Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) Final Projects
The Doctor of Nursing Practice Final Projects collection contains the completed works of students from the DNP Program at Arizona State University's College of Nursing and Health Innovation. These projects are the culminating product of the curricula and demonstrate clinical scholarship.
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Adherence to Follow-Up
Background and Significance: CRC is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States among men and women. Current CRC screening rates remain low, even with advanced screening options available. Meaningful Use sets specific objectives for health care providers to achieve. Documenting CRC screening status and recommending CRC screenings to patients is one of the objectives of Meaningful Use and is considered a Clinical Quality Measure (HealthIT.gov). Factors that lead to CRC screening include primary care providers (PCPs) raising the topic, involving support staff, involving patients in the decision-making process, and setting alerts in electronic health records (EHRs).
Methods: The Health Belief Model and Ottawa Model of Research Use helped guide this project. The project took place at a private primary care practice. The focus was on patients between the ages of 50 and 75 years old meeting criteria for CRC. Five PCPS and five medical assistants (MAs) chose to participate in the study. Participants were given pre and post Practice Culture Assessment (PCA) surveys to measure perceptions of the practice culture. The project included a three-part practice change: PCP and MA education about CRC screening guidelines, EHR documentation and reminders, and a change of patient visit workflow which included having MAs review patient's CRC screening status before they were seen by the PCP and handing out CRC screening brochures when appropriate. PCPs then ordered the appropriate CRC screening, and the MA documented the screening in the EHR under a designated location. CRC Screening Project Evaluation Forms were completed by MAs after each patient visit.
Outcomes: No significant difference from pre to post survey satisfaction scores were found (t (8) = - 1.542, p= = .162). Means of quantitative data were reported from the CRC screening evaluation forms; N=91. The most common method of screening chosen was colonoscopy, 87%. A strong correlation was found (r (-.293) = .01, p<.05) between receiving a CRC brochure and choosing a form of screening. Meaningful Use scores pre and post project are pending.
Conclusion: Patients are more likely to choose a screening method when the topic is raised in a primary care setting. Continued staff education on workflow is important to sustain this change. Further research is needed to evaluate cost effectiveness and sustainability of this practice change.
Purpose: The purpose of this project was to assess provider readiness for patient portals and provide an educational intervention to address perceived barriers.
Method: Ten providers at a large family practice clinic in the southwest United States were surveyed using The Provider Readiness Questionnaire prior to and after an educational intervention addressing common concerns.
Results: Improved response to patient portal use after the provider viewed the learning module. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare pre-and post-intervention responses. There was a statistically significant difference in the scores for the question “increase my workload” Pretest (M= 3.78, SD=1.201) and; Posttest (M=2.67, SD=1.225) ;(t (8) =5.547, p = .001). There was also a statistically significant difference for the question “increased provider professional satisfaction” Pretest (M=3.89, SD= .333) and Posttest (M= 4.44, SD=.527); t (8) = -2.294, p=.051).
Implications: Providing education addressing perceived barriers to portal use can assist the provider in understanding the value of the portals to improve patient outcomes and address common concerns about the impact of portal use on provider productivity.
The chronic nature of substance use disorder requires continuity of care after residential treatment. Only a small proportion of patients, however, adhere to aftercare follow-up plans and the relapse rates remain between 40- 80% within a year post-discharge. Synthesis of evidence showed that facilitated referral (FR) significantly increased follow- up adherence and resulted to positive outcomes. The study aimed to examine the effectiveness of FR in improving access, follow-up adherence and engagement to aftercare services, and relapse rate after a month post- discharge.
After the Institutional Review Board approval, 30 participants were recruited in two residential treatment facilities. Questionnaires, the Assessment of Warning Signs of Relapse and Health leads surveys were utilized to collect data. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, McNemar, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Results showed that FR significantly increased access to many community aftercare services (p<.05). A significant reduction in relapse risk post-intervention was also noted (Z= -3.180, p= .001). Additionally, most participants discharged with scheduled appointments followed-up and had continued engagement with aftercare services. Eight participants maintained sobriety and 18 were lost to follow-up a month post-discharge, while four relapsed in the facility.
Overall, FR increased access to needed aftercare services and significantly decreased the relapse percentage risk post-discharge. FR is a promising intervention that can be implemented for practice. Future research is recommended to further examine the correlation with follow-up adherence and continuous engagement to aftercare services, and relapse rate at 30 days after discharge.
Cancer survivorship has been identified as separate stage in cancer treatment posing unique issues that arise from the diagnosis of cancer, as well as late effects associated with treatments. Evidence shows that cancer survivors demonstrate suboptimal follow-up care, and report high levels of unmet needs related to their cancer experience. To improve care for the increasing number of cancer survivors in the United States, survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been proposed as way to strengthen care coordination and improve patient outcomes.
Research suggests that SCPs have favorable impact on patient satisfaction and quality of life, however little research to date investigates the utility of SCPs in improving patient outcomes, adherence to follow-up recommendations, or patients’ confidence in self-care management. To further understand the role of SCPs in survivorship care, a pilot implementation of SCPs in colon cancer patients was implemented to gather data on the identified gaps.
