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
- Creators: Chiffelle, Rochelle
- Creators: Bain, Ilyssa D.
- Creators: Berry, Robin
The utilization of suicide risk assessment tools is a critical component of a comprehensive approach to suicide risk assessment. However, some professionals hesitate to utilize screening tools routinely in practice. A project was undertaken to determine if the utilization of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Scale (C-SSRS) improved staff confidence in assessing suicide risk. Professionals within a psychiatric urgent care in Scottsdale, Arizona were provided with
training on the C-SSRS. Participants then utilized the C-SSRS at triage with patients presenting with depression and/or suicidality over a two-month period.
Self confidence in assessing suicide risk was evaluated utilizing The Efficacy in Assessing and Managing Suicide Risk Scale (SETSP-S). The acceptability and usability of the C-SSRS was evaluated utilizing The System Usability Scale (SUS). Findings of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test indicated changes in pre and posttest assessment scores as significant in seven of the eight assessment parameters. In addition, Cohen's effect size value suggested medium or large clinical significance in these same assessment parameters.
Evidence suggests that efficient and effective assessment can improve staff confidence in assessing for suicidality and may improve morbidity and mortality rates for patients. The utilization of tools such as the C*SSRS could reduce health care costs associated with unnecessary hospital admissions as well as rehospitalizations. The routine utilization of assessment tools such as the C-SSRS many also be beneficial to healthcare specialties outside of behavioral health such as emergency departments and urgent care settings.
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.