View in EDS

Identifying Priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs Strategic Plan: A Rapid Multi‐Method Evaluation.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Identifying Priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs Strategic Plan: A Rapid Multi‐Method Evaluation.
Authors: Donnelly, John P.1,2,3 (AUTHOR) jpdonn@umich.edu, Vitous, C. Ann4,5 (AUTHOR), Burgan, Kaylee W.6 (AUTHOR), Yahya, Gezan M.1 (AUTHOR), Johnson, Jessica L.1 (AUTHOR), McDonald, Jessica A.1 (AUTHOR), Bowersox, Nicholas W.1,2,3,7 (AUTHOR), Kawentel, Linda M.1 (AUTHOR)
Source: Learning Health Systems. Apr2026, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p1-10. 10p.
Subject Terms: *Health services accessibility, *Evaluation methodology, *Qualitative research, Strategic planning, Veterans, Medical care, Veterans affairs offices, Information technology personnel
Company/Entity: United States. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Abstract: Background: Understanding the priorities of patients and leaders can help organizations prepare for the future. This evaluation sought to generate actionable data on priorities in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) strategic plan, with priorities identified within the literature as well as among Veterans and VA leaders. Methods: A rapid qualitative evaluation was conducted, including a document analysis based on published information, focus groups with Veterans associated with research centers, and semi‐structured interviews with VA leaders. All data were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods, resulting in comprehensive templated descriptions of topics discussed and representative quotes. Summative content analysis was used to report frequencies and identify the most frequently mentioned priorities. Results: A total of 170 documents (e.g., academic/research articles, government publications) were analyzed. Seventeen Veteran focus groups (92 participants) and 26 semi‐structured interviews with VA leaders (representing 19 program offices) were conducted. There were differences in the most frequently mentioned priorities across sources, with none ranked in the top 5 for all. However, "Access and Continuity of Care," "Health Benefits," "Special Groups," and "Workforce" were among the top 10 mentioned within all sources. Among these, "Workforce" was most mentioned within the document analysis, whereas "Access and Continuity of Care" was most mentioned in focus groups. Both "Health Benefits" and "Access and Continuity of Care" were most mentioned during leadership interviews. Conclusions: Our findings suggest shared priorities to emphasize as VA looks to the future: improving care access, efficient and effective benefits processing, ensuring the needs of special Veteran groups are met, and sustaining an adequate workforce. However, further work should focus on understanding how Veterans and staff engage with the system to guide the investment of limited organizational resources. This work serves as an example of how rapid evaluation could be applied for strategic planning in other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Learning Health Systems is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Background: Understanding the priorities of patients and leaders can help organizations prepare for the future. This evaluation sought to generate actionable data on priorities in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) strategic plan, with priorities identified within the literature as well as among Veterans and VA leaders. Methods: A rapid qualitative evaluation was conducted, including a document analysis based on published information, focus groups with Veterans associated with research centers, and semi‐structured interviews with VA leaders. All data were analyzed using rapid qualitative methods, resulting in comprehensive templated descriptions of topics discussed and representative quotes. Summative content analysis was used to report frequencies and identify the most frequently mentioned priorities. Results: A total of 170 documents (e.g., academic/research articles, government publications) were analyzed. Seventeen Veteran focus groups (92 participants) and 26 semi‐structured interviews with VA leaders (representing 19 program offices) were conducted. There were differences in the most frequently mentioned priorities across sources, with none ranked in the top 5 for all. However, "Access and Continuity of Care," "Health Benefits," "Special Groups," and "Workforce" were among the top 10 mentioned within all sources. Among these, "Workforce" was most mentioned within the document analysis, whereas "Access and Continuity of Care" was most mentioned in focus groups. Both "Health Benefits" and "Access and Continuity of Care" were most mentioned during leadership interviews. Conclusions: Our findings suggest shared priorities to emphasize as VA looks to the future: improving care access, efficient and effective benefits processing, ensuring the needs of special Veteran groups are met, and sustaining an adequate workforce. However, further work should focus on understanding how Veterans and staff engage with the system to guide the investment of limited organizational resources. This work serves as an example of how rapid evaluation could be applied for strategic planning in other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:23796146
DOI:10.1002/lrh2.70068