Matching Items (23)
- All Subjects: Screening
- Member of: Programs and Communities
- Member of: Applying the Sustainable Development Goals to Businesses
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.
Purpose: Improve chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening in primary care by implementing Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) screening criteria.
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: Excessive alcohol use is linked to numerous morbidities, in addition to the enormous economic impact on healthcare. Screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT) is a proven, effective tool in reducing alcohol use; however it is severely underutilized due to barriers such as provider time constraints and lack of confidence. Numerous missed opportunities exist regarding screening and early intervention, which could significantly improve patient outcomes. An SBIRT pilot utilizing student-mediated brief interventions could serve to increase provider confidence and awareness, as well as overcome time constraint barriers.
Purpose: The purpose is to implement an SBIRT pilot at a campus clinic, utilizing nurse practioner (NP) students to conduct universal alcohol screens and brief interventions (BI) as a means to overcome barriers to accepting an evidenced based practice.
Methods: Intervention group (IG) of two providers were matched with NP students to perform screens and BI’s (n=111), while a comparison group (CG) of three providers conducted usual care (n=41). Single question screens were administered universally, followed by an AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) and BI for positive screens. A pre/post pilot provider attitude survey was administered to gauge provider acceptance.
Results: Of 109 patients screened, 52% tested positive requiring a full AUDIT, 56% of AUDITS were positive requiring BI’s, 88% agreed to a BI, and 93% agreed to reduce alcohol intake. Post attitude survey revealed a 22% increase in provider acceptance. Chi square testing showed statistical significance, X²(1, N = 152) = 142.31, p < .001.
Conclusions: Utilizing students to perform universal screenings and BI’s is effective in implementing SBIRT while offering a sustainable option to overcome time constraint barriers and provider confidence as well as exposing misconceptions regarding patient acceptance.
Maintaining good oral health during pregnancy is a significant contributor to healthy pregnancy outcomes. The physiological changes that happen during pregnancy can adversely affect women’s oral health and place her at risk for pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriage and preeclampsia. The unborn child’s health can also be affected by premature birth and low birth weight. Although professional organizations have evidence-based practice guidelines for both prenatal and dental providers, the evidence shows a gap between recommendations and practice. An oral health promotion project for pregnant women was implemented in a federally qualified community health center where there was a lack of adherence to the guidelines.
The purpose of this project was to implement established oral health screening guidelines for pregnant women and to increase dental visits among pregnant women. For this project, a two-item maternal oral health-screening tool (MOS) for the prenatal providers was added into the electronic health record to standardize and document oral health screening for pregnant women at their first prenatal visit. After three months of implementation, there was a significant increase in maternal oral health screening and referral. This project may be replicated at any prenatal setting to improve oral health during pregnancy.
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 and Purpose:
Depression in older adults is a significant problem that often goes undetected and untreated in primary care. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening adults for depression in primary care to increase detection, so it can be adequately managed. Despite this recommendation, screening rates in primary care are low. The purpose of this project was to implement a screening intervention and examine the effect of screening on the treatment of depression in older adults.
The screening intervention was implemented as an evidence-based project in a small primary care practice. Consenting adults ≥ 65 years of age were screened with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Research indicates the PHQ-9 is valid and reliable for older adults. A post-screening chart audit was conducted to collect data and analyze the outcome of screening related to treatment.
A total of 38 participants were screened. Five (13.2%) participants had a positive screening, two received treatment during the follow up period. The number of participants who were treated after a positive screening was significant (p= .040).
Implications for Practice:
Screening can increase detection and treatment of depression and reduce the associated illness burden in the older adult population.
Children with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at increased risk for psychosocial issues (PSI), decreased quality of life (QOL), and decreased resilience. The purpose of this project was to implement a screening protocol for PSI, QOL, and resilience, with appropriate psychosocial referral for children with CHD.
A pilot protocol was implemented to screen children with CHD, aged 8-17 years, and parents, for resilience, QOL, and PSI. Referrals for psychosocial services were made for 84.2% of children screened (n = 16) based on scoring outcomes. Statistically significant differences in the parents and children’s resilience mean scores were noted. Higher parental scores may indicate that parents believe their children are more resilient than the children perceive themselves to be.
Early identification of concerns regarding QOL, resilience, and PSI in children with CHD can provide ongoing surveillance, while affording opportunities for improved communication between providers, parents, and children. Routine screening and longitudinal follow-up is recommended.
Purpose: The purpose of this project was to implement a change in workflow to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and improve Meaningful Use scores in a primary care setting.
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.
Introduction: Sleep disorders can go undiagnosed if a provider is not asking the right questions; they can be characterized by loud snoring with apneic episodes that never fully wake the person, difficulty falling asleep or daytime fatigue. Poor sleep can affect activities of daily living, job performance and personal relationships. Poor sleep can be difficult to detect because some may consider it a symptom because of their lifestyle. The purpose of this study is to assess participants sleep quality and functional outcomes of poor sleep.
Methods: Primary care providers have an opportunity to screen for sleep disorders as part of the intake process during an office visit. The Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), has been proposed as guide to determine if a sleep disorder is affecting quality of life. This descriptive study randomly recruited 20 participants from a community health center. A 10-question survey was given to individuals over the age of 18 who can write and speak English and either have a body mass index (BMI) over 30, hypertension (HTN) or diabetes type II (DMII). Demographic information evaluated included age, gender, HTN, DMII, BMI>30, marital status, sleeping alone, employment type, race, type of insurance, how many times do they wake up at night, the average number of hours slept per night and does the person work night shift.
Results: The study used a qualitative approach with a descriptive methodology; statistical analysis consisted of proportions, means and standard deviation to describe the study population. Participant age ranged from 33 to 72 years (M=50.1, SD= 11.32). Sixty percent were both female and married/living with partner. Despite being married/living with partner, 50% slept alone. A Mann-Whitney U test showed that there was a significant difference in four of the questions in the FOSQ-10 in which functional outcomes were not affected by being sleepy or tired.
Conclusion: The FOSQ-10 may serve a role in identifying patients who might benefit from a sleep study. The inclusion of a sleep disorder screening tool may increase the specificity and sensitivity of the intervention and the ability to yield data that will objectively measure disordered sleep.
Aims: The goals of this project were (1) develop a sepsis clinical guideline, (2) enhance direct patient care staff knowledge of sepsis and (3) survey staff comfort level with identifying sepsis post intervention.
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.