Phoenix VA Spent 10 Years Installing an Electronic Wait List

The Phoenix VA Health Care Center, shown here on April 28, 2014, has come under scrutiny as growing concerns about allegations of gross mismanagement and neglect.

Ross D. Franklin/AP

AA Font size + Print

The Phoenix VA Health Care Center, shown here on April 28, 2014, has come under scrutiny as growing concerns about allegations of gross mismanagement and neglect.

Transitioning patient care from a paper-based system to electronic wait lists 'was not handled well,' according to a former VA official. By Bob Brewin

The Phoenix Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in 2012 finally installed an electronic wait list system that an internal manual reveals had been available and deployed elsewhere in the Veterans Affairs Department since 2002.

CNN reported on April 30 that the Phoenix VA hospital, known as PVACHS, created a “secret” wait list of 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans who were forced to wait months for treatment, including some 40 patients who died during the wait.

The electronic wait list, or EWL, that was deployed across the Veterans Health Administration in 2002 aimed to do away with “ad hoc” wait lists, like the one discovered by CNN in Phoenix 12 years later.  

“Ad hoc ‘waiting lists’ of new veteran enrollees to be entered into the scheduling system are known to exist, and waiting times for new enrollees seeking care are anecdotally reported to be long,” Laura Miller, then-VA deputy undersecretary of health operations and maintenance, wrote in a 2002 memo quoted in the manual.  “We will attempt to formalize an ‘electronic waiting list’ in VistA [Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture electronic health record] to more consistently and accurately reflect demand across VHA, and reduce the risk to enrollees lost to follow-up due to clerical error.”

In a letter earlier this week to Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., who chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki said Phoenix was not in compliance with agency policy before it installed the electronic wait list in 2012.

“As is VHA policy, new patients who cannot be provided clinical appointments within 90 days of the date of the request should be placed on the EWL,” Shinseki said. “At this juncture, it does not appear that PVACHS patients who were not able to be seen within 90 days were handled consistently prior to the arrival of the current management team in 2012. Patients appear to have been scheduled beyond 90 days and not placed on the EWL, contrary to VHA’s policy for new patients. When the existing leadership came on board in 2012, they initiated VHA’s current national standard policy and the use of the EWL.”

A March 19, 2014 update to the EWL now allows scheduling more than 120 days from the desired appointment date. VA is supposed to provide care to patients in a timely manner, within 14 to 30 days.

According to a former VA official, each of the 152 VA hospitals decided when to use the EWL application “and Phoenix was one of the very last to deploy.” He added, “Transition from a paper based system to the electronic one was not handled well. From what I hear, there was a great deal of resistance from staff as well.”

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne
 
 

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from DefenseOne.com.
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Software-Defined Networking

    So many demands are being placed on federal information technology networks, which must handle vast amounts of data, accommodate voice and video, and cope with a multitude of highly connected devices while keeping government information secure from cyber threats. This issue brief discusses the state of SDN in the federal government and the path forward.

    View
  • Military Readiness: Ensuring Readiness with Analytic Insight

    To determine military readiness, decision makers in defense organizations must develop an understanding of complex inter-relationships among readiness variables. For example, how will an anticipated change in a readiness input really impact readiness at the unit level and, equally important, how will it impact readiness outside of the unit? Learn how to form a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of readiness and make decisions in a timely and cost-effective manner.

    View
  • Cyber Risk Report: Cybercrime Trends from 2016

    In our first half 2016 cyber trends report, SurfWatch Labs threat intelligence analysts noted one key theme – the interconnected nature of cybercrime – and the second half of the year saw organizations continuing to struggle with that reality. The number of potential cyber threats, the pool of already compromised information, and the ease of finding increasingly sophisticated cybercriminal tools continued to snowball throughout the year.

    View
  • A New Security Architecture for Federal Networks

    Federal government networks are under constant attack, and the number of those attacks is increasing. This issue brief discusses today's threats and a new model for the future.

    View
  • Information Operations: Retaking the High Ground

    Today's threats are fluent in rapidly evolving areas of the Internet, especially social media. Learn how military organizations can secure an advantage in this developing arena.

    View

When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.