Programs and Communities
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Adolescent
- All Subjects: Climate Change
Background: Healthcare providers are encouraged to prepare their practice to effectively manage the care of mild to moderate adolescent depression. Cost-effective screening, diagnostic, and newly developed pediatric primary care depression management guidelines have been established. To integrate guidelines into practice, primary care providers (PCPs) must document effectively to ensure a complete treatment plan is in place in the patient’s electronic health record (EHR).
Intervention: Elements from a flowsheet were implemented into the EHR to promote thorough assessment and documentation of care delivered to adolescents with depression.
Methods: An initial chart review was completed on patients diagnosed with depression. An updated depression template was implemented within the EHR for six weeks. A follow-up chart review was completed post-intervention to determine if documentation of elements from the adolescent depression guidelines improved after the EHR update. Pre-intervention and post- intervention surveys were delivered to PCP’s to understand their perspective on adolescent depression management.
Outcomes: The chart review revealed that baseline PHQ-9 screenings were documented in 91% (n=43) of the charts reviewed in the pre-intervention timeframe. Only 78% (n=7) of the charts reviewed during post-intervention included PHQ-9 screenings. Early intervention treatment options documented in the pre-intervention timeframe included education 100% (n=47), medication prescriptions 53% (n=25), and psychotherapy referrals 18% (n=18). During post- intervention, education 100% (n=9), medication prescriptions 78% (7), and psychotherapy referrals 22% (n=7) were documented by the PCPs.
Recommendation: The quality improvement project focused heavily on documentation completed over a one year pre-intervention timeframe compared to a six-week post-intervention timeframe. Further evaluation and chart review over the next year will provide a more adequate comparison of documentation within primary care practice.
There is an increase in the prevalence of mental health problems in the United States. Healthy People 2020’s leading mental health indicator is to increase the delivery of care to those with mental health issues and lower the number of youth who experience a major depressive disorder. Teachers and non-teaching staff are well placed in the community to identify youth undergoing emotional distress and facilitate early interventions, yet do not receive adequate training in mental health.
A project was undertaken to determine if a mental health training intervention affected the community youth mentors knowledge, attitude and self-efficacy towards helping youth with mental health issues. Three instruments with good validity and reliability namely Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS), Attitudes to Severe Mental Illness (ASMI) scale, and Gatekeeper Behavior Scale were used in pre intervention, immediately post intervention and two weeks post intervention questionnaires. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test indicated changes in the pre and post intervention scores as significant in knowledge, and attitude between pre intervention and immediately post intervention time periods. Cohen’s effect size value suggested large, medium, small, and minimum clinical significance in the variables over period of time.
Mental health literacy narrows the gap between symptom onset and intervention. Numerous mental health trainings are currently available worldwide. Schools and after school clubs in collaboration with hospital mental health and other community agencies are better equipped to bridge the gap. School staff report better confidence in addressing mental health and behavioral health issues among youth when equipped with additional resources within the school in the form of psychologists, social workers, and counselors.
Maricopa County, Arizona, anchor to the fastest growing megapolitan area in the United States, is located in a hot desert climate where extreme temperatures are associated with elevated risk of mortality. Continued urbanization in the region will impact atmospheric temperatures and, as a result, potentially affect human health. We aimed to quantify the number of excess deaths attributable to heat in Maricopa County based on three future urbanization and adaptation scenarios and multiple exposure variables.
Two scenarios (low and high growth projections) represent the maximum possible uncertainty range associated with urbanization in central Arizona, and a third represents the adaptation of high-albedo cool roof technology. Using a Poisson regression model, we related temperature to mortality using data spanning 1983–2007. Regional climate model simulations based on 2050-projected urbanization scenarios for Maricopa County generated distributions of temperature change, and from these predicted changes future excess heat-related mortality was estimated. Subject to urbanization scenario and exposure variable utilized, projections of heat-related mortality ranged from a decrease of 46 deaths per year (− 95%) to an increase of 339 deaths per year (+ 359%).
Projections based on minimum temperature showed the greatest increase for all expansion and adaptation scenarios and were substantially higher than those for daily mean temperature. Projections based on maximum temperature were largely associated with declining mortality. Low-growth and adaptation scenarios led to the smallest increase in predicted heat-related mortality based on mean temperature projections. Use of only one exposure variable to project future heat-related deaths may therefore be misrepresentative in terms of direction of change and magnitude of effects. Because urbanization-induced impacts can vary across the diurnal cycle, projections of heat-related health outcomes that do not consider place-based, time-varying urban heat island effects are neglecting essential elements for policy relevant decision-making.
Global environmental change and sustainability science increasingly recognize the need to address the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere. These changes raise questions such as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental changes underway, and where? Research demonstrates that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards. This recognition requires revisions and enlargements in the basic design of vulnerability assessments, including the capacity to treat coupled human–environment systems and those linkages within and without the systems that affect their vulnerability. A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human–environment systems is presented.
Research on global environmental change has significantly improved our understanding of the structure and function of the biosphere and the human impress on both (1). The emergence of “sustainability science” (2–4) builds toward an understanding of the human–environment condition with the dual objectives of meeting the needs of society while sustaining the life support systems of the planet. These objectives, in turn, require improved dialogue between science and decision making (5–8). The vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems is one of the central elements of this dialogue and sustainability research (6, 9–11). It directs attention to such questions as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental and human changes underway, and where? How are these changes and their consequences attenuated or amplified by different human and environmental conditions? What can be done to reduce vulnerability to change? How may more resilient and adaptive communities and societies be built?
Answers to these and related questions require conceptual frameworks that account for the vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems with diverse and complex linkages. Various expert communities have made considerable progress in pointing the way toward the design of these frameworks (10, 11). These advances are briefly reviewed here and, drawing on them, we present a conceptual framework of vulnerability developed by the Research and Assessment Systems for Sustainability Program (http://sust.harvard.edu) that produced the set of works in this Special Feature of PNAS. The framework aims to make vulnerability analysis consistent with the concerns of sustainability and global environmental change science. The case study by Turner et al. (12) in this issue of PNAS illustrates how the framework informs vulnerability assessments.
Seclusion and restraint are restrictive interventions that continue to be used in both physical care and mental health care settings as a means of controlling dangerous behavior such as aggression. Restrictive interventions place patients and healthcare staff in hostile situations that can lead to physical, mental, and emotional injuries that can last a lifetime. Unfortunately, restrictive interventions continue to be used in many healthcare organizations around the world and the number of patient and staff injuries continue to rise. Stakeholders at a Phoenix area psychiatric inpatient hospital conducted an internal audit on the number of seclusion and restraint episodes in 2019, which revealed an increase in the number of seclusion and restraints episodes on the adolescent unit.
The result of this audit led to the project question: For nurses on an acute adolescent inpatient unit, is a seclusion and restraint education program more effective than usual
practice in changing the knowledge and attitude regarding seclusion and restraint? The purpose of this practice change project was to provide staff education that focused on trauma informed care, de-escalation techniques, and therapeutic communication to improve staff confidence to ultimately lead to the reduction of seclusion and restraint use on an adolescent inpatient unit. A
pre and posttest questionnaire designed to better understand nurse attitude and knowledge regarding restrictive interventions prior to the education session was provided. A convenience sample of nurses (N=9) participated in the project. The findings from the pre and posttest questionnaire suggest that seclusion and restraint education for nurses may improve nurse knowledge and attitude regarding the use of restrictive interventions and reduce rates of use.