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: Health literacy
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.
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.
As the incidence of acute and chronic wound conditions rises and wound dressing protocols become more complex, uninsured patients lacking access to specialty wound care are challenged to manage their own wounds. Understanding multistep dressing change protocols may be inhibited by low health literacy. Low health literacy is associated with reduced disease knowledge and self-care. Little evidence of health literacy effects on wound patients is available nor are literacy-sensitive educational interventions that address wound knowledge and self-care. Improved outcomes occur in all health literacy levels in other diseases with the use of literacy-sensitive educational interventions that incorporate more than one literacy strategy over multiple sessions. To examine the effectiveness of a literacy-sensitive wound education intervention on wound knowledge and self-care, an evidence-based pilot project was conducted in an urban wound clinic.
A convenience sample of 21 patients received a literacy-sensitive wound education intervention consisting of spoken and written communication over several sessions. Instruments measured health literacy level, wound knowledge, dressing performance, and wound healing status. There was a significant increase in wound knowledge scores in all literacy groups from baseline to visit two (p < .01) and four (p < .01). Dressing performance scores remained consistently high through visit four in all literacy levels. All participant’s wounds progressed toward wound healing significantly from baseline to visit two (p < .01) and four (p < .01). Incorporation of a literacy-sensitive education intervention with supportive literacy aids over several sessions supports improved wound knowledge and dressing self-care and can affect healing in patients of all health literacy levels.
Methods: The quality department at a large children’s hospital in the southwestern United States approved the project as a practice change and parent consent was not required. The project design was a randomized controlled group: pretest-posttest design, quality improvement method. Participants were chosen by convenience sample. Required diagnoses were headache or migraine. Each group had 18 participants, for a total of 36 participants. Ages ranged from four to 18 years of age, with legal guardians present for the intervention group only. New and follow-up patients were included in the project. Demographics for each group were statistically similar. Questionnaires were used to assess knowledge pre and post implementation of teach back tool. Self-management was measured by a follow-up phone call after their appointment to inquire regarding implementation of the headache diary. Charts were reviewed for both groups regarding the number and type of phone calls received by the office.
Outcomes: Paired sample t-test was used to evaluate mean differences in knowledge from pre and post questions of teach back tool. Data analysis concluded a statistical increase in knowledge of triggers and prevention techniques. Cohen’s d for triggers was 2.21 and 1.87 for prevention. Self-management of behavior was measured by use of headache diary and determined by a percentage. Sixty-seven individuals started to use the headache diary. Independent t-test was used to compare number of phone calls from each group. Data concluded a decrease in phone calls. However, due to a small sample size, statistical significance could not be established.
Conclusion: Teach back encourages caregiver/patient and provider interaction, which increases health literacy retention and increases self-management behaviors. Future research should focus on patients with headaches with unknown triggers for their headaches.