Federal Reports

This Office of Inspector General (OIG) Healthcare Facility Inspection program report describes the results of a focused evaluation of the care provided at the VA Spokane Healthcare System in Washington. 

This evaluation focused on five key content domains:
     •    Culture
     •    Environment of care
     •    Patient safety
     •    Primary care
     •    Veteran-centered safety net

The OIG issued one recommendation for VA to correct identified deficiencies in one domain:
   1.    Environment of care
     •    Clean and soiled utility item storage, cleanliness, and expired item disposal
 

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements.

This Office of Inspector General (OIG) Healthcare Facility Inspection program report describes the results of a focused evaluation of the care provided at the VA Central Ohio Health Care System in Columbus. 

This evaluation focused on five key content domains:
     •    Culture
     •    Environment of care
     •    Patient safety
     •    Primary care
     •    Veteran-centered safety net

The OIG issued three recommendations for VA to correct identified deficiencies in three domains:
   1.    Culture
     •    Standardized process for service-level communication
   2.    Environment of care
     •    Clean patient areas and intact walls
   3.    Veteran-centered safety net
     •    Housing and Urban Development–Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program resources

Why We Did This Report

In response to a congressional request, our objective was to determine whether the fiscal year 2021 Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving, or EJCPS, Program was achieving project objectives and whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s monitoring of these projects ensured that funds were used as intended.

Summary of Findings

We were unable to determine whether the EJCPS cooperative agreements we reviewed fully achieved the project objectives described in work plans, as well as whether the EPA’s monitoring of these projects ensured that the funding was being used as intended. Specifically, (1) four of six work plans did not consistently contain well-defined measurable outputs and expected outcomes, (2) three of six recipients’ performance reports lacked details to fully measure progress, and (3) the project officers for four of six projects did not document their review of recipients’ performance reports.