Background: The US Veterans Health Administration (VA) is transforming its healthcare system to create a Whole Health System (WHS) of care. Akin to such reorganization efforts as creating patient-centered medical homes and primary care behavioral health integration, the WHS goes beyond by transforming the entire system to one that takes a proactive approach to support patient and employee health and wellness. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disrupted the VA's healthcare system and added stress for staff and patients, creating an exogenous shock for this transformation towards a WHS. Objective: We examined the relationship between VA's WHS transformation and the pandemic to understand if transformation was sustained during crisis and contributed to VA's response. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted as part of a multi-year study of WHS transformation. A single multi-person interview was conducted with 61 WHS leaders at 18 VA Medical Centers, examining WH transformation and use during the pandemic. Data were analyzed using rapid directed content analysis. Results: While the pandemic initially slowed transformation efforts, sites intentionally embraced a WH approach to support patients and employees during this crisis. Efforts included conducting patient wellness calls, and, for patients and employees, promoting complementary and integrative health therapies, self-care, and WH concepts to combat stress and support wellbeing. A surge in virtual technology use facilitated innovative delivery of complementary and integrative therapies and promoted continued use of WH activities. Conclusion: The pandemic called attention to the need for healthcare systems to address the wellbeing of both patients and providers to sustain high quality care delivery. At a time of crisis, VA sites sustained WH transformation efforts, recognizing WH as one strategy to support patients and employees. This response indicates cultural transformation is taking hold, with WH serving as a promising approach for promoting wellbeing among patients and employees alike.

BACKGROUND: Patients' life contexts are increasingly recognized as important, as evidenced by growing attention to the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH). This attention may be particularly valuable for patients with complex needs, like those with HIV, who are more likely to experience age-related comorbidities, mental health or substance use issues. Understanding patient perceptions of their life context can advance SDoH approaches. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how aging patients with HIV think about their life context and explored if and how their reported context was documented in their electronic medical records (EMRs). DESIGN: We combined life story interviews and EMR data to understand the health-related daily life experiences of patients with HIV. Patients over 50 were recruited from two US Department of Veterans Affairs HIV clinics. Narrative analysis was used to organize data by life events and health-related metrics. KEY RESULTS: EMRs of 15 participants documented an average of 19 diagnoses and 10 medications but generally failed to include social contexts salient to patients. In interviews, HIV was discussed primarily in response to direct interviewer questions. Instead, participants raised past trauma, current social engagement, and concern about future health with varying salience. This led us to organize the narratives temporally according to past-, present-, or future-orientation. "Past-focused" narratives dwelled on unresolved experiences with social institutions like the school system, military or marriage. "Present-focused" narratives emphasized daily life challenges, like social isolation. "Future-focused" narratives were dominated by concerns that aging would limit activities. CONCLUSIONS: A temporally informed understanding of patients' life circumstances that are the foundation of their individualized SDoH could better focus care plans by addressing contextual concerns salient to patients. Trust-building may be a critical first step in caring for past-focused patients. Present-focused patients may benefit from support groups. Future-focused patients may desire discussing long term care options.

BACKGROUND: Improving patient-centered (PC) communication is a priority in many healthcare organizations. Most PC communication metrics are distal to the care encounter and lack clear attribution, thereby reducing relevance for leaders and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the acceptability of measuring PC communication at the point-of-care. DESIGN: A brief patient survey was conducted immediately post-primary care appointments at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Audit-feedback reports were created for clinicians and discussed in qualitative interviews. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 patients completed the survey. Thirteen interviews were conducted with clinicians and hospital leaders. MAIN MEASURE(S): Measures included collaboRATE (a 3-item tool measuring PC communication), a question about how well needs were met, and overall visit satisfaction. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize the mean and distribution of collaboRATE scores and determine the proportion of patients giving clinicians a "top score" on each item. Associations among responses were examined. Interviews focused on the value of measuring PC communication and were analyzed using a framework approach. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of patients giving PC communication "top scores" ranged from 41 to 92% for 16 clinicians who had > /= 25 completed surveys. Among patients who gave "top scores" for PC communication, the odds of reporting that needs were "completely met" were 10.8 times higher (p < .001) and the odds of reporting being "very satisfied" with their care were 13.3 times higher (p < .001) compared with patients who did not give "top scores." Interviewees found clinician-specific feedback useful; concerns included prioritizing this data when other measures are used to evaluate clinicians' performance. Difficulties improving PC communication given organizational structures were noted. Recommendations for interventions included peer-to-peer education and mentoring by top-scoring clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing provider communication at the point-of-care is acceptable and useful to clinicians. Challenges remain to properly incentivize and support the use of this data for improving PC communication.