Implementing Evidence-Based Patient Self-Management Programs in the Veterans Health Administration: Perspectives on Delivery System Design Considerations

Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, VA Stroke QUERI Center and HSRD COE, Indiana University Dept. of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Center for Aging Research, Regenstrief Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 01/2010; 25 Suppl 1(S1):68-71. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-009-1123-5
Source: PubMed


While many patient self-management (PSM) programs have been developed and evaluated for effectiveness, less effort has been devoted to translating and systematically delivering PSM in primary and specialty care. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to review delivery system design considerations for implementing self-management programs in practice. As lessons are learned about implementing PSM programs in Veterans Health Administration (VHA), resource allocation by healthcare organization for formatting PSM programs, providing patient access, facilitating PSM, and incorporating support tools to foster PSM among its consumers can be refined and tailored. Redesigning the system to deliver and support PSM will be important as implementation researchers translate evidence based PSM practices into routine care and evaluate its impact on the health-related quality of life of veterans living with chronic disease.


Available from: Marylou Guihan, Dec 12, 2013

  • Revue médicale suisse 11/2010; 6(270):2115-6.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been at the vanguard of information technology (IT) and use of comprehensive electronic health records. Despite the widespread use of health IT in the VA, there are still a variety of key questions that need to be answered in order to maximize the utility of IT to improve patient access to quality services. This paper summarizes the potential of IT to enhance healthcare access, key gaps in current evidence linking IT and access, and methodologic challenges for related research. We also highlight four key issues to be addressed when implementing and evaluating the impact of IT interventions on improving access to quality care: 1) Understanding broader needs/perceptions of the Veteran population and their caregivers regarding use of IT to access healthcare services and related information. 2) Understanding individual provider/clinician needs/perceptions regarding use of IT for patient access to healthcare. 3) System/Organizational issues within the VA and other organizations related to the use of IT to improve access. 4) IT integration and information flow with non-VA entities. While the VA is used as an example, the issues are salient for healthcare systems that are beginning to take advantage of IT solutions.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2011; 26 Suppl 2(S2):623-7. DOI:10.1007/s11606-011-1789-3 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: One of the reasons for the slow and uncertain translation of research into practice is likely due to the emphasis in science on explanatory models and efficacy designs rather than more pragmatic approaches. Methods: Following a brief definition of what constitutes a pragmatic approach, I provide examples of pragmatic methods, measures, and models and how they have been applied. Results: Descriptions are provided of pragmatic trials and related designs, practical measures including patient-reported items for the electronic health record, and the Evidence Integration Triangle and RE-AIM practical models, each of which can help increase the relevance of research to policy makers, practitioners, and patients/consumers. Conclusions: By focusing on the perspective of stakeholders and the context for application of scientific findings, pragmatic approaches can accelerate the integration of research, policy, and practice. Progress has been made, especially in pragmatic trials but even more opportunities remain.
    Health Education & Behavior 06/2013; 40(3):257-265. DOI:10.1177/1090198113486805 · 2.23 Impact Factor
Show more