Filtering by
- All Subjects: Screening
- All Subjects: Adolescent
- Creators: Nunez, Diane
- Creators: Holtfreter, Kristy
- Resource Type: Text
Purpose: Implementation of a postpartum depression (PPD) screening while using evidence-based interventions to improve depressive symptoms, enhance breastfeeding (BF) self-efficacy, and strengthen the mother-infant dyad (MID).
Background and Significance: PPD is highly prevalent among women living in the United States and threatens the physical and psychological health of MIDs. Many of these women go undiagnosed and without treatment, further worsening symptoms and outcomes. This has inspired world healthcare leaders and organizations to address maternal mental health among postpartum women.
Methods: A 12-week evidenced-based project consisted of two-sets of participants including mothers and staff. A comprehensive maternal support program guided by an informational pamphlet (IP) and implementation of PPD screening using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale served as the two-part intervention for this project. Goals were to decrease PPD, enhance BF satisfaction, and strengthen the MID. Comprehensive maternal support encompasses interventions proven to meet the project goals and includes tailored BF education and care to maternal needs, social support by peer/family involvement, skin-to-skin contact during BF, emotion-regulation strategies, and availability of community resources.
Outcomes: The BSES-SF scores did result in statistical significance based on an alpha value of 0.10, t(3) = -2.98, p = .059, proving a positive effect was seen in breastfeeding self-efficacy post intervention. The results did not show statistical significance (t(3) = 0.60, p = .591) in regard to pre and post-depression scores. However, the mean pre-score (M =3.50, SD 3.11) did decrease post-intervention (M =2.75, SD 1.26) and exemplifies clinical significance.
Conclusion: The outcomes of this Quality-Improvement project showed improved scores for depression and BF self-efficacy post-intervention. This demonstrates the value in screening for PPD using a validated screening tool and instituting comprehensive maternal support guided by evidence-based practice in a community setting.
Background and Significance: Evidence shows primary care providers (PCPs) are not adhering to the GOLD Guidelines for COPD screening.
Methods: Guideline education with pre/post-intervention survey and percent of eligible participants screened.
Results: Pre-intervention surveys (n=10) and post-intervention surveys (n=8) completed. Significant increase in knowledge regarding the CAT score (M score = 11.50, U = 24.000, p<.05). Part 2) 24% (n=6) of participants were screened with the CAT questionnaire.
Conclusions: PCPs are aware of the GOLD Guidelines, but do not always adhere to its recommendations. Future research should concentrate on effective ways to implement the GOLD Guidelines screening recommendations in primary care clinics.
Background: The cost of substance use (SU) in the United States (U.S.) is estimated at $1.25 trillion annually. SU is a worldwide health concern, impacting physical and psychological health of those who use substances, their friends, family members, communities and nations. Screening, Brief Intervention (BI) and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) provides an evidence-based (EB) framework to detect and treat SU. Evidence shows that mental health (MH) providers are not providing EB SU management. Federally grant-funded SBIRT demonstrated evidence of decreased SU and prevention of full disorders. Implementation outcomes in smaller-scale projects have included increased clinician knowledge, documentation and interdisciplinary teamwork.
Objective: To improve quality of care (QOC) for adolescents who use substances in the inpatient psychiatric setting by implementing EB SBIRT practices.
Methods: Research questions focused on whether the number of SBIRT notes documented (N=170 charts) increased and whether training of the interdisciplinary team (N=26 clinicians) increased SBIRT knowledge. Individualized interventions used existing processes, training and a new SBIRT Note template. An SBIRT knowledge survey was adapted from a similar study. A pre-and post-chart audit was conducted to show increase in SBIRT documentation. The rationale for the latter was not only for compliance, but also so that all team members can know the status of SBIRT services. Thus, increased interdisciplinary teamwork was an intentional, though indirect, outcome.
Results: A paired-samples t-test indicated clinician SBIRT knowledge significantly increased, with a large effect size. The results suggest that a short, 45-60-minute tailored education module can significantly increase clinician SBIRT knowledge. Auditing screening & BI notes both before and after the study period yielded important patient SU information and which types of SBIRT documentation increased post-implementation. The CRAFFT scores of the patients were quite high from a SU perspective, averaging over 3/6 both pre- and post-implementation, revealing over an 80% chance that the adolescent patient had a SU disorder. Most patients were positive for at least one substance (pre- = 47.1%; post- = 65.2%), with cannabis and alcohol being the most commonly used substances. Completed CRAFFT screenings increased from 62.5% to 72.7% of audited patients. Post-implementation, there were two types of BI notes: the preexisting Progress Note BI (PN BI) and the new Auto-Text BI (AT BI), part of the new SBIRT Note template introduced during implementation. The PN BIs not completed despite a positive screen increased from 79.6% to 83.7%. PN BIs increased 1%. The option for AT BI notes ameliorated this effect. Total BI notes completed for a patient positive for a substance increased from 20.4% to 32.6%, with 67.4% not receiving a documented BI. Total BIs completed for all patients was 21.2% post-implementation.
Conclusion: This project is scalable throughout the U.S. in MH settings and will provide crucial knowledge about positive and negative drivers in small-scale SBIRT implementations. The role of registered nurses (RNs), social workers and psychiatrists in providing SBIRT services as an interdisciplinary team will be enhanced. Likely conclusions are that short trainings can significantly increase clinician knowledge about SBIRT and compliance with standards. Consistent with prior evidence, significant management involvement, SBIRT champions, thought leaders and other consistent emphasis is necessary to continue improving SBIRT practice in the target setting.
Keywords: adolescents, teenagers, youth, alcohol, behavioral health, cannabis, crisis, documentation, drug use, epidemic, high-risk use, illicit drugs, implementation, mental health, opiates, opioid, pilot study, psychiatric inpatient hospital, quality improvement, SBIRT, Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment, substance use, unhealthy alcohol use, use disorders
Background: Sepsis remains a significant healthcare problem associated with high treatment costs and high mortality rates. Older adults are at an increased risk for developing sepsis, especially when age is combined with any type of compromising factor, such as chronic illness, recent hospitalizations, wounds, or invasive devices. Current evidence demonstrates that sepsis screening is effective for early identification of sepsis. Early identification of sepsis improves time to treatment initiation, which improves outcomes.
Methods: An evidence-based, provider approved clinical guideline was developed for a post-acute care facility after an extensive review of the literature. Upon implementation, brief educational sessions were provided to direct patient care staff. Participants completed pre- and post-tests as well as a demographic survey. A satisfaction survey was administered 30 days post intervention. A paired samples t-test was used to analyze the difference in test scores. Pearson's correlation was used to analyze the relationship between staff comfort levels and the clinical guideline.
Results: The samples included 25 participants in the educational intervention and 18 in the satisfaction survey. There was a significant difference in the scores between pre-test (M = 72.3, SD = 12.43) and post-test scores (M = 86.6, SD = 10.2); t(24) = -5.578, p < 0.001. There was a significant correlation between staff who felt comfortable in identifying sepsis with ease of screening (r = .831, p < .01) and high comfort levels with the policy (r = .889, p < .01).
Conclusion: Utilizing a clinical guideline, coupled with education, improves staff knowledge and comfort identifying sepsis in the post-acute care setting, which may improve early recognition and treatment initiation. This outcome is clinically significant as patients in this setting represent a vulnerable population.