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: Childhood Obesity
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.
Health statistics for physical activity, nutrition, and psychological wellbeing demonstrate the tenuous status of youth in the United States (US). These factors significantly affect growth and development during this critical period and indelibly influence adult health. Consequently, the successful utilization of multicomponent pediatric health promotion programs could improve current and future health, saving billions in health-care costs. The analysis of a literature review on this topic led to the development and completion of an evidence-based project. The project was guided by two conceptual frameworks, Pender’s Health Promotion Model and the Stetler Model for Evidence-based Practice. The project was completed in partnership with a local after-school youth program.
Methodology included a project intervention comprised of a single specialized training session. Data was collected using a pretest-posttest format with repeated measures from a survey adapted from the Organization Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) tool. Survey questions focused on participant’s knowledge, skills, attitudes, and use of the selected health promotion program. Descriptive Statistics, the Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test, and the Friedman Test were completed for data analysis using IBM SPSS v25. Using a critical value p < .1, results from the data indicated improvement in median scores for participant’s knowledge and skills (p-value’s range = .05 - .082). Other changes were not statistically significant (p-value’s range = .135 - .317). The results indicate the project intervention’s efficacy. Future research may focus on optimal training formats, a comparison of repeat sessions versus supplemental web-accessible resources, and program sustainability via refresher sessions and/or designated management.
Background:
Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. school-aged children are obese. There are many known health complications associated with obesity including premature death. Family-based obesity interventions that promote healthy lifestyle habits are effective at enabling children to make changes needed to avoid long-term health complications associated with obesity. The purpose of this evidence-based practice intervention was to evaluate the effectiveness of a family-based obesity intervention on familial lifestyle behaviors related to nutrition, physical activity, and screen time.
Methods:
Two overweight-obese children (according to CDC criteria) ages 8-12 years old visiting a pediatric primary care clinic in a suburban neighborhood located in the southwest region were recruited to participate in this evidence-based practice intervention based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Familial lifestyle behaviors were assessed using the Family Health Behavior Scale (FHBS) prior to receiving an educational intervention addressing nutritional, physical activity, and screen time recommendations and again after following these recommendation for 6-weeks. Additionally, scheduled follow-up phone calls were made every 3 or 6-weeks addressing any parental questions that surfaced. Data was insufficient for statistical analysis, however, anecdotal recommendations for future implementation of this intervention resulted.
Results:
Of the two patients who participated, pre- and post-intervention data was only attainable from one patient. That patient did have improved scores within each of the 4 FHBS subscales (parent behaviors, physical activity, mealtime routines, and child behaviors). Overall, 11 of the 27 behaviors assessed improved, 12 behaviors resulted in no change, and 4 behaviors worsened. Recommendations related to a more successful implementation of this intervention in the future include improved provider participation (buy-in), utilization of broader inclusion criteria, consideration of the implementation time-frame, and application of the Health Belief Model for addressing existing barriers for each patient prior to implementing the intervention.
Conclusions:
In order to determine the effectiveness of this intervention a larger sample size and completed post-intervention data are needed. The small sample size and lack of post-intervention data inhibits proper data analyzation and significance from being determined.