Objective:Patients with comorbid chronic conditions may prioritize some conditions over others; however, our understanding of factors influencing those prioritizations is limited. In this study, we sought to identify and elaborate a range of factors that influence how and why patients with comorbid chronic conditions prioritize their conditions.Methods:We conducted semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with 33 patients with comorbidities recruited from a single Veterans Health Administration Medical Center.Findings:The diverse factors influencing condition prioritization reflected three overarching themes: (1) the perceived role of a condition in the body, (2) self-management tasks, and (3) pain. In addition to these themes, participants described the rankings that they believed their healthcare providers would assign to their conditions as an influencing factor, although few reported having shared their priorities or explicitly talking with providers about the importance of their conditions.Conclusion:Studies that advance understanding of how and why patients prioritize their various conditions are essential to providing care that is patient-centered, reflecting what matters most to the individual while improving their health. This analysis informs guideline development efforts for the care of patients with comorbid chronic conditions as well as the creation of tools to promote patient–provider communication regarding the importance placed on different conditions.

Polytrauma team members caring for Veterans with TBI may be at risk for job burnout.

No abstract

undergone BMT is circulated to members of the transplant program. A data analyst uses this list to identify those patients who underwent allogeneic transplant. Calendar reminders are created to alert an advanced practice provider (APP) that an acute assessment is required 12-14 days posttransplant and at 7-day intervals thereafter until discharge. The APP initiates the assessment note and designates the rounding physician as a co-signer. A deficiency appears in the rounding physician's profile until the note is edited and signed. Results: Twenty-six allogeneic transplants were performed between June and August of 2017. Acute assessment notes were completed for 65% of the patients. Of those without a completed assessment, two patients were discharged prior to initiation of an acute note and two patients had their assessments integrated within their progress notes. Of the remaining five patients, there was no evidence of GVHD found within the progress notes. Four patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge, and acute GVHD assessments were completed for 3 of these patients during their readmission. Conclusions: Integrating an acute GVHD assessment into our hospital's EHR system and involving an advanced practice provider in the documentation process are major accomplishments that we think will not only increase our accuracy in reporting data, but it will improve post-transplant outcomes.