Abstract Background Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as an essential bedside tool for clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound equipment has been a top barrier to POCUS use. Recently, several handheld ultrasound devices (“handhelds”) have become available, and clinicians are seeking data to guide purchasing decisions. Few comparative studies of different handhelds have been done. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing 6 handhelds readily available in the United States (Butterfly iQ + ™ by Butterfly Network Inc.; Clarius™ by Clarius Mobile Health; Kosmos™ by EchoNous; TE Air™ by Mindray; Vscan Air™ SL and CL by General Electric; and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare). A multi-specialty group of physician POCUS experts (n = 35) acquired three standard ultrasound views (abdominal right upper quadrant, cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views) in random order on the same standardized patients and rated the image quality. Afterward, a final survey of the overall ease of use, image quality, and satisfaction of each handheld was completed. Results Thirty-five POCUS experts specializing in internal medicine/hospital medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, and nephrology acquired and rated right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views with 6 different handhelds. For image quality, the highest-rated handhelds were Vscan Air™ for the right upper quadrant view, Mindray TE Air™ for the cardiac apical 4-chamber view, and Lumify™ for superficial views of the neck and lung. Overall satisfaction with image quality was highest with Vscan Air™, Lumify™, and Mindray, while overall satisfaction with ease of use was highest with Vscan Air™. The 5 most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, portability, probe size, and battery life. Ultimately, all 6 handhelds had notable advantages and disadvantages, with no single device having all desired qualities or features. Conclusions The overall satisfaction with image quality was rated highest with Vscan Air™, Lumify™, and Mindray TE Air™when acquiring right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views. No single handheld was perceived to be superior in image quality for all views. Vscan Air™ was rated highest for overall ease of use and was the most preferred handheld for purchase by POCUS experts.

BACKGROUND: More primary care providers (PCPs) have begun to embrace the use of point-of-care ultra-sound (POCUS), but little is known about how PCPs are currently using POCUS and what barriers exist. In this prospective study, the largest systematic survey of POCUS use among PCPs, we assessed the cur-rent use, barriers to use, program management, and training needs for POCUS in primary care.METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of all VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) between June 2019 and March 2020 using a web-based survey sent to all VAMC Chiefs of Staff and Chiefs of pri-mary care clinics (PCCs).RESULTS: Chiefs of PCCs at 105 VAMCs completed the survey (82% response rate). Only 13% of PCCs currently use POCUS, and the most common applications used were bladder and musculoskeletal ultra-sound. Desire for POCUS training exceeded current use, but lack of trained providers (78%), ultrasound equipment (66%), and funding for training (41%) were common barriers. Program infrastructure to sup-port POCUS use was uncommon, and only 9% of VAMCs had local policies related to POCUS. Most PCC chiefs (64%) would support POCUS training.CONCLUSIONS: Current use of POCUS in primary care is low despite the recent growth of POCUS training in Internal Medicine residency programs. Investment in POCUS training and program infrastructure is needed to expand POCUS use in primary care and ensure adequate supervision of trainees.Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) center dot The American Journal of Medicine (2023) 136:592-595

The purpose of this study was to determine current use, training needs, and barriers to point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use among anesthesiologists in practice.Multicenter, prospective, observational study.Anesthesiology departments in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in the United States.Chiefs of staff and chiefs of anesthesiology departments.A web-based survey was conducted between June 2019 and March 2020. Chiefs of staff answered questions about facility-level POCUS use, training, competency, and policies. Anesthesiology chiefs responded to a follow-up survey with specialty-specific POCUS questions. The results of the 2020 survey were compared with a similar survey conducted by the authors' group in 2015.All chiefs of staff (n = 130) and 77% of anesthesiology chiefs (n = 96) completed the survey. The most common POCUS applications used were central and peripheral vascular access (69%-72%), peripheral nerve blocks (66%), and evaluation of cardiac function (29%-31%). Compared with 2015, there was a statistically significant increase in desire for training (p = 0.00015), but no significant change in POCUS use (p = 0.31). Training was most desired for volume-status assessment (52%), left ventricular function (47%), pneumothorax (47%), central line placement (40%), peripheral nerve blocks (40%), and pleural effusion (40%). The most common barriers to POCUS use were lack of funding for training (35%), trained providers (33%), and training opportunities (28%).A significant increase in desire for POCUS training was seen among anesthesiologists practicing in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system since 2015, and lack of training continues to be a top barrier for POCUS use among anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an integral part of critical care medicine for procedural guidance, bedside diagnostics, and assessing response to treatment. Multiple critical care societies recommend POCUS use, and POCUS training has been a requirement for critical care fellowship since 2012. Yet, current practice patterns of POCUS use in ICUs are not well known. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study aimed to characterize current POCUS use, training needs, and barriers to use among intensivists. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective observational study of all Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers was conducted between June 2019 and March 2020 using a web-based survey of all chiefs of staff and ICU chiefs. These data were compared with those from a similar survey conducted in 2015. RESULTS: Chiefs of staff and ICU chiefs from 130 VA medical centers were surveyed with 100% and 83% response rates, respectively. At least one physician currently uses POCUS in 93% of ICUs, and 62% of individual physicians were estimated to be using POCUS. The most common POCUS applications were procedural guidance (59%), cardiac ultrasound (55%), and thoracic ultrasound (56%). Most chiefs (57%) reported teaching POCUS to trainees in their ICU. The most frequently reported barriers to POCUS use were lack of trained providers (48%), lack of funding for training (45%), lack of training opportunities (37%), and lack of image archiving (34%). From 2015 through 2020, POCUS use increased across most applications and an increase in desire for training was seen. INTERPRETATION: POCUS use increased across VA ICUs between 2015 and 2020, but significant gaps remain. Without a deliberate investment in POCUS training and infrastructure for physicians in practice, institutions are unlikely to benefit fully from standardized POCUS use in ICUs.

BackgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can aid geriatricians in caring for complex, older patients. Currently, there is limited literature on POCUS use by geriatricians. We conducted a national survey to assess current POCUS use, training desired, and barriers among Geriatrics and Extended Care ("geriatric") clinics at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs).MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study of all VAMCs between August 2019 and March 2020 using a web-based survey sent to all VAMC Chiefs of Staff and Chiefs of geriatric clinics.ResultsAll Chiefs of Staff (n=130) completed the survey (100% response rate). Chiefs of geriatric clinics ("chiefs") at 76 VAMCs were surveyed and 52 completed the survey (68% response rate). Geriatric clinics were located throughout the United States, mostly at high-complexity, urban VAMCs. Only 15% of chiefs responded that there was some POCUS usage in their geriatric clinic, but more than 60% of chiefs would support the implementation of POCUS use. The most common POCUS applications used in geriatric clinics were the evaluation of the bladder and urinary obstruction. Barriers to POCUS use included a lack of trained providers (56%), ultrasound equipment (50%), and funding for training (35%). Additionally, chiefs reported time utilization, clinical indications, and low patient census as barriers.ConclusionsPOCUS has several potential applications for clinicians caring for geriatric patients. Though only 15% of geriatric clinics at VAMCs currently use POCUS, most geriatric chiefs would support implementing POCUS use as a diagnostic tool. The greatest barriers to POCUS implementation in geriatric clinics were a lack of training and ultrasound equipment. Addressing these barriers systematically can facilitate implementation of POCUS use into practice and permit assessment of the impact of POCUS on geriatric care in the future.

BACKGROUND:Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can reduce procedural complications and improve the diagnostic accuracy of hospitalists. Currently, it is unknown how many practicing hospitalists use POCUS, which applications are used most often, and what barriers to POCUS use exist. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to characterize current POCUS use, training needs, and barriers to use among hospital medicine groups (HMGs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A prospective observational study of all Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers was conducted between August 2019 and March 2020 using a web-based survey sent to all chiefs of HMGs. These data were compared to a similar survey conducted in 2015. RESULT:Chiefs from 117 HMGs were surveyed, with a 90% response rate. There was ongoing POCUS use in 64% of HMGs. From 2015 to 2020, procedural POCUS use decreased by 19%, but diagnostic POCUS use increased for cardiac (8%), pulmonary (7%), and abdominal (8%) applications. The most common barrier to POCUS use was lack of training (89%), and only 34% of HMGs had access to POCUS training. Access to ultrasound equipment was the least common barrier (57%). The proportion of HMGs with ≥1 ultrasound machine increased from 29% to 71% from 2015 to 2020. An average of 3.6 ultrasound devices per HMG was available, and 45% were handheld devices. CONCLUSION:From 2015 to 2020, diagnostic POCUS use increased, while procedural use decreased among hospitalists in the VA system. Lack of POCUS training is currently the most common barrier to POCUS use among hospitalists.

BACKGROUND:Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training has been increasing among internal medicine (IM) residency programs, but few programs can provide longitudinal training due to barriers such as lack of trained faculty.AIM:Describe the development of a longitudinal POCUS track for IM residents using local and external resources, including a national POCUS certificate program.SETTING:University-based IM residency program affiliated with a public and veterans affairs hospital.PARTICIPANTS:Twelve IM residents from 2018 to 2021.PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:Residents complete a national POCUS certificate program by attending live courses and completing online modules, an image portfolio, and final knowledge/skills assessments. Locally, residents participate in 1-month procedure and diagnostic POCUS rotations and provide peer-to-peer POCUS teaching of residents and medical students.PROGRAM EVALUATION:The POCUS track increased residents' use and comfort with diagnostic and procedural applications. All residents rated being satisfied or very satisfied with the track and would recommend it to prospective applicants (100%). The most commonly reported barriers to utilizing POCUS per residents were time constraints (83%), lack of available ultrasound equipment (83%), and lack of trained faculty (58%).DISCUSSION:IM residency programs with limited faculty expertise in POCUS can leverage external resources to provide longitudinal POCUS training to its residents.

Background Many institutions are training clinicians in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), but few POCUS skills checklists have been developed and validated. We developed a consensus-based multispecialty POCUS skills checklist with anchoring references for basic cardiac, lung, abdominal, and vascular ultrasound, and peripheral intravenous line (PIV) insertion. Methods A POCUS expert panel of 14 physicians specializing in emergency, critical care, and internal/hospital medicine participated in a modified-Delphi approach to develop a basic POCUS skills checklist by group consensus. Three rounds of voting were conducted, and consensus was defined by ≥ 80% agreement. Items achieving < 80% consensus were discussed and considered for up to two additional rounds of voting. Results Thirteen POCUS experts (93%) completed all three rounds of voting. Cardiac, lung, abdominal, and vascular ultrasound checklists included probe location and control, basic machine setup, image quality and optimization, and identification of anatomical structures. PIV insertion included additional items for needle tip tracking. During the first round of voting, 136 (82%) items achieved consensus, and after revision and revoting, an additional 21 items achieved consensus. A total of 153 (92%) items were included in the final checklist. Conclusions We have developed a consensus-based, multispecialty POCUS checklist to evaluate skills in image acquisition and anatomy identification for basic cardiac, lung, abdominal, and vascular ultrasound, and PIV insertion.

This article outlines a three-phase, team-based approach used to analyze qualitative data from a nation-wide needs assessment of access to Veteran Health Administration services for rural-dwelling veterans. The method described here was used to develop the trustworthiness of findings from analysis of a large qualitative data set, without the use of analytic software. In Phase 1, we used templates to summarize content from 205 individual semistructured interviews. During Phase 2, a matrix display was constructed for each of 10 project sites to synthesize and display template content by participant, domain, and category. In the final phase, the summary tabulation technique was developed by a member of our team to facilitate trustworthy observations regarding patterns and variation in the large volume of qualitative data produced by the interviews. This accessible and efficient team-based strategy was feasible within the constraints of our project while preserving the richness of qualitative data.

Schott, Christopher1,2; LoPresti, Charles3,4; Boyd, Jeremy5,6; Core, Megan7,8; Haro, Elizabeth9,10; Mader, Michael9,10; Pascual, Sergio10; Finley, Erin9,10; Lucas, Brian11,12; Colon-Molero MD, Angel13; Restrepo, Marcos14,9; Pugh, Jacqueline9,10; Soni, Nilam15,9 Author Information

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use continues to increase in many specialties, but lack of POCUS training is a known barrier among practicing physicians. Many physicians are obtaining POCUS training through postgraduate courses, but the impact of these courses on skill retention and frequency of POCUS use post-course is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the change in POCUS knowledge, skills, and frequency of use after 6-9 months of participating in a brief training course. METHODS: Course participants' POCUS knowledge and hands-on technical skills were tested pre-course using an online, 30-question knowledge test and a directly observed skills test, respectively. The same knowledge and skills tests were repeated immediately post-course and after 6-9 months using remote tele-ultrasound software. Course participants completed a survey on their POCUS use pre-course and after 6-9 months post-course. RESULTS: There were 127 providers who completed the POCUS training course from October 2016 to November 2017. Knowledge test scores increased from a median of 60% to 90% immediately post-course followed by a slight decrease to 87% after 8 months post-course. Median skills test scores for 4 common POCUS applications (heart, lung, abdomen, vascular access) increased 36-74 points from pre-course to immediately postcourse with a 2- 7-point decrease after 8 months. Providers reported more frequent POCUS use post-course, which suggests application of their POCUS knowledge and skills in clinical practice. More frequent use of cardiac POCUS applications was associated with significantly greater retention of cardiac skills at 8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing physicians can retain POCUS knowledge and hands-on skills 8 months after participating in a 2.5-day POCUS training course, regardless of frequency of POCUS use post-course. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Although a large body of research indicates that evidence-based psychotherapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) such as prolonged exposure (PE) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) are both effective and efficacious in veteran populations, less is known about provider factors that impact decisions to utilize these treatments. The current study aims (a) to describe use of CPT, PE, and "other" psychotherapies among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PTSD specialty care providers, and (b) to examine whether factors such as theoretical orientation, occupation, graduate training in cognitive-behavioral therapy, and having received VHA training are associated with providers' use of specific PTSD treatments. VHA providers in PTSD clinical teams were invited to participate in a national survey (n = 259, response rate = 24.2%) assessing provider demographics, treatment preferences, and treatment use. Overall, providers reported using CPT and PE for PTSD for a relatively low percentage of their clinical time (mean of 38.8% for CPT and 19.8% for PE), relying more heavily on use of "other" psychotherapies (mean of 44.8%) in patient care. VHA evidence-based psychotherapy training emerged as a predictor of time spent administering CPT or PE. Having a cognitive-behavioral therapy theoretical orientation was associated with time spent conducting CPT, but not PE, whereas identification with "other" orientation was associated with time spent conducting psychotherapies other than CPT or PE.

PREPROCEDURE:1)We recommend that providers should be familiar with the operation of their specific ultrasound machine prior to initiation of a vascular access procedure. 2)We recommend that providers should use a high-frequency linear transducer with a sterile sheath and sterile gel to perform vascular access procedures. 3)We recommend that providers should use two-dimensional ultrasound to evaluate for anatomical variations and absence of vascular thrombosis during preprocedural site selection. 4)We recommend that providers should evaluate the target blood vessel size and depth during preprocedural ultrasound evaluation.TECHNIQUES:General Techniques 5) We recommend that providers should avoid using static ultrasound alone to mark the needle insertion site for vascular access procedures. 6)We recommend that providers should use real-time (dynamic), two-dimensional ultrasound guidance with a high-frequency linear transducer for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, regardless of the provider's level of experience. 7)We suggest using either a transverse (short-axis) or longitudinal (long-axis) approach when performing real-time ultrasound-guided vascular access procedures. 8)We recommend that providers should visualize the needle tip and guidewire in the target vein prior to vessel dilatation. 9)To increase the success rate of ultrasound-guided vascular access procedures, we recommend that providers should utilize echogenic needles, plastic needle guides, and/or ultrasound beam steering when available. Central Venous Access Techniques 10) We recommend that providers should use a standardized procedure checklist that includes the use of real-time ultrasound guidance to reduce the risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) from CVC insertion. 11)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance, combined with aseptic technique and maximal sterile barrier precautions, to reduce the incidence of infectious complications from CVC insertion. 12)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for internal jugular vein catheterization, which reduces the risk of mechanical and infectious complications, the number of needle passes, and time to cannulation and increases overall procedure success rates. 13)We recommend that providers who routinely insert subclavian vein CVCs should use real-time ultrasound guidance, which has been shown to reduce the risk of mechanical complications and number of needle passes and increase overall procedure success rates compared with landmark-based techniques. 14)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for femoral venous access, which has been shown to reduce the risk of arterial punctures and total procedure time and increase overall procedure success rates. Peripheral Venous Access Techniques 15) We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for the insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), which is associated with higher procedure success rates and may be more cost effective compared with landmark-based techniques. 16)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for the placement of peripheral intravenous lines (PIV) in patients with difficult peripheral venous access to reduce the total procedure time, needle insertion attempts, and needle redirections. Ultrasound-guided PIV insertion is also an effective alternative to CVC insertion in patients with difficult venous access. 17)We suggest using real-time ultrasound guidance to reduce the risk of vascular, infectious, and neurological complications during PIV insertion, particularly in patients with difficult venous access. Arterial Access Techniques 18)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for arterial access, which has been shown to increase first-pass success rates, reduce the time to cannulation, and reduce the risk of hematoma development compared with landmark-based techniques. 19)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for femoral arterial access, which has been shown to increase first-pass success rates and reduce the risk of vascular complications. 20)We recommend that providers should use real-time ultrasound guidance for radial arterial access, which has been shown to increase first-pass success rates, reduce the time to successful cannulation, and reduce the risk of complications compared with landmark-based techniques.POSTPROCEDURE:21) We recommend that post-procedure pneumothorax should be ruled out by the detection of bilateral lung sliding using a high-frequency linear transducer before and after insertion of internal jugular and subclavian vein CVCs. 22)We recommend that providers should use ultrasound with rapid infusion of agitated saline to visualize a right atrial swirl sign (RASS) for detecting catheter tip misplacement during CVC insertion. The use of RASS to detect the catheter tip may be considered an advanced skill that requires specific training and expertise.TRAINING:23) To reduce the risk of mechanical and infectious complications, we recommend that novice providers should complete a systematic training program that includes a combination of simulation-based practice, supervised insertion on patients, and evaluation by an expert operator before attempting ultrasound-guided CVC insertion independently on patients. 24)We recommend that cognitive training in ultrasound-guided CVC insertion should include basic anatomy, ultrasound physics, ultrasound machine knobology, fundamentals of image acquisition and interpretation, detection and management of procedural complications, infection prevention strategies, and pathways to attain competency. 25)We recommend that trainees should demonstrate minimal competence before placing ultrasound-guided CVCs independently. A minimum number of CVC insertions may inform this determination, but a proctored assessment of competence is most important. 26)We recommend that didactic and hands-on training for trainees should coincide with anticipated times of increased performance of vascular access procedures. Refresher training sessions should be offered periodically. 27)We recommend that competency assessments should include formal evaluation of knowledge and technical skills using standardized assessment tools. 28)We recommend that competency assessments should evaluate for proficiency in the following knowledge and skills of CVC insertion: (a) Knowledge of the target vein anatomy, proper vessel identification, and recognition of anatomical variants; (b) Demonstration of CVC insertion with no technical errors based on a procedural checklist; (c) Recognition and management of acute complications, including emergency management of life-threatening complications; (d) Real-time needle tip tracking with ultrasound and cannulation on the first attempt in at least five consecutive simulation. 29)We recommend a periodic proficiency assessment of all operators should be conducted to ensure maintenance of competency.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is the use of ultrasound at the bedside to answer a specific diagnostic question or guide performance of an invasive procedure.1,2 Though many medical schools and internal medicine residency programs have started teaching POCUS,3 most practicing hospitalists completed their training without any experience in POCUS.1-3 Now, many practicing hospitalists are seeking continuing medical education courses to learn how to use POCUS. Currently, it is unknown how hospitalists are using POCUS and what training needs exist.

Though point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is recognized as a useful diagnostic and prognostic intervention during cardiac arrest (CA), critics advise caution. The purpose of this survey study was to determine the barriers to POCUS during CA in the Emergency Department (ED).Two survey instruments were distributed to emergency medicine (EM) attending and resident physicians at three academic centers in the South Florida. The surveys assessed demographics, experience, proficiency, attitudes and barriers. Descriptive and inferential statistics along with Item Response Theory Logistic Model and the Friedman Test with Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used to profile responses and rank barriers.206 EM physicians were invited to participate in the survey, and 187 (91%) responded. 59% of attending physicians and 47% of resident physicians reported that POCUS is performed in all their cases of CA. 5% of attending physicians and 0% of resident physicians reported never performing POCUS during CA. The top-ranked departmental barrier for attending physicians was “No structured curriculum to educate physicians on POCUS.” The top-ranked personal barriers were “I do not feel comfortable with my POCUS skills” and “I do not have sufficient time to dedicate to learning POCUS.” The top-ranked barriers for resident physicians were “Time to retrieve and operate the machine” and “Chaotic milieu.”While our study demonstrates that most attending and resident physicians utilize POCUS in CA, barriers to high-quality implementation exist. Top attending physician barriers relate to POCUS education, while the top resident physician barriers relate to logistics and the machines. Interventions to overcome these barriers might lead to optimization of POCUS performance during CA in the ED.

INTRODUCTION Among US veterans, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a high-prevalence condition; more than a million veterans of all combat eras are service-connected for this condition. Research on factors driving veterans' decision-making regarding preferred setting for PTSD care has been limited. The purpose of this study was to understand factors associated with preferences for setting of future PTSD care among veterans service-connected for PTSD. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey among veterans with service connection for PTSD in Texas and Vermont identified from the Veterans Services Network Corporate Mini Master File (VETSNET). Survey items were intended to elucidate PTSD healthcare decision-making and queried utilization, perceived need for care, and satisfaction and preferences for VA, community, and/or military setting for receipt of future PTSD care. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with preference for care setting. UT Health San Antonio's Institutional Review Board determined this quality improvement project to be non-research. RESULTS Veterans (n = 2,327) were surveyed with an overall response rate of 37.1%. Most veterans (72.4%) identified VA as a preferred site for their future PTSD care; a substantial, but smaller, number of veterans identified being interested in receiving care in community (39.9%) and military (12.7%) settings. Factors associated with preferences for future care setting included demographics (e.g., ethnicity, income), availability of healthcare coverage, prior experiences of care, and attitudes related to perceived quality of care and trust in VA. CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that it is important to retain foundational mental health services within VA, as well as to continue to invest in building provider and network capacity in community settings, to ensure alignment with veteran preferences for care setting.

Background Many leaders in the field of chronic pain treatment consider interdisciplinary pain management programs to be the most effective treatments available for chronic pain. As programs are instituted and expanded to address demands for nonpharmacological chronic pain interventions, we need to better understand how patients experience program impacts, as well as the challenges and supports patients encounter in trying to maintain and build on intervention gains. Methods We conducted a qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary chronic pain coaching program at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs. A purposive sample of Veterans were engaged in interviews (n=41) and focus groups (n=20) to elicit patient outcomes and barriers and facilitators to sustainment of improvements. Transcripts were analyzed using matrix and thematic analyses. Results Veterans reported various outcomes. Most frequently they described adopting new self-care or lifestyle practices for pain management and health. They also often described accepting pain, being better able to adjust and set boundaries, feeling more in control, participating in life, and changing their medication use. A small portion of the sample reported no improvement in their conditions. When outcomes were examined as a whole, individuals described impacts that could be placed along a spectrum from whole life change to no change. Facilitators to maintenance of improvements included having building blocks (eg, carrying forward practices learned), support (eg, access to resources), and energy (eg, motivation), and improving incrementally. Challenges were not having building blocks (eg, life disruptions), support (eg, unknown follow-up options), and energy (eg, competing demands) and having an unbalanced rate of improvement. Conclusion Most Veterans identified experiencing multiple areas of improvement, especially learning about and taking up new pain and general health management skills. Ensuring participants can build on and find support for these outcomes when applying what they have learned in their dynamic social and physical worlds remains a challenge for this program and other relatively short-term interdisciplinary chronic pain interventions.

OBJECTIVE:Although efforts to implement evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) require understanding how providers view and initiate these interventions, little is known regarding provider treatment selection in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) care. The current study examines how specialty PTSD clinic providers within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) describe reasons for selecting specific psychotherapies in PTSD treatment planning. METHOD:VHA psychotherapists in specialty PTSD care clinics completed a national online survey of treatment attitudes and practices, including an open-ended item inquiring about treatment selection. Thematic analysis was used to develop a framework describing factors in VHA providers' PTSD treatment selection. RESULTS:Of 250 survey participants, 219 provided description of their treatment selection process. Providers identified four domains of factors impacting treatment planning: (1) provider factors (e.g., training), (2) perceived characteristics of the intervention (e.g., structural features), (3) patient factors (e.g., characteristics of the patient and symptom presentation), and (4) organizational context (e.g., VHA policy). Assessment of appropriate treatments for an individual patient was described as resulting from interaction across these domains, particularly perceived fit between patient needs and specific treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Provider decision making has been understudied in implementation science. Although prior research has emphasized the role of organizational context in EBP reach, our findings suggest that other factors are salient when decisions are made at the level of the individual patient. Results suggest that increased attention to treatment selection and focused training in use of decision aids and shared decision making may have utility in increasing uptake, reach, and sustainment of EBPs among VHA PTSD specialty providers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Significant changes in national health policy, like the Veterans Choice Act, have created growing opportunities for veterans to receive care outside of the Veterans Administration (VA), yet little is known about the attitudes and practices in PTSD care of community providers, particularly their use of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs). The authors assessed psychotherapy practices of community providers serving veterans with PTSD in Texas. They surveyed Texas mental health providers regarding their patient population, practice setting, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related screening, assessment, and treatment practices. They identified providers from state licensing board rosters and included a stratified sample of social workers, marriage and family therapists, and professional counselors (500 each), all psychologists with available email addresses (n = 3,986), and 106 providers known to have completed state-sponsored training for 1 of the EBPs for PTSD, cognitive processing therapy. Four hundred sixty-three eligible respondents returned surveys (15% response rate). Providers reported treating a mean of 7.9 veterans with PTSD in the past year (range = 0-200; SD = 20.5), using a variety of therapeutic approaches for PTSD. Only 15.0% of providers reported regularly conducting psychotherapy for PTSD following a treatment manual, and fewer than half reported any use of EBPs for PTSD with patients. Although many veterans are receiving treatment for PTSD in the community, many community-based mental health providers in Texas do not consistently use recommended treatments for PTSD. These findings may suggest an important opportunity for VA to engage and partner with community providers to achieve high-quality care for veterans. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Prior research suggests a link between occupational burnout and perceived vulnerability to organizational oversight. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the relationship between perceptions of political and bureaucratic oversight (e.g., by Congress, media, or policies, rules, and performance metrics) and occupational burnout among mental health providers working in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PTSD specialty clinical teams (PCTs). This cross-sectional study included 481 prescribing and non-prescribing PCT providers throughout the VHA system. The sample was mostly female (70%), Caucasian (84%), and psychologists (48%). Participants completed an online survey that assessed demographics, perceptions of political and bureaucratic oversight, and burnout. Burnout was evaluated using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey. High levels of emotional exhaustion (55%), cynicism (55%), and professional efficacy (53%) were found. Results indicate that burnout in PCT providers was associated with: feeling vulnerable to complaints to media, Congress, and VHA leadership; reporting “political influence” on PTSD diagnoses or treatment offerings; and feeling care delivery is hindered by the large volume of VHA policies, rules, and performance metrics. Results suggest increasing providers’ sense of psychological safety and reducing metric overload may support burnout prevention in VHA's complex environment of care.