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: Parents
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.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events experienced during childhood that have negative effects starting as a child and extending into adulthood. The presence of multiple ACEs increases negative mental, physical, and behavioral health outcomes. Children of parents who have experienced ACEs are at a higher risk of experiencing ACEs themselves, creating an intergenerational cycle of trauma between parents and their children. Evidence suggests that parenting education can reduce the impact of ACEs and potentially eliminate poor health outcomes. The literature revealed that parenting education was found to increase parenting competency, which will in turn reduce the impact of ACEs on children.
The purpose of this evidence-based project is to evaluate parenting competency and parenting self-efficacy after implementing six parenting workshops. The workshop topics consist of: (a) stress management, (b) understanding trauma, (c) positive parenting, (d) positive discipline, (e) play, and (f) learning development and support. The workshops were delivered at a community residential facility for women seeking recovery from abuse, incarceration, chemical dependency and other life-controlling problems. Participants included 10 female residents.
Demographics, ACE scores, pre and post Parenting Sense of Competency Scale, and a post intervention satisfaction questionnaire and discussion were used to collect data from the participants. Mothers’ ACE scores ranged from 2-9. The parenting self-efficacy score increased in the subgroup that attended all six workshops. All of the mothers agreed that the workshops would help with parenting their children. The findings suggest that parenting education increases parenting knowledge and self-efficacy, and may reduce the impact of ACEs on children.
Design: Using an established program for health literacy education, a Doctor of Nursing Practice project was implemented. The effect the program had on increasing the health literacy of participants over a period of 4 weeks was examined. The predominately, Latina participants received three hours of instruction based upon the health literacy book “What to do When Your Child Gets Sick”.
Setting and Subjects: The educational program took place in a large, urban county in the Southwestern United States with 24 parents of preschool age children in Head Start.
Intervention: The educational program contained three hours of classroom instruction utilizing PowerPoint® presentation, demonstration, and teach-back techniques on how to care for a child’s healthcare needs.
Measures and Analysis: Pre-, post- and telephone surveys were used to assess the impact of the health literacy educational program. Wilcoxon and Freidman tests were used to interpret the results.
Results: Despite no significant increases in health literacy post implementation, participants’ remarked that they felt the class was helpful and wanted to share the information with friends and family. They appreciated the program and wanted more educational opportunities.
Conclusion: Advanced practice nurses must acquire understanding, cultural sensitivity, and assess the needs of the community when implementing health literacy educational projects.
Background: Cyberbullying and cyber-victimization are rising problems and are associated with increased risk for mental health problems in children. Methods for addressing cyberbullying are limited, however, interventions focused on promoting appropriate parental mediation strategies are a promising solution supported by evidence and by guided by the Theory of Parenting Styles.
Objective: To provide an educational session to parents of middle school students that promotes effective methods of preventing and addressing cyberbullying incidents. Design: The educational sessions were provided to eight parents middle school student. Surveys to assess parent perception of and planned response to cyberbullying incidents and Parent Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS) scores were collected pre-presentation, post-presentation, and at one-month follow up.
Results: Data analysis of pre- and post-presentation PACS using a Wilcoxon test found no significant difference (Z = -.405, p >.05). There was not enough response to the 1-month follow-up to perform a data analysis on follow-up data.
Conclusions: Due to low attendance and participation in the follow-up survey the results of this project are limited. However, parents did appear to benefit from communicating concerns about cyberbullying with school officials. Future studies should examine if a school-wide anti-cyberbullying program that actively involves parents effects parental response to cyberbullying.