistic patient environment.

This program aligns with 2 national Veterans Health Administration priorities: (1) connect veterans to the soonest and best care; and (2) accelerate the Veterans Health Administration journey to be a high-reliability organization (sensitivity to operations, preoccupation with failure, commitment to resilience, and deference to expertise). Nightmare on CIL Street has 3 clinical episodes: 2 cardiac (A Tell-Tale Heart), respiratory (Don’t Breathe), and neurologic (Brain Scan). Additional clinical episodes will be added based on learner feedback and assessed need.

Each simulation event encompassed all 3 episodes that an individual or a team of 2 learners rotate through in a round-robin fashion. The overarching theme for each episode was a rapid response team call with minimal resources that the learner would have to provide care and stabilization. A literature search for rapid response team training programs found few results, but the literature assisted with providing a foundation for Nightmare on CIL Street.^4,5 The goal was to completely envelop the learners in a nightmare scenario that required a solution.

After the safety brief and predata collection, learners received a phone call with minimal information about a patient in need of care. The learners responded to the requested area and provided treatment to the emergency over 25 minutes with the bedside nurse (who is an embedded participant). At the conclusion of the scenario, a physician subject matter expert who has been observing, provided a personalized 10-minute debriefing to the learner, which presented specific learning points and opportunities for the learner’s educational development. After the debriefing, learners returned to a conference room and awaited the next call. After all learners completed the 3 episodes, a group debriefing was conducted using the gather, analyze, summarize debriefing framework. The debriefing begins with an open-ended forum for learners to express their thoughts. Then, each scenario is discussed and broken down by key learning objectives. Starting with cardiac and ending with neurology, the logistics of the cases are discussed based on the trajectory of the learners during the scenarios. Each objective is discussed, and learners are allowed to ask questions before moving to the next scenario. After the debriefing, postevent data were gathered.

Objectives

The program objective was to educate residents and students on common rapid response scenarios. We devised each scenario as an evolving simulation where various interventions would improve or worsen vital signs and symptoms. Each scenario had an end goal: cardioversion (cardiac), intubation (respiratory), and transfer (neurologic). Objectives were tailored to the trainees present during the specific simulation (Table).

IMPLEMENTATION

The initial run of the simulation curriculum was implemented on February 22, 2023, and ended on May 17, 2023, with 5 events. Participants included internal medicine PGY1 residents, third-year medical students, and fourth-year physician assistant students. Internal medicine residents ran each scenario with a subject matter expert monitoring; the undergraduate medical trainees partnered with another student. Students were pulled from their ward rotations to attend the simulation, and residents were pulled from electives and wards. Each trainee was able to experience each planned scenario. They were then briefed, participated in each scenario, and ended with a debriefing, discussing each case in detail. Two subject matter experts were always available, and occasionally 4 were present to provide additional knowledge transfer to learners. These included board-certified physicians in internal medicine and pulmonary critical care. Most scenarios were conducted on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday.

The CIL provided 6 staff minimum for every event. The staff controlled the manikins and acted as embedded players for the learners to interact and work with at the bedside. Every embedded RN was provided the same script: They were a new nurse just off orientation and did not know what to do. In addition, they were instructed that no matter who the learner wanted to call/page, that person or service was not answering or unavailable. This forced learners to respond and treat the simulated patient on their own.

Survey Responses

To evaluate the effect of this program on medical education, we administered surveys to the trainees before and after the simulation (Appendix). All questions were evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale (1, minimal comfort; 10, maximum comfort). The postsurvey added an additional Likert scale question and an open-ended question.

Sixteen trainees underwent the simulation curriculum during the 2022 to 2023 academic year, 9 internal medicine PGY1 residents, 4 medical students, and 3 physician assistant students. Postsimulation surveys indicated a mean 2.2 point increase in comfort compared with the presimulation surveys across all questions and participants.

DISCUSSION

The simulation curriculum proved to be successful for all parties, including trainees, medical educators, and simulation staff. Trainees expressed gratitude for the teaching ability of the simulation and the challenge of confronting an evolving scenario. Students also stated that the simulation allowed them to identify knowledge weaknesses.

Medical technology is rapidly advancing. A study evaluating high-fidelity medical simulations between 1969 and 2003 found that they are educationally effective and complement other medical education modalities.⁶ It is also noted that care provided by junior physicians with a lack of prior exposure to emergencies and unusual clinical syndromes can lead to more adverse effects.⁷ Simulation curriculums can be used to educate junior physicians as well as trainees on a multitude of medical emergencies, teach systematic approaches to medical scenarios, and increase exposure to unfamiliar experiences.

The goals of this article are to share program details and encourage other training programs with similar capabilities to incorporate simulation into medical education. Using pre- and postsimulation surveys, there was a concrete improvement in the value obtained by participating in this simulation. The Nightmare on CIL Street learners experienced a mean 2.2 point improvement from presimulation survey to postsimulation survey. Some notable improvements were the feelings of preparedness for rapid response situations and developing a systematic approach. As the students who participated in our Nightmare on CIL Street simulation were early in training, we believe the improvement in preparation and developing a systematic approach can be key to their success in their practical environments.

From a site-specific standpoint, improvement in confidence working through cardiac, respiratory, and neurological emergencies will be very useful. The anesthesiology service intubates during respiratory failures and there is no stroke neurologist available at the CTVHCS hospital. Giving trainees experience in these conditions may allow them to better understand their role in coordination during these times and potentially improve patient outcomes. A follow-up questionnaire administered a year after this simulation may be useful in ascertaining the usefulness of the simulation and what items may have been approached differently. We encourage other institutions to build in aspects of their site-specific challenges to improve trainee awareness in approaches to critical scenarios.

Challenges

The greatest challenge for Nightmare on CIL Street was the ability to pull internal medicine residents from their clinical duties to participate in the simulation. As there are many moving parts to their clinical scheduling, residents do not always have sufficient coverage to participate in training. There were also instances where residents needed to cover for another resident preventing them from attending the simulation. In the future, this program will schedule residents months in advance and will have the simulation training built into their rotations.

Medical and physician assistant students were pulled from their ward rotations as well. They rotate on a 2-to-4-week basis and often had already experienced the simulation the week prior, leaving out students for the following week. With more longitudinal planning, students can be pulled on a rotating monthly basis to maximize their participation. Another challenge was deciding whether residents should partner or experience the simulation on their own. After some feedback, it was noted that residents preferred to experience the simulation on their own as this improves their learning value. With the limited resources available, only rotating 3 residents on a scenario limits the number of trainees who can be reached with the program. Running this program throughout an academic year can help to reach more trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating trainees on rapid response scenarios by using a simulation curriculum provides many benefits. Our trainees reported improvement in addressing cardiac, respiratory, and neurological rapid response scenarios after experiencing the simulation. They felt better prepared and had developed a better systematic approach for the future.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Pawan Sikka, MD, George Martinez, MD and Braden Anderson, MD for participating as physician experts and educating our students. We thank Naomi Devers; Dinetra Jones; Stephanie Garrett; Sara Holton; Evelina Bartnick; Tanelle Smith; Michael Lomax; Shaun Kelemen for their participation as nurses, assistants, and simulation technology experts.

The Central Texas Veteran’s Health Care System (CTVHCS) in Temple, Texas, is a 189-bed teaching hospital. CTVHCS opened the Center for Innovation and Learning (CIL) in 2022. The CIL has about 279 m² of simulation space that includes high- and low-fidelity simulation equipment and multiple laboratories, which can be used to simulate inpatient and outpatient settings. The CIL high-fidelity manikins and environment allow learners to be immersed in the simulation for maximum realism. Computer and video systems provide clear viewing of training, which allows for more in-depth debriefing and learning. CIL simulation training is used by CTVHCS staff, medical residents, and medical and physician assistant students.

The utility of technology in medical education is rapidly evolving. As noted in many studies, simulation creates an environment that can imitate real patients in the format of a lifelike manikin, anatomic regions stations, clinical tasks, and many real-life circumstances.¹ Task trainers for procedure simulation have been widely used and studied. A 2020 study noted that simulation training is effective for developing procedural skills in surgery and prevents the decay of surgical skills.²

In reviewing health care education curriculums, we noted that most of the rapid response situations are learned through active patient experiences. Rapid responses are managed by the intensive care unit and primary care teams during the day but at night are run primarily by the postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) night resident and intern. Knowing these logistics and current studies, we decided to build a rapid response simulation curriculum to improve preparedness for PGY1 residents, medical students, and physician assistant students.

Curriculum Planning

Planning the simulation curriculum began with the CTVHCS internal medicine chief resident and registered nurse (RN) educator. CTVHCS data were reviewed to identify the 3 most common rapid response calls from the past 3 years; research on the most common systems affected by rapid responses also was evaluated.

A 2019 study by Lyons and colleagues evaluated 402,023 rapid response activations across 360 hospitals and found that respiratory scenarios made up 38% and cardiac scenarios made up 37%.³ In addition, the CTVHCS has limited support in stroke neurology. Therefore, the internal medicine chief resident and RN educator decided to run 3 evolving rapid response scenarios per session that included cardiac, respiratory, and neurological scenarios. Capabilities and limitations of different high-fidelity manikins were discussed to identify and use the most appropriate simulator for each situation. Objectives that met both general medicine and site-specific education were discussed, and the program was formulated.

Program Description

Nightmare on CIL Street is a simulation-based program designed for new internal medicine residents and students to encounter difficult situations (late at night, on call, or when resources are limited; ie, weekends/holidays) in a controlled simulation environment. During the simulation, learners will be unable to transfer the patient and no additional help is available. Each learner must determine a differential diagnosis and make appropriate medical interventions with only the assistance of a nurse. Scenarios are derived from common rapid response team calls and low-volume/high-impact situations where clinical decisions must be made quickly to ensure the best patient outcomes. High-fidelity manikins that have abilities to respond to questions, simulate breathing, reproduce pathological heart and breath sounds and more are used to create a realistic patient environment.

This program aligns with 2 national Veterans Health Administration priorities: (1) connect veterans to the soonest and best care; and (2) accelerate the Veterans Health Administration journey to be a high-reliability organization (sensitivity to operations, preoccupation with failure, commitment to resilience, and deference to expertise). Nightmare on CIL Street has 3 clinical episodes: 2 cardiac (A Tell-Tale Heart), respiratory (Don’t Breathe), and neurologic (Brain Scan). Additional clinical episodes will be added based on learner feedback and assessed need.

Each simulation event encompassed all 3 episodes that an individual or a team of 2 learners rotate through in a round-robin fashion. The overarching theme for each episode was a rapid response team call with minimal resources that the learner would have to provide care and stabilization. A literature search for rapid response team training programs found few results, but the literature assisted with providing a foundation for Nightmare on CIL Street.^4,5 The goal was to completely envelop the learners in a nightmare scenario that required a solution.

After the safety brief and predata collection, learners received a phone call with minimal information about a patient in need of care. The learners responded to the requested area and provided treatment to the emergency over 25 minutes with the bedside nurse (who is an embedded participant). At the conclusion of the scenario, a physician subject matter expert who has been observing, provided a personalized 10-minute debriefing to the learner, which presented specific learning points and opportunities for the learner’s educational development. After the debriefing, learners returned to a conference room and awaited the next call. After all learners completed the 3 episodes, a group debriefing was conducted using the gather, analyze, summarize debriefing framework. The debriefing begins with an open-ended forum for learners to express their thoughts. Then, each scenario is discussed and broken down by key learning objectives. Starting with cardiac and ending with neurology, the logistics of the cases are discussed based on the trajectory of the learners during the scenarios. Each objective is discussed, and learners are allowed to ask questions before moving to the next scenario. After the debriefing, postevent data were gathered.

Objectives

The program objective was to educate residents and students on common rapid response scenarios. We devised each scenario as an evolving simulation where various interventions would improve or worsen vital signs and symptoms. Each scenario had an end goal: cardioversion (cardiac), intubation (respiratory), and transfer (neurologic). Objectives were tailored to the trainees present during the specific simulation (Table).

IMPLEMENTATION

The initial run of the simulation curriculum was implemented on February 22, 2023, and ended on May 17, 2023, with 5 events. Participants included internal medicine PGY1 residents, third-year medical students, and fourth-year physician assistant students. Internal medicine residents ran each scenario with a subject matter expert monitoring; the undergraduate medical trainees partnered with another student. Students were pulled from their ward rotations to attend the simulation, and residents were pulled from electives and wards. Each trainee was able to experience each planned scenario. They were then briefed, participated in each scenario, and ended with a debriefing, discussing each case in detail. Two subject matter experts were always available, and occasionally 4 were present to provide additional knowledge transfer to learners. These included board-certified physicians in internal medicine and pulmonary critical care. Most scenarios were conducted on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday.

The CIL provided 6 staff minimum for every event. The staff controlled the manikins and acted as embedded players for the learners to interact and work with at the bedside. Every embedded RN was provided the same script: They were a new nurse just off orientation and did not know what to do. In addition, they were instructed that no matter who the learner wanted to call/page, that person or service was not answering or unavailable. This forced learners to respond and treat the simulated patient on their own.

Survey Responses

To evaluate the effect of this program on medical education, we administered surveys to the trainees before and after the simulation (Appendix). All questions were evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale (1, minimal comfort; 10, maximum comfort). The postsurvey added an additional Likert scale question and an open-ended question.

Sixteen trainees underwent the simulation curriculum during the 2022 to 2023 academic year, 9 internal medicine PGY1 residents, 4 medical students, and 3 physician assistant students. Postsimulation surveys indicated a mean 2.2 point increase in comfort compared with the presimulation surveys across all questions and participants.

DISCUSSION

The simulation curriculum proved to be successful for all parties, including trainees, medical educators, and simulation staff. Trainees expressed gratitude for the teaching ability of the simulation and the challenge of confronting an evolving scenario. Students also stated that the simulation allowed them to identify knowledge weaknesses.

Medical technology is rapidly advancing. A study evaluating high-fidelity medical simulations between 1969 and 2003 found that they are educationally effective and complement other medical education modalities.⁶ It is also noted that care provided by junior physicians with a lack of prior exposure to emergencies and unusual clinical syndromes can lead to more adverse effects.⁷ Simulation curriculums can be used to educate junior physicians as well as trainees on a multitude of medical emergencies, teach systematic approaches to medical scenarios, and increase exposure to unfamiliar experiences.

The goals of this article are to share program details and encourage other training programs with similar capabilities to incorporate simulation into medical education. Using pre- and postsimulation surveys, there was a concrete improvement in the value obtained by participating in this simulation. The Nightmare on CIL Street learners experienced a mean 2.2 point improvement from presimulation survey to postsimulation survey. Some notable improvements were the feelings of preparedness for rapid response situations and developing a systematic approach. As the students who participated in our Nightmare on CIL Street simulation were early in training, we believe the improvement in preparation and developing a systematic approach can be key to their success in their practical environments.

From a site-specific standpoint, improvement in confidence working through cardiac, respiratory, and neurological emergencies will be very useful. The anesthesiology service intubates during respiratory failures and there is no stroke neurologist available at the CTVHCS hospital. Giving trainees experience in these conditions may allow them to better understand their role in coordination during these times and potentially improve patient outcomes. A follow-up questionnaire administered a year after this simulation may be useful in ascertaining the usefulness of the simulation and what items may have been approached differently. We encourage other institutions to build in aspects of their site-specific challenges to improve trainee awareness in approaches to critical scenarios.

Challenges

The greatest challenge for Nightmare on CIL Street was the ability to pull internal medicine residents from their clinical duties to participate in the simulation. As there are many moving parts to their clinical scheduling, residents do not always have sufficient coverage to participate in training. There were also instances where residents needed to cover for another resident preventing them from attending the simulation. In the future, this program will schedule residents months in advance and will have the simulation training built into their rotations.

Medical and physician assistant students were pulled from their ward rotations as well. They rotate on a 2-to-4-week basis and often had already experienced the simulation the week prior, leaving out students for the following week. With more longitudinal planning, students can be pulled on a rotating monthly basis to maximize their participation. Another challenge was deciding whether residents should partner or experience the simulation on their own. After some feedback, it was noted that residents preferred to experience the simulation on their own as this improves their learning value. With the limited resources available, only rotating 3 residents on a scenario limits the number of trainees who can be reached with the program. Running this program throughout an academic year can help to reach more trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating trainees on rapid response scenarios by using a simulation curriculum provides many benefits. Our trainees reported improvement in addressing cardiac, respiratory, and neurological rapid response scenarios after experiencing the simulation. They felt better prepared and had developed a better systematic approach for the future.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Pawan Sikka, MD, George Martinez, MD and Braden Anderson, MD for participating as physician experts and educating our students. We thank Naomi Devers; Dinetra Jones; Stephanie Garrett; Sara Holton; Evelina Bartnick; Tanelle Smith; Michael Lomax; Shaun Kelemen for their participation as nurses, assistants, and simulation technology experts.

Nearly 50% of living US veterans are aged ≥ 65 years compared with 18.3% of the general population.^1,2 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the US, has a vested interest in improving the quality and effectiveness of care for older veterans.³

Health care systems are often unprepared to care for the complex needs of older adults. There are roughly 7300 certified geriatricians practicing in the US, and about 250 new geriatricians are trained each year while the American Geriatrics Society expects > 12,000 geriatricians will be required by 2030.^4,5 More geriatricians are needed to serve as the primary health care professionals (HCPs) for older adults.^4,6 Health care systems like the VHA must find ways to increase geriatrics skills, knowledge, and practices among their entire health care workforce. A culture shift toward age-friendly care for older adults across care settings and inclusive of all HCPs may help meet this escalating workforce need.⁷

The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) is an initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States.^8,9 AFHS uses a what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility (4Ms) framework to ensure reliable, evidence-based care for older adults (Table 1).^10,11 In an AFHS, the 4Ms are integrated into every discipline and care setting for older adults.¹¹ The 4Ms neither replace formal training in geriatrics nor create the level of expertise needed for geriatrics teachers, researchers, and program leaders. However, the systematic approach of AFHS to assess and act on each of the 4Ms offers one solution to expand geriatrics skills and knowledge beyond geriatric care settings in all disciplines by engaging each HCP to meet the needs of older adults.¹² To act on what matters, HCPs need to align the care plan with what is important to the older adult.

Hospitals and health care systems are encouraged to begin implementing the 4Ms in ≥ 1 care setting.¹³ Care settings may get started on a do-it-yourself track or by joining an IHI Action Community, which provides a series of webinars to help adopt the 4Ms over 7 months.¹⁴ By creating a plan for how each M will be assessed, documented, and acted on, care settings may earn level 1 recognition from the IHI.¹⁴ As of July 2023, there are at least 3100 AFHS participants and > 1900 have achieved level 2 recognition, which requires 3 months of clinical data to demonstrate the impact of the 4Ms.^13,14

The main cultural shift of the AFHS movement is to focus on what matters to older adults by prioritizing each older adult’s personal health goals and care preferences across all care settings.^9,11 Medication addresses age-appropropriate prescribing, making dose adjustments, if needed, and avoiding/deprescribing high-risk medications that may interfere with what matters, mentation, or mobility. The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults is often used as a guide and includes lists of medications that are potentially harmful for older adults.¹¹ Mentation focuses on preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium across care settings. Mobility includes assisting or encouraging older adults to move safely every day to maintain functional ability and do what matters.^15,16 Each of the 4Ms has the potential to improve health outcomes for older adults, reduce waste from low-quality services, and increase the use of cost-effective services.^11,17

In March 2020, the VHA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) set the goal for the VHA to be recognized by the IHI as an AFHS.^18,19 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities that joined the AFHS movement in 2020 are considered early adopters. We describe early adopter AFHS implementation at Birmingham VA Health Care System (BVAHCS) hospital, geriatrics assessment clinic (GAC), and Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and at the Atlanta VA Medical Center (AVAMC) HBPC.

Implementing 4Ms Care

The IHI identifies 6 steps in the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to reliably practice the 4Ms. eAppendix 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the steps over a 9-month timeline independently taken by BVAHCS and AVAMC to achieve both levels of AFHS recognition.

Step 1: Understand the Current State

In March 2020 the BVAHCS enrolled in the IHI Action Community. Three BVAHCS care settings were identified for the Action Community: the inpatient hospital, GAC (an outpatient clinic), and HBPC. The AVAMC HBPC enrolled in the IHI Action Community in March 2021.

Before joining the AFHS movement, the BVAHCS implemented a hospital-wide delirium standard operating procedure (SOP) whereby every veteran admitted to the 313-bed hospital is screened for delirium risk, with positive screens linked to nursing-led interventions. Nursing leadership supported AFHS due to its recognized value and an exemplary process in place to assess mentation/delirium and background understanding for screening and acting on medication, mobility, and what matters most to the veteran. The BVAHCS GAC, which was led by a single geriatrician, integrated the 4Ms into all geriatrics assessment appointments.

For the BVAHCS HBPC, the 4Ms supported key performance measures, such as fall prevention, patient satisfaction, decreasing medication errors, and identification of cognition and mood disorders. For the AVAMC HBPC, joining the AFHS movement represented an opportunity to improve performance measures, interdisciplinary teamwork, and care coordination for patients. For both HBPC sites, the shift to virtual meeting modalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled HBPC team members to garner support for AFHS and collectively develop a 4Ms plan.

Step 2: Describe 4Ms Care

In March 2020 as guided by the Action Community, BVAHCS created a plan for each of its 3 care settings that described assessment tools, frequency, documentation, and responsible team members. All BVAHCS care settings achieved level 1 recognition in April 2020. Of the approximately 300 veterans served by the AVAMC HBPC, 83% are aged > 65 years. They achieved level 1 recognition in August 2021.

Step 3: Design and Adapt Workflows

From April to August 2020, BVAHCS implemented its 4Ms plans. In the hospital, a 4Ms overview was provided with education on the delirium SOP at nursing meetings. Updates were requested to the electronic health record (EHR) templates for the GAC to streamline documentation. For the BVAHCS HBPC, 4Ms assessments were added to the EHR quarterly care plan template, which was updated by all team members (Table 2).

From April through June 2021, the AVAMC HBPC formed teams led by 4Ms champions: what matters was led by a nurse care manager, medication by a nurse practitioner and pharmacist, mentation by a social worker, and mobility by a physical therapist. The champions initially focused on a plan for each M, incorporating all 4Ms as a set for optimal effectiveness into their quarterly care plan meeting using what matters to drive the entire care plan.

Step 4: Provide Care

Each of the 4Ms was to be assessed, documented, and acted on for each veteran within a short period, such as a hospitalization or 1 or 2 outpatient visits. BVAHCS implemented 4Ms care in each care setting from August to October 2020. The AVAMC HBPC implemented 4Ms from July to September 2021.

Step 5: Study Performance

The IHI identifies 3 methods for measuring older adults who receive 4Ms care: real-time observation, chart review, or EHR report. For chart review, the IHI recommends using a random sample to calculate the number of patients who received 4Ms in 1 month, which provides evidence of progress toward reliable practice.

Both facilities used chart review with random sampling. Each setting estimated the number of veterans receiving 4Ms care by multiplying the percentage of sampled charts with documented 4Ms care by unique patient encounters (eAppendix 2).

From August through October 2020, BVAHCS sites reached an estimated 97% of older veterans with complete 4Ms care: hospital, 100%; GAC, 90%; and HBPC, 85%. AVAMC HBPC increased 4Ms care from 52% to 100% between July and September 2021. Both teams demonstrated the feasibility of reliably providing 4Ms care to > 85% of older veterans in these care settings and earned level 2 recognition. Through satisfaction surveys and informal feedback, notable positive changes were evident to veterans, their families, and the VA staff providing 4Ms age-friendly care.

Step 6: Improve and Sustain Care

Each site acknowledged barriers and facilitators for adopting the 4Ms. The COVID-19 pandemic was an ongoing barrier for both sites, with teams transitioning to virtual modalities for telehealth visits and team meetings, and higher staff turnover. However, the greater use of technology facilitated 4Ms adoption by allowing physically distant team members to collaborate.

One of the largest barriers was the lack of 4Ms documentation in the EHR, which could not be implemented in the BVAHCS inpatient hospital due to existing standardized nursing templates. Both sites recognized that 4Ms documentation in the EHR for all care settings would facilitate achieving level 2 recognition and tracking and reporting 4Ms care in the future.

Discussion

The AFHS 4Ms approach offers a method to impart geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practice throughout an entire health care system in a short time. The AFHS framework provides a structured pathway to the often daunting challenge of care for complex, multimorbid, and highly heterogeneous older adults. The 4Ms approach promotes the provision of evidence-based care that is reliable, efficient, patient centered, and avoids unwanted care: worthy goals not only for geriatrics but for all members of a high-reliability organization.

Through the implementation of the 4Ms framework, consistent use of AFHS practices, measurement, and feedback, the staff in each VA care setting reported here reached a level of reliability in which at least 85% of patients had all 4Ms addressed. Notably, adoption was strong and improvements in reliably addressing all 4Ms were observed in both geriatrics (HBPC and outpatient clinics) and nongeriatrics (inpatient medicine) settings. Although one might expect that high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics-focused VA settings were routinely addressing all 4Ms for most of their patients, our experience was consistent with prior teams indicating that this is often not the case. Although many of these teams were addressing some of the 4Ms in their usual practice, the 4Ms framework facilitated addressing all 4Ms as a set with input from all team members. Most importantly, it fostered a culture of asking the older adult what matters most and documenting, sharing, and aligning this with the care plan. Within 6 months, all VA care settings achieved level 1 recognition, and within 9 months, all achieved level 2 recognition.

Lessons Learned

Key lessons learned include the importance of identifying, preparing, and supporting a champion to lead this effort; garnering facility and system leadership support at the outset; and integration with the EHR for reliable and efficient data capture, reporting, and feedback. Preparing and supporting champions was achieved through national and individual calls and peer support. Guidance was provided on garnering leadership support, including local needs assessment and data analysis, meeting with leadership to first understand their key challenges and priorities and provide information on the AFHS movement, requesting a follow-up meeting to discuss local needs and data, and exploring how an AFHS might help address one or more of their priorities.

In September 2022, an AFHS 4Ms note template was introduced into the EHR for all VA sites for data capture and reporting, to standardize and facilitate documentation across all age-friendly VA sites, and decrease the reporting burden for staff. This effort is critically important: The ability to document, track, and analyze 4Ms measures, provide feedback, and synergize efforts across systems is vital to design studies to determine whether the AFHS 4Ms approach to care achieves substantive improvements in patient care across settings.

Limitations

Limitations of this analysis include the small sample of care settings, which did not include a skilled nursing or long-term care facility, nor general primary care. Although the short timeframe assessed did not allow us to report on the anticipated clinical outcomes of 4Ms care, it does set up a foundation for evaluation of the 4Ms and EHR integration and dashboard development.

Conclusions

The VHA provides a comprehensive spectrum of geriatrics services and innovative models of care that often serve as exemplars to other health care systems. Implementing the AFHS framework to assess and act on the 4Ms provides a structure for confronting the HCP shortage with geriatrics expertise by infusing geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practices throughout all care settings and disciplines. Enhancing patient-centered care to older veterans through AFHS implementation exemplifies the VHA as a learning health care system.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Veterans Health Administration Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care and the clinical staff from the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System for assisting us in this work.

Nearly 50% of living US veterans are aged ≥ 65 years compared with 18.3% of the general population.^1,2 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the US, has a vested interest in improving the quality and effectiveness of care for older veterans.³

Health care systems are often unprepared to care for the complex needs of older adults. There are roughly 7300 certified geriatricians practicing in the US, and about 250 new geriatricians are trained each year while the American Geriatrics Society expects > 12,000 geriatricians will be required by 2030.^4,5 More geriatricians are needed to serve as the primary health care professionals (HCPs) for older adults.^4,6 Health care systems like the VHA must find ways to increase geriatrics skills, knowledge, and practices among their entire health care workforce. A culture shift toward age-friendly care for older adults across care settings and inclusive of all HCPs may help meet this escalating workforce need.⁷

The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) is an initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States.^8,9 AFHS uses a what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility (4Ms) framework to ensure reliable, evidence-based care for older adults (Table 1).^10,11 In an AFHS, the 4Ms are integrated into every discipline and care setting for older adults.¹¹ The 4Ms neither replace formal training in geriatrics nor create the level of expertise needed for geriatrics teachers, researchers, and program leaders. However, the systematic approach of AFHS to assess and act on each of the 4Ms offers one solution to expand geriatrics skills and knowledge beyond geriatric care settings in all disciplines by engaging each HCP to meet the needs of older adults.¹² To act on what matters, HCPs need to align the care plan with what is important to the older adult.

Hospitals and health care systems are encouraged to begin implementing the 4Ms in ≥ 1 care setting.¹³ Care settings may get started on a do-it-yourself track or by joining an IHI Action Community, which provides a series of webinars to help adopt the 4Ms over 7 months.¹⁴ By creating a plan for how each M will be assessed, documented, and acted on, care settings may earn level 1 recognition from the IHI.¹⁴ As of July 2023, there are at least 3100 AFHS participants and > 1900 have achieved level 2 recognition, which requires 3 months of clinical data to demonstrate the impact of the 4Ms.^13,14

The main cultural shift of the AFHS movement is to focus on what matters to older adults by prioritizing each older adult’s personal health goals and care preferences across all care settings.^9,11 Medication addresses age-appropropriate prescribing, making dose adjustments, if needed, and avoiding/deprescribing high-risk medications that may interfere with what matters, mentation, or mobility. The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults is often used as a guide and includes lists of medications that are potentially harmful for older adults.¹¹ Mentation focuses on preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium across care settings. Mobility includes assisting or encouraging older adults to move safely every day to maintain functional ability and do what matters.^15,16 Each of the 4Ms has the potential to improve health outcomes for older adults, reduce waste from low-quality services, and increase the use of cost-effective services.^11,17

In March 2020, the VHA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) set the goal for the VHA to be recognized by the IHI as an AFHS.^18,19 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities that joined the AFHS movement in 2020 are considered early adopters. We describe early adopter AFHS implementation at Birmingham VA Health Care System (BVAHCS) hospital, geriatrics assessment clinic (GAC), and Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and at the Atlanta VA Medical Center (AVAMC) HBPC.

Implementing 4Ms Care

The IHI identifies 6 steps in the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to reliably practice the 4Ms. eAppendix 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the steps over a 9-month timeline independently taken by BVAHCS and AVAMC to achieve both levels of AFHS recognition.

Step 1: Understand the Current State

In March 2020 the BVAHCS enrolled in the IHI Action Community. Three BVAHCS care settings were identified for the Action Community: the inpatient hospital, GAC (an outpatient clinic), and HBPC. The AVAMC HBPC enrolled in the IHI Action Community in March 2021.

Before joining the AFHS movement, the BVAHCS implemented a hospital-wide delirium standard operating procedure (SOP) whereby every veteran admitted to the 313-bed hospital is screened for delirium risk, with positive screens linked to nursing-led interventions. Nursing leadership supported AFHS due to its recognized value and an exemplary process in place to assess mentation/delirium and background understanding for screening and acting on medication, mobility, and what matters most to the veteran. The BVAHCS GAC, which was led by a single geriatrician, integrated the 4Ms into all geriatrics assessment appointments.

For the BVAHCS HBPC, the 4Ms supported key performance measures, such as fall prevention, patient satisfaction, decreasing medication errors, and identification of cognition and mood disorders. For the AVAMC HBPC, joining the AFHS movement represented an opportunity to improve performance measures, interdisciplinary teamwork, and care coordination for patients. For both HBPC sites, the shift to virtual meeting modalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled HBPC team members to garner support for AFHS and collectively develop a 4Ms plan.

Step 2: Describe 4Ms Care

In March 2020 as guided by the Action Community, BVAHCS created a plan for each of its 3 care settings that described assessment tools, frequency, documentation, and responsible team members. All BVAHCS care settings achieved level 1 recognition in April 2020. Of the approximately 300 veterans served by the AVAMC HBPC, 83% are aged > 65 years. They achieved level 1 recognition in August 2021.

Step 3: Design and Adapt Workflows

From April to August 2020, BVAHCS implemented its 4Ms plans. In the hospital, a 4Ms overview was provided with education on the delirium SOP at nursing meetings. Updates were requested to the electronic health record (EHR) templates for the GAC to streamline documentation. For the BVAHCS HBPC, 4Ms assessments were added to the EHR quarterly care plan template, which was updated by all team members (Table 2).

From April through June 2021, the AVAMC HBPC formed teams led by 4Ms champions: what matters was led by a nurse care manager, medication by a nurse practitioner and pharmacist, mentation by a social worker, and mobility by a physical therapist. The champions initially focused on a plan for each M, incorporating all 4Ms as a set for optimal effectiveness into their quarterly care plan meeting using what matters to drive the entire care plan.

Step 4: Provide Care

Each of the 4Ms was to be assessed, documented, and acted on for each veteran within a short period, such as a hospitalization or 1 or 2 outpatient visits. BVAHCS implemented 4Ms care in each care setting from August to October 2020. The AVAMC HBPC implemented 4Ms from July to September 2021.

Step 5: Study Performance

The IHI identifies 3 methods for measuring older adults who receive 4Ms care: real-time observation, chart review, or EHR report. For chart review, the IHI recommends using a random sample to calculate the number of patients who received 4Ms in 1 month, which provides evidence of progress toward reliable practice.

Both facilities used chart review with random sampling. Each setting estimated the number of veterans receiving 4Ms care by multiplying the percentage of sampled charts with documented 4Ms care by unique patient encounters (eAppendix 2).

From August through October 2020, BVAHCS sites reached an estimated 97% of older veterans with complete 4Ms care: hospital, 100%; GAC, 90%; and HBPC, 85%. AVAMC HBPC increased 4Ms care from 52% to 100% between July and September 2021. Both teams demonstrated the feasibility of reliably providing 4Ms care to > 85% of older veterans in these care settings and earned level 2 recognition. Through satisfaction surveys and informal feedback, notable positive changes were evident to veterans, their families, and the VA staff providing 4Ms age-friendly care.

Step 6: Improve and Sustain Care

Each site acknowledged barriers and facilitators for adopting the 4Ms. The COVID-19 pandemic was an ongoing barrier for both sites, with teams transitioning to virtual modalities for telehealth visits and team meetings, and higher staff turnover. However, the greater use of technology facilitated 4Ms adoption by allowing physically distant team members to collaborate.

One of the largest barriers was the lack of 4Ms documentation in the EHR, which could not be implemented in the BVAHCS inpatient hospital due to existing standardized nursing templates. Both sites recognized that 4Ms documentation in the EHR for all care settings would facilitate achieving level 2 recognition and tracking and reporting 4Ms care in the future.

Discussion

The AFHS 4Ms approach offers a method to impart geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practice throughout an entire health care system in a short time. The AFHS framework provides a structured pathway to the often daunting challenge of care for complex, multimorbid, and highly heterogeneous older adults. The 4Ms approach promotes the provision of evidence-based care that is reliable, efficient, patient centered, and avoids unwanted care: worthy goals not only for geriatrics but for all members of a high-reliability organization.

Through the implementation of the 4Ms framework, consistent use of AFHS practices, measurement, and feedback, the staff in each VA care setting reported here reached a level of reliability in which at least 85% of patients had all 4Ms addressed. Notably, adoption was strong and improvements in reliably addressing all 4Ms were observed in both geriatrics (HBPC and outpatient clinics) and nongeriatrics (inpatient medicine) settings. Although one might expect that high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics-focused VA settings were routinely addressing all 4Ms for most of their patients, our experience was consistent with prior teams indicating that this is often not the case. Although many of these teams were addressing some of the 4Ms in their usual practice, the 4Ms framework facilitated addressing all 4Ms as a set with input from all team members. Most importantly, it fostered a culture of asking the older adult what matters most and documenting, sharing, and aligning this with the care plan. Within 6 months, all VA care settings achieved level 1 recognition, and within 9 months, all achieved level 2 recognition.

Lessons Learned

Key lessons learned include the importance of identifying, preparing, and supporting a champion to lead this effort; garnering facility and system leadership support at the outset; and integration with the EHR for reliable and efficient data capture, reporting, and feedback. Preparing and supporting champions was achieved through national and individual calls and peer support. Guidance was provided on garnering leadership support, including local needs assessment and data analysis, meeting with leadership to first understand their key challenges and priorities and provide information on the AFHS movement, requesting a follow-up meeting to discuss local needs and data, and exploring how an AFHS might help address one or more of their priorities.

In September 2022, an AFHS 4Ms note template was introduced into the EHR for all VA sites for data capture and reporting, to standardize and facilitate documentation across all age-friendly VA sites, and decrease the reporting burden for staff. This effort is critically important: The ability to document, track, and analyze 4Ms measures, provide feedback, and synergize efforts across systems is vital to design studies to determine whether the AFHS 4Ms approach to care achieves substantive improvements in patient care across settings.

Limitations

Limitations of this analysis include the small sample of care settings, which did not include a skilled nursing or long-term care facility, nor general primary care. Although the short timeframe assessed did not allow us to report on the anticipated clinical outcomes of 4Ms care, it does set up a foundation for evaluation of the 4Ms and EHR integration and dashboard development.

Conclusions

The VHA provides a comprehensive spectrum of geriatrics services and innovative models of care that often serve as exemplars to other health care systems. Implementing the AFHS framework to assess and act on the 4Ms provides a structure for confronting the HCP shortage with geriatrics expertise by infusing geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practices throughout all care settings and disciplines. Enhancing patient-centered care to older veterans through AFHS implementation exemplifies the VHA as a learning health care system.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Veterans Health Administration Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care and the clinical staff from the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System for assisting us in this work.

Nearly 50% of living US veterans are aged ≥ 65 years compared with 18.3% of the general population.^1,2 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the US, has a vested interest in improving the quality and effectiveness of care for older veterans.³

Health care systems are often unprepared to care for the complex needs of older adults. There are roughly 7300 certified geriatricians practicing in the US, and about 250 new geriatricians are trained each year while the American Geriatrics Society expects > 12,000 geriatricians will be required by 2030.^4,5 More geriatricians are needed to serve as the primary health care professionals (HCPs) for older adults.^4,6 Health care systems like the VHA must find ways to increase geriatrics skills, knowledge, and practices among their entire health care workforce. A culture shift toward age-friendly care for older adults across care settings and inclusive of all HCPs may help meet this escalating workforce need.⁷

The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) is an initiative of the John A. Hartford Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) in partnership with the American Hospital Association and the Catholic Health Association of the United States.^8,9 AFHS uses a what matters, medication, mentation, and mobility (4Ms) framework to ensure reliable, evidence-based care for older adults (Table 1).^10,11 In an AFHS, the 4Ms are integrated into every discipline and care setting for older adults.¹¹ The 4Ms neither replace formal training in geriatrics nor create the level of expertise needed for geriatrics teachers, researchers, and program leaders. However, the systematic approach of AFHS to assess and act on each of the 4Ms offers one solution to expand geriatrics skills and knowledge beyond geriatric care settings in all disciplines by engaging each HCP to meet the needs of older adults.¹² To act on what matters, HCPs need to align the care plan with what is important to the older adult.

Hospitals and health care systems are encouraged to begin implementing the 4Ms in ≥ 1 care setting.¹³ Care settings may get started on a do-it-yourself track or by joining an IHI Action Community, which provides a series of webinars to help adopt the 4Ms over 7 months.¹⁴ By creating a plan for how each M will be assessed, documented, and acted on, care settings may earn level 1 recognition from the IHI.¹⁴ As of July 2023, there are at least 3100 AFHS participants and > 1900 have achieved level 2 recognition, which requires 3 months of clinical data to demonstrate the impact of the 4Ms.^13,14

The main cultural shift of the AFHS movement is to focus on what matters to older adults by prioritizing each older adult’s personal health goals and care preferences across all care settings.^9,11 Medication addresses age-appropropriate prescribing, making dose adjustments, if needed, and avoiding/deprescribing high-risk medications that may interfere with what matters, mentation, or mobility. The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults is often used as a guide and includes lists of medications that are potentially harmful for older adults.¹¹ Mentation focuses on preventing, identifying, treating, and managing dementia, depression, and delirium across care settings. Mobility includes assisting or encouraging older adults to move safely every day to maintain functional ability and do what matters.^15,16 Each of the 4Ms has the potential to improve health outcomes for older adults, reduce waste from low-quality services, and increase the use of cost-effective services.^11,17

In March 2020, the VHA Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) set the goal for the VHA to be recognized by the IHI as an AFHS.^18,19 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities that joined the AFHS movement in 2020 are considered early adopters. We describe early adopter AFHS implementation at Birmingham VA Health Care System (BVAHCS) hospital, geriatrics assessment clinic (GAC), and Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) and at the Atlanta VA Medical Center (AVAMC) HBPC.

Implementing 4Ms Care

The IHI identifies 6 steps in the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle to reliably practice the 4Ms. eAppendix 1 provides a side-by-side comparison of the steps over a 9-month timeline independently taken by BVAHCS and AVAMC to achieve both levels of AFHS recognition.

Step 1: Understand the Current State

In March 2020 the BVAHCS enrolled in the IHI Action Community. Three BVAHCS care settings were identified for the Action Community: the inpatient hospital, GAC (an outpatient clinic), and HBPC. The AVAMC HBPC enrolled in the IHI Action Community in March 2021.

Before joining the AFHS movement, the BVAHCS implemented a hospital-wide delirium standard operating procedure (SOP) whereby every veteran admitted to the 313-bed hospital is screened for delirium risk, with positive screens linked to nursing-led interventions. Nursing leadership supported AFHS due to its recognized value and an exemplary process in place to assess mentation/delirium and background understanding for screening and acting on medication, mobility, and what matters most to the veteran. The BVAHCS GAC, which was led by a single geriatrician, integrated the 4Ms into all geriatrics assessment appointments.

For the BVAHCS HBPC, the 4Ms supported key performance measures, such as fall prevention, patient satisfaction, decreasing medication errors, and identification of cognition and mood disorders. For the AVAMC HBPC, joining the AFHS movement represented an opportunity to improve performance measures, interdisciplinary teamwork, and care coordination for patients. For both HBPC sites, the shift to virtual meeting modalities due to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled HBPC team members to garner support for AFHS and collectively develop a 4Ms plan.

Step 2: Describe 4Ms Care

In March 2020 as guided by the Action Community, BVAHCS created a plan for each of its 3 care settings that described assessment tools, frequency, documentation, and responsible team members. All BVAHCS care settings achieved level 1 recognition in April 2020. Of the approximately 300 veterans served by the AVAMC HBPC, 83% are aged > 65 years. They achieved level 1 recognition in August 2021.

Step 3: Design and Adapt Workflows

From April to August 2020, BVAHCS implemented its 4Ms plans. In the hospital, a 4Ms overview was provided with education on the delirium SOP at nursing meetings. Updates were requested to the electronic health record (EHR) templates for the GAC to streamline documentation. For the BVAHCS HBPC, 4Ms assessments were added to the EHR quarterly care plan template, which was updated by all team members (Table 2).

From April through June 2021, the AVAMC HBPC formed teams led by 4Ms champions: what matters was led by a nurse care manager, medication by a nurse practitioner and pharmacist, mentation by a social worker, and mobility by a physical therapist. The champions initially focused on a plan for each M, incorporating all 4Ms as a set for optimal effectiveness into their quarterly care plan meeting using what matters to drive the entire care plan.

Step 4: Provide Care

Each of the 4Ms was to be assessed, documented, and acted on for each veteran within a short period, such as a hospitalization or 1 or 2 outpatient visits. BVAHCS implemented 4Ms care in each care setting from August to October 2020. The AVAMC HBPC implemented 4Ms from July to September 2021.

Step 5: Study Performance

The IHI identifies 3 methods for measuring older adults who receive 4Ms care: real-time observation, chart review, or EHR report. For chart review, the IHI recommends using a random sample to calculate the number of patients who received 4Ms in 1 month, which provides evidence of progress toward reliable practice.

Both facilities used chart review with random sampling. Each setting estimated the number of veterans receiving 4Ms care by multiplying the percentage of sampled charts with documented 4Ms care by unique patient encounters (eAppendix 2).

From August through October 2020, BVAHCS sites reached an estimated 97% of older veterans with complete 4Ms care: hospital, 100%; GAC, 90%; and HBPC, 85%. AVAMC HBPC increased 4Ms care from 52% to 100% between July and September 2021. Both teams demonstrated the feasibility of reliably providing 4Ms care to > 85% of older veterans in these care settings and earned level 2 recognition. Through satisfaction surveys and informal feedback, notable positive changes were evident to veterans, their families, and the VA staff providing 4Ms age-friendly care.

Step 6: Improve and Sustain Care

Each site acknowledged barriers and facilitators for adopting the 4Ms. The COVID-19 pandemic was an ongoing barrier for both sites, with teams transitioning to virtual modalities for telehealth visits and team meetings, and higher staff turnover. However, the greater use of technology facilitated 4Ms adoption by allowing physically distant team members to collaborate.

One of the largest barriers was the lack of 4Ms documentation in the EHR, which could not be implemented in the BVAHCS inpatient hospital due to existing standardized nursing templates. Both sites recognized that 4Ms documentation in the EHR for all care settings would facilitate achieving level 2 recognition and tracking and reporting 4Ms care in the future.

Discussion

The AFHS 4Ms approach offers a method to impart geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practice throughout an entire health care system in a short time. The AFHS framework provides a structured pathway to the often daunting challenge of care for complex, multimorbid, and highly heterogeneous older adults. The 4Ms approach promotes the provision of evidence-based care that is reliable, efficient, patient centered, and avoids unwanted care: worthy goals not only for geriatrics but for all members of a high-reliability organization.

Through the implementation of the 4Ms framework, consistent use of AFHS practices, measurement, and feedback, the staff in each VA care setting reported here reached a level of reliability in which at least 85% of patients had all 4Ms addressed. Notably, adoption was strong and improvements in reliably addressing all 4Ms were observed in both geriatrics (HBPC and outpatient clinics) and nongeriatrics (inpatient medicine) settings. Although one might expect that high-functioning interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics-focused VA settings were routinely addressing all 4Ms for most of their patients, our experience was consistent with prior teams indicating that this is often not the case. Although many of these teams were addressing some of the 4Ms in their usual practice, the 4Ms framework facilitated addressing all 4Ms as a set with input from all team members. Most importantly, it fostered a culture of asking the older adult what matters most and documenting, sharing, and aligning this with the care plan. Within 6 months, all VA care settings achieved level 1 recognition, and within 9 months, all achieved level 2 recognition.

Lessons Learned

Key lessons learned include the importance of identifying, preparing, and supporting a champion to lead this effort; garnering facility and system leadership support at the outset; and integration with the EHR for reliable and efficient data capture, reporting, and feedback. Preparing and supporting champions was achieved through national and individual calls and peer support. Guidance was provided on garnering leadership support, including local needs assessment and data analysis, meeting with leadership to first understand their key challenges and priorities and provide information on the AFHS movement, requesting a follow-up meeting to discuss local needs and data, and exploring how an AFHS might help address one or more of their priorities.

In September 2022, an AFHS 4Ms note template was introduced into the EHR for all VA sites for data capture and reporting, to standardize and facilitate documentation across all age-friendly VA sites, and decrease the reporting burden for staff. This effort is critically important: The ability to document, track, and analyze 4Ms measures, provide feedback, and synergize efforts across systems is vital to design studies to determine whether the AFHS 4Ms approach to care achieves substantive improvements in patient care across settings.

Limitations

Limitations of this analysis include the small sample of care settings, which did not include a skilled nursing or long-term care facility, nor general primary care. Although the short timeframe assessed did not allow us to report on the anticipated clinical outcomes of 4Ms care, it does set up a foundation for evaluation of the 4Ms and EHR integration and dashboard development.

Conclusions

The VHA provides a comprehensive spectrum of geriatrics services and innovative models of care that often serve as exemplars to other health care systems. Implementing the AFHS framework to assess and act on the 4Ms provides a structure for confronting the HCP shortage with geriatrics expertise by infusing geriatrics knowledge, skills, and practices throughout all care settings and disciplines. Enhancing patient-centered care to older veterans through AFHS implementation exemplifies the VHA as a learning health care system.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Veterans Health Administration Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care and the clinical staff from the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Health Care System for assisting us in this work.

Pharmacy call centers have been successfully implemented in outpatient and specialty pharmacy settings.¹ A centralized pharmacy call center gives patients immediate access to a pharmacist who can view their health records to answer specific questions or fulfill medication renewal requests.^2-4 Little literature exists to describe its use in an inpatient setting.

Inpatient pharmacies receive numerous calls from health care professionals and patients. Challenges related to phone calls in the inpatient pharmacy setting may include interruptions, distractions, low accountability, poor efficiency, lack of optimal resources, and staffing.⁵ An unequal distribution and lack of accountability may exist when answering phone calls for the inpatient pharmacy team, which may contribute to long hold times and call abandonment rates. Phone calls also may be directed inefficiently between clinical pharmacists (CPs) and pharmacy technicians. Team member time related to answering phone calls may not be captured or measured.

The Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital (EHJVAH) in Illinois offers primary, extended, and specialty care and is a tertiary care referral center. The facility operates 483 beds and serves 6 community-based outpatient clinics.

Implementation

A new inpatient pharmacy service phone line extension was implemented. Data used to report quality metrics were obtained from the Global Navigator (GNAV), an information system that records calls, tracks the performance of agents, and coordinates personnel scheduling. The effectiveness of the ACD system was evaluated by quality metric goals of mean speed to answer ≤ 30 seconds and mean abandonment rate ≤ 5%. This project was determined to be quality improvement and was not reviewed by the EHJVAH Institutional Review Board.

The ACD system was set up in December 2020. After a 1-month implementation period, metrics were reported to the inpatient pharmacy team and leadership. By January 2021, EHJVAH fully implemented an ACD phone system operated by inpatient pharmacy technicians and CPs. EHJVAH inpatient pharmacy includes CPs who practice without a scope of practice and board-certified pharmacy technicians in 3 shifts. The CPs and pharmacy technicians work in the central pharmacy (the main pharmacy and inpatient pharmacy vault) or are decentralized with responsibility for answering phone calls and making deliveries (pharmacy technicians).

The pharmacy leadership team decided to implement 1 phone line with 2 ACD splits. The first split was directed to pharmacy technicians and the second to CPs. The intention was to streamline calls to be directed to proper team members within the inpatient pharmacy. The CP line also was designed to back up the pharmacy technician line. These calls were equally distributed among staff based on a standard algorithm. The pharmacy greeting stated, “Thank you for contacting the inpatient pharmacy at Hines VA Hospital. For missing doses, unit stock requests, or to speak with a pharmacy technician, please press 1. For clinical questions, order verification, or to speak with a pharmacist, please press 2.” Each inpatient pharmacy team member had a unique system login.

Fourteen ACD phone stations were established in the main pharmacy and in decentralized locations for order verification. The stations were distributed across the pharmacy service to optimize workload, space, and resources.

Training and Communication

Before implementing the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system, the CPs and pharmacy technicians received mandatory ACD training. After the training, pharmacy team members were required to sign off on the training document to indicate that they had completed the course. The pharmacy team was trained on the importance of staffing the phones continuously. As a 24-hour pharmacy service in the acute care setting, any call may be critical for patient care.

A hospital-wide memorandum was distributed via email to all unit managers and hospital staff to educate them on the new ACD phone system, which included a new phone line extension for the inpatient pharmacy. Additionally, the inpatient pharmacy team was trained on the proper way of communicating the ACD phone system process with the hospital staff. The inpatient pharmacy team was notified that there would be an educational period to explain the queue process to hospital staff. Occasionally, hospital staff believed they were speaking to an automated system and hung up before their call was answered. The inpatient pharmacy team was instructed to notify the hospital staff to stay on the line since their call would be answered in the order it was received. Once the inpatient pharmacy team received proper training and felt comfortable with the phone system, it was set up and integrated into the workflow.

Postimplementation Evaluation

Inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system data were collected for 2021. To evaluate the effectiveness of an ACD system, the pharmacy leadership team set up the following metrics and goals for inpatient CPs and inpatient pharmacy technicians for monthly call volume/abandonment rate, mean speed to answer, mean call volume by shift, and the mean abandonment rate by shift.

Discussion

Since implementing the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system in January 2021, there have been successes and challenges. The implementation increased accountability and efficiency when answering pharmacy phone calls. An ACD uses an algorithm that ensures equitable distribution of phone calls between CPs and pharmacy technicians. Through this algorithm, the pharmacy team is held more accountable when answering incoming calls. Distributing phone calls equally allows for optimization and balances the workload. The ACD phone system also improved efficiency when answering incoming calls. By incorporating splits when a patient or health care professional calls, ACD routes the question to the appropriate staff member. As a result, CPs spend less time answering questions meant for pharmacy technicians and instead can answer clinical or order verification questions more efficiently.

ACD data also allow pharmacy leadership to assess staffing needs, depending on the call volume. Based on ACD data, the busiest time of day was 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Based on this information, pharmacy leadership plans to staff more appropriately to have more pharmacy technicians working during the first shift to attend to phone calls.

The mean call abandonment rate was 4.7% for both CPs and pharmacy technicians, which met the ≤ 5% goal. The highest call abandonment rate was from midnight to 8 AM, though this shift also experienced the lowest call volume. This trend may be attributed to fewer pharmacy team members available to meet the demands of the overnight shift.

Pharmacy technicians handled a higher total call volume, which may be attributed to more phone calls related to missing doses or unit stock requests compared with clinical questions or order verifications. This information may be beneficial to identify opportunities to improve pharmacy operations.

The main challenges encountered in the ACD implementation process were hardware installation and communication with hospital staff about the changes in the inpatient pharmacy phone system. To implement the new inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system, previous telephones and hardware were removed and replaced. Initially, hardware and installation delays made it difficult for the ACD phone system to operate efficiently in the early months of its implementation. The inpatient pharmacy team depends on the telecommunications system and computers for their daily activities. Delays and issues with the hardware and ACD phone system made it more difficult to provide patient care.

Communication is a continuous challenge to ensure that hospital staff are notified of the new inpatient pharmacy ACD phone number. Over time, the understanding and use of the new ACD phone system have increased dramatically, but there are still opportunities to capture any misdirected calls. Informal feedback was obtained at pharmacy huddles and 1-on-1 discussions with pharmacy staff, and the opinions were mixed. Members of the pharmacy staff expressed that the ACD phone system set up an effective way to triage phone calls. Another positive comment was that the system created a means of accountability for pharmacy phone calls. Critical feedback included challenges with triaging phone calls to appropriate pharmacists, because calls are assigned based on an algorithm, whereas clinical coverage is determined by designated unit daily assignments.

Limitations

There are potential limitations to this quality improvement project. This phone system may not apply to all inpatient hospital pharmacy settings. Potential limitations for implementation at other institutions may include but are not limited to, differing pharmacy practice models (centralized vs decentralized), implementation costs, and internal resources.

Future Goals

To improve the quality of service provided to patients and other hospital staff, the pharmacy leadership team can use the data to ensure that inpatient pharmacy technician resources are being used effectively during times of day with the greatest number of incoming ACD calls. The ACD phone system helps determine whether current resources are being used most efficiently and if they are not, can help identify areas of improvement.

The pharmacy leadership team plans on using reports for pharmacy team members to monitor performance. Reports on individual agent activity capture workload; this may be used as a performance-related metric for future performance plans.

Conclusions

The inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system at EHJVAH is a promising application of available technology. The implementation of the ACD system improved accountability, efficiency, work distribution, and the allocation of resources in the inpatient pharmacy service. The ACD phone system has yielded positive performance metrics including mean speed to answer ≤ 30 seconds and abandonment rate ≤ 5% over 12 months after implementation. With time, users of the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system will become more comfortable with the technology, thus further improving the patient health care quality.

Pharmacy call centers have been successfully implemented in outpatient and specialty pharmacy settings.¹ A centralized pharmacy call center gives patients immediate access to a pharmacist who can view their health records to answer specific questions or fulfill medication renewal requests.^2-4 Little literature exists to describe its use in an inpatient setting.

Inpatient pharmacies receive numerous calls from health care professionals and patients. Challenges related to phone calls in the inpatient pharmacy setting may include interruptions, distractions, low accountability, poor efficiency, lack of optimal resources, and staffing.⁵ An unequal distribution and lack of accountability may exist when answering phone calls for the inpatient pharmacy team, which may contribute to long hold times and call abandonment rates. Phone calls also may be directed inefficiently between clinical pharmacists (CPs) and pharmacy technicians. Team member time related to answering phone calls may not be captured or measured.

The Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital (EHJVAH) in Illinois offers primary, extended, and specialty care and is a tertiary care referral center. The facility operates 483 beds and serves 6 community-based outpatient clinics.

Implementation

A new inpatient pharmacy service phone line extension was implemented. Data used to report quality metrics were obtained from the Global Navigator (GNAV), an information system that records calls, tracks the performance of agents, and coordinates personnel scheduling. The effectiveness of the ACD system was evaluated by quality metric goals of mean speed to answer ≤ 30 seconds and mean abandonment rate ≤ 5%. This project was determined to be quality improvement and was not reviewed by the EHJVAH Institutional Review Board.

The ACD system was set up in December 2020. After a 1-month implementation period, metrics were reported to the inpatient pharmacy team and leadership. By January 2021, EHJVAH fully implemented an ACD phone system operated by inpatient pharmacy technicians and CPs. EHJVAH inpatient pharmacy includes CPs who practice without a scope of practice and board-certified pharmacy technicians in 3 shifts. The CPs and pharmacy technicians work in the central pharmacy (the main pharmacy and inpatient pharmacy vault) or are decentralized with responsibility for answering phone calls and making deliveries (pharmacy technicians).

The pharmacy leadership team decided to implement 1 phone line with 2 ACD splits. The first split was directed to pharmacy technicians and the second to CPs. The intention was to streamline calls to be directed to proper team members within the inpatient pharmacy. The CP line also was designed to back up the pharmacy technician line. These calls were equally distributed among staff based on a standard algorithm. The pharmacy greeting stated, “Thank you for contacting the inpatient pharmacy at Hines VA Hospital. For missing doses, unit stock requests, or to speak with a pharmacy technician, please press 1. For clinical questions, order verification, or to speak with a pharmacist, please press 2.” Each inpatient pharmacy team member had a unique system login.

Fourteen ACD phone stations were established in the main pharmacy and in decentralized locations for order verification. The stations were distributed across the pharmacy service to optimize workload, space, and resources.

Training and Communication

Before implementing the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system, the CPs and pharmacy technicians received mandatory ACD training. After the training, pharmacy team members were required to sign off on the training document to indicate that they had completed the course. The pharmacy team was trained on the importance of staffing the phones continuously. As a 24-hour pharmacy service in the acute care setting, any call may be critical for patient care.

A hospital-wide memorandum was distributed via email to all unit managers and hospital staff to educate them on the new ACD phone system, which included a new phone line extension for the inpatient pharmacy. Additionally, the inpatient pharmacy team was trained on the proper way of communicating the ACD phone system process with the hospital staff. The inpatient pharmacy team was notified that there would be an educational period to explain the queue process to hospital staff. Occasionally, hospital staff believed they were speaking to an automated system and hung up before their call was answered. The inpatient pharmacy team was instructed to notify the hospital staff to stay on the line since their call would be answered in the order it was received. Once the inpatient pharmacy team received proper training and felt comfortable with the phone system, it was set up and integrated into the workflow.

Postimplementation Evaluation

Inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system data were collected for 2021. To evaluate the effectiveness of an ACD system, the pharmacy leadership team set up the following metrics and goals for inpatient CPs and inpatient pharmacy technicians for monthly call volume/abandonment rate, mean speed to answer, mean call volume by shift, and the mean abandonment rate by shift.

Discussion

Since implementing the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system in January 2021, there have been successes and challenges. The implementation increased accountability and efficiency when answering pharmacy phone calls. An ACD uses an algorithm that ensures equitable distribution of phone calls between CPs and pharmacy technicians. Through this algorithm, the pharmacy team is held more accountable when answering incoming calls. Distributing phone calls equally allows for optimization and balances the workload. The ACD phone system also improved efficiency when answering incoming calls. By incorporating splits when a patient or health care professional calls, ACD routes the question to the appropriate staff member. As a result, CPs spend less time answering questions meant for pharmacy technicians and instead can answer clinical or order verification questions more efficiently.

ACD data also allow pharmacy leadership to assess staffing needs, depending on the call volume. Based on ACD data, the busiest time of day was 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Based on this information, pharmacy leadership plans to staff more appropriately to have more pharmacy technicians working during the first shift to attend to phone calls.

The mean call abandonment rate was 4.7% for both CPs and pharmacy technicians, which met the ≤ 5% goal. The highest call abandonment rate was from midnight to 8 AM, though this shift also experienced the lowest call volume. This trend may be attributed to fewer pharmacy team members available to meet the demands of the overnight shift.

Pharmacy technicians handled a higher total call volume, which may be attributed to more phone calls related to missing doses or unit stock requests compared with clinical questions or order verifications. This information may be beneficial to identify opportunities to improve pharmacy operations.

The main challenges encountered in the ACD implementation process were hardware installation and communication with hospital staff about the changes in the inpatient pharmacy phone system. To implement the new inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system, previous telephones and hardware were removed and replaced. Initially, hardware and installation delays made it difficult for the ACD phone system to operate efficiently in the early months of its implementation. The inpatient pharmacy team depends on the telecommunications system and computers for their daily activities. Delays and issues with the hardware and ACD phone system made it more difficult to provide patient care.

Communication is a continuous challenge to ensure that hospital staff are notified of the new inpatient pharmacy ACD phone number. Over time, the understanding and use of the new ACD phone system have increased dramatically, but there are still opportunities to capture any misdirected calls. Informal feedback was obtained at pharmacy huddles and 1-on-1 discussions with pharmacy staff, and the opinions were mixed. Members of the pharmacy staff expressed that the ACD phone system set up an effective way to triage phone calls. Another positive comment was that the system created a means of accountability for pharmacy phone calls. Critical feedback included challenges with triaging phone calls to appropriate pharmacists, because calls are assigned based on an algorithm, whereas clinical coverage is determined by designated unit daily assignments.

Limitations

There are potential limitations to this quality improvement project. This phone system may not apply to all inpatient hospital pharmacy settings. Potential limitations for implementation at other institutions may include but are not limited to, differing pharmacy practice models (centralized vs decentralized), implementation costs, and internal resources.

Future Goals

To improve the quality of service provided to patients and other hospital staff, the pharmacy leadership team can use the data to ensure that inpatient pharmacy technician resources are being used effectively during times of day with the greatest number of incoming ACD calls. The ACD phone system helps determine whether current resources are being used most efficiently and if they are not, can help identify areas of improvement.

The pharmacy leadership team plans on using reports for pharmacy team members to monitor performance. Reports on individual agent activity capture workload; this may be used as a performance-related metric for future performance plans.

Conclusions

The inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system at EHJVAH is a promising application of available technology. The implementation of the ACD system improved accountability, efficiency, work distribution, and the allocation of resources in the inpatient pharmacy service. The ACD phone system has yielded positive performance metrics including mean speed to answer ≤ 30 seconds and abandonment rate ≤ 5% over 12 months after implementation. With time, users of the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system will become more comfortable with the technology, thus further improving the patient health care quality.

Pharmacy call centers have been successfully implemented in outpatient and specialty pharmacy settings.¹ A centralized pharmacy call center gives patients immediate access to a pharmacist who can view their health records to answer specific questions or fulfill medication renewal requests.^2-4 Little literature exists to describe its use in an inpatient setting.

Inpatient pharmacies receive numerous calls from health care professionals and patients. Challenges related to phone calls in the inpatient pharmacy setting may include interruptions, distractions, low accountability, poor efficiency, lack of optimal resources, and staffing.⁵ An unequal distribution and lack of accountability may exist when answering phone calls for the inpatient pharmacy team, which may contribute to long hold times and call abandonment rates. Phone calls also may be directed inefficiently between clinical pharmacists (CPs) and pharmacy technicians. Team member time related to answering phone calls may not be captured or measured.

The Edward Hines, Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital (EHJVAH) in Illinois offers primary, extended, and specialty care and is a tertiary care referral center. The facility operates 483 beds and serves 6 community-based outpatient clinics.

Implementation

A new inpatient pharmacy service phone line extension was implemented. Data used to report quality metrics were obtained from the Global Navigator (GNAV), an information system that records calls, tracks the performance of agents, and coordinates personnel scheduling. The effectiveness of the ACD system was evaluated by quality metric goals of mean speed to answer ≤ 30 seconds and mean abandonment rate ≤ 5%. This project was determined to be quality improvement and was not reviewed by the EHJVAH Institutional Review Board.

The ACD system was set up in December 2020. After a 1-month implementation period, metrics were reported to the inpatient pharmacy team and leadership. By January 2021, EHJVAH fully implemented an ACD phone system operated by inpatient pharmacy technicians and CPs. EHJVAH inpatient pharmacy includes CPs who practice without a scope of practice and board-certified pharmacy technicians in 3 shifts. The CPs and pharmacy technicians work in the central pharmacy (the main pharmacy and inpatient pharmacy vault) or are decentralized with responsibility for answering phone calls and making deliveries (pharmacy technicians).

The pharmacy leadership team decided to implement 1 phone line with 2 ACD splits. The first split was directed to pharmacy technicians and the second to CPs. The intention was to streamline calls to be directed to proper team members within the inpatient pharmacy. The CP line also was designed to back up the pharmacy technician line. These calls were equally distributed among staff based on a standard algorithm. The pharmacy greeting stated, “Thank you for contacting the inpatient pharmacy at Hines VA Hospital. For missing doses, unit stock requests, or to speak with a pharmacy technician, please press 1. For clinical questions, order verification, or to speak with a pharmacist, please press 2.” Each inpatient pharmacy team member had a unique system login.

Fourteen ACD phone stations were established in the main pharmacy and in decentralized locations for order verification. The stations were distributed across the pharmacy service to optimize workload, space, and resources.

Training and Communication

Before implementing the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system, the CPs and pharmacy technicians received mandatory ACD training. After the training, pharmacy team members were required to sign off on the training document to indicate that they had completed the course. The pharmacy team was trained on the importance of staffing the phones continuously. As a 24-hour pharmacy service in the acute care setting, any call may be critical for patient care.

A hospital-wide memorandum was distributed via email to all unit managers and hospital staff to educate them on the new ACD phone system, which included a new phone line extension for the inpatient pharmacy. Additionally, the inpatient pharmacy team was trained on the proper way of communicating the ACD phone system process with the hospital staff. The inpatient pharmacy team was notified that there would be an educational period to explain the queue process to hospital staff. Occasionally, hospital staff believed they were speaking to an automated system and hung up before their call was answered. The inpatient pharmacy team was instructed to notify the hospital staff to stay on the line since their call would be answered in the order it was received. Once the inpatient pharmacy team received proper training and felt comfortable with the phone system, it was set up and integrated into the workflow.

Postimplementation Evaluation

Inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system data were collected for 2021. To evaluate the effectiveness of an ACD system, the pharmacy leadership team set up the following metrics and goals for inpatient CPs and inpatient pharmacy technicians for monthly call volume/abandonment rate, mean speed to answer, mean call volume by shift, and the mean abandonment rate by shift.

Discussion

Since implementing the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system in January 2021, there have been successes and challenges. The implementation increased accountability and efficiency when answering pharmacy phone calls. An ACD uses an algorithm that ensures equitable distribution of phone calls between CPs and pharmacy technicians. Through this algorithm, the pharmacy team is held more accountable when answering incoming calls. Distributing phone calls equally allows for optimization and balances the workload. The ACD phone system also improved efficiency when answering incoming calls. By incorporating splits when a patient or health care professional calls, ACD routes the question to the appropriate staff member. As a result, CPs spend less time answering questions meant for pharmacy technicians and instead can answer clinical or order verification questions more efficiently.

ACD data also allow pharmacy leadership to assess staffing needs, depending on the call volume. Based on ACD data, the busiest time of day was 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Based on this information, pharmacy leadership plans to staff more appropriately to have more pharmacy technicians working during the first shift to attend to phone calls.

The mean call abandonment rate was 4.7% for both CPs and pharmacy technicians, which met the ≤ 5% goal. The highest call abandonment rate was from midnight to 8 AM, though this shift also experienced the lowest call volume. This trend may be attributed to fewer pharmacy team members available to meet the demands of the overnight shift.

Pharmacy technicians handled a higher total call volume, which may be attributed to more phone calls related to missing doses or unit stock requests compared with clinical questions or order verifications. This information may be beneficial to identify opportunities to improve pharmacy operations.

The main challenges encountered in the ACD implementation process were hardware installation and communication with hospital staff about the changes in the inpatient pharmacy phone system. To implement the new inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system, previous telephones and hardware were removed and replaced. Initially, hardware and installation delays made it difficult for the ACD phone system to operate efficiently in the early months of its implementation. The inpatient pharmacy team depends on the telecommunications system and computers for their daily activities. Delays and issues with the hardware and ACD phone system made it more difficult to provide patient care.

Communication is a continuous challenge to ensure that hospital staff are notified of the new inpatient pharmacy ACD phone number. Over time, the understanding and use of the new ACD phone system have increased dramatically, but there are still opportunities to capture any misdirected calls. Informal feedback was obtained at pharmacy huddles and 1-on-1 discussions with pharmacy staff, and the opinions were mixed. Members of the pharmacy staff expressed that the ACD phone system set up an effective way to triage phone calls. Another positive comment was that the system created a means of accountability for pharmacy phone calls. Critical feedback included challenges with triaging phone calls to appropriate pharmacists, because calls are assigned based on an algorithm, whereas clinical coverage is determined by designated unit daily assignments.

Limitations

There are potential limitations to this quality improvement project. This phone system may not apply to all inpatient hospital pharmacy settings. Potential limitations for implementation at other institutions may include but are not limited to, differing pharmacy practice models (centralized vs decentralized), implementation costs, and internal resources.

Future Goals

To improve the quality of service provided to patients and other hospital staff, the pharmacy leadership team can use the data to ensure that inpatient pharmacy technician resources are being used effectively during times of day with the greatest number of incoming ACD calls. The ACD phone system helps determine whether current resources are being used most efficiently and if they are not, can help identify areas of improvement.

The pharmacy leadership team plans on using reports for pharmacy team members to monitor performance. Reports on individual agent activity capture workload; this may be used as a performance-related metric for future performance plans.

Conclusions

The inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system at EHJVAH is a promising application of available technology. The implementation of the ACD system improved accountability, efficiency, work distribution, and the allocation of resources in the inpatient pharmacy service. The ACD phone system has yielded positive performance metrics including mean speed to answer ≤ 30 seconds and abandonment rate ≤ 5% over 12 months after implementation. With time, users of the inpatient pharmacy ACD phone system will become more comfortable with the technology, thus further improving the patient health care quality.