Background: Healthcare providers are encouraged to prepare their practice to effectively manage the care of mild to moderate adolescent depression. Cost-effective screening, diagnostic, and newly developed pediatric primary care depression management guidelines have been established. To integrate guidelines into practice, primary care providers (PCPs) must document effectively to ensure a complete treatment plan is in place in the patient’s electronic health record (EHR).
Intervention: Elements from a flowsheet were implemented into the EHR to promote thorough assessment and documentation of care delivered to adolescents with depression.
Methods: An initial chart review was completed on patients diagnosed with depression. An updated depression template was implemented within the EHR for six weeks. A follow-up chart review was completed post-intervention to determine if documentation of elements from the adolescent depression guidelines improved after the EHR update. Pre-intervention and post- intervention surveys were delivered to PCP’s to understand their perspective on adolescent depression management.
Outcomes: The chart review revealed that baseline PHQ-9 screenings were documented in 91% (n=43) of the charts reviewed in the pre-intervention timeframe. Only 78% (n=7) of the charts reviewed during post-intervention included PHQ-9 screenings. Early intervention treatment options documented in the pre-intervention timeframe included education 100% (n=47), medication prescriptions 53% (n=25), and psychotherapy referrals 18% (n=18). During post- intervention, education 100% (n=9), medication prescriptions 78% (7), and psychotherapy referrals 22% (n=7) were documented by the PCPs.
Recommendation: The quality improvement project focused heavily on documentation completed over a one year pre-intervention timeframe compared to a six-week post-intervention timeframe. Further evaluation and chart review over the next year will provide a more adequate comparison of documentation within primary care practice.
Methods: At an urban primary care pediatric office located in the southwestern US, an educational quality improvement project for healthcare practice providers and front office staff was conducted to increase the utilization of the existing EMR-linked patient portal. The healthcare providers were asked to complete a pre- and post- survey evaluation of their knowledge and usage of the patient portal. Provider and patient portal data usage was collected over a five-month period, September 2019 to January 2020.
Results: Data was analyzed using the Intellectus Statistics softwareTM. Significant results were found at the conclusion of the project in the number of active patient portal users, web-enabled, portal logins, labs published/viewed, messages sent, appointment reminders and Santovia utilization. At the end of the project no significance was found with messages received by the healthcare providers or staff through the patient portal. Survey results found significant differences between pre- and post- portal usage. No significance was found on providers’ knowledge on how to web-enable patients. Providers’ also demonstrated no significant change in their perceptions of the benefit in utilizing the portal in patient care after the educational intervention. Survey results allowed for additional analysis of commonly utilized portal functionalities, disease or health topics utilized in Santovia, and suggestions on how to make the use of the patient portal easier for providers.
Implications for Health Care Providers: This quality improvement project found that implementation an EMR-linked patient portal requires a comprehensive practice approach with structured education sessions. Including all employees can improve patient portal utilization. This educational project resulted in significant increases in most portal functionalities within 5 months. Further practice change evaluations are needed to evaluate how to improve patient portal utilization with a larger group of participants in a variety of outpatient settings.
Method: This project aimed to provide an evidence-based education for intake nurses to understand prevalence of PTSD and to use a screening tool Primary Care PTSD for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5) in a non-VA behavioral health facility.
Setting: The project site was a civilian behavioral health facility located in West Phoenix Metropolitan area. The behavioral health facility serves mental health and substance abuse needs. Project implementation focused on the intake department.
Measures: Sociodemographic data, PTSD diagnosis criteria, prevalence and PC-PTDSD-5 screening tool knowledge collected from pre and posttest evaluation. Patients’ charts for those admitted 6-week before and 6-week after the education to calculate numbers of screening tools completed by nurses at intake assessment.
Data analysis: Descriptive statistics was used to describe the sample and key measures; the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to examine differences between pre-test and post-test scores. Cohen’s effect size was used to estimate clinical significance.
Results: A total of 23 intake nurses (87.0% female, 65.2% 20-39 years old, 52.2% Caucasian, 95.6% reported having 0-10 years of experience, 56.5% completed Associate’s degree) received the education. For PTSD-related knowledge, the pre-test score (Mdn = 6.00) was significantly lower than the post-test score (Mdn = 10.00; Z= -4.23, p < .001), suggesting an increase of PTSD knowledge among nurses after the education. Regarding the diagnosis, the percentage of patients who were diagnosed with PTSD increased from (0.02% to 20% after the education).
Discussion: An evidence-based education aimed at enhancing intake nurses’ knowledge, confidence and skills implementing a brief and no-cost PTSD screening tool showed positive results, including an increase of PTSD diagnosis. The implementation of this screening tool in a civilian primary mental health care facility was feasible and helped patients connect to PTSD treatment in a timely fashion. Continued use of paper version of screening tool will be maintained at facility as an intermediary solution until final approval through parent company is received to implement into electronic medical records.
Disease burden is higher in the United States than in comparable countries. The Patient Self Determination Act of 1990 requires healthcare facilities to provide Advance Care Planning (ACP) information to all Medicare patients. The healthcare staffs’ (n=7) commitment to 3-days of ACP training increase ACP rates in the primary care setting. The Medicare Incentive Program is the platform for this initiative. This quantitative project used a valid and reliable pre and posttest design that consisted of 27 items on a Likert-scale. A 3.5-month chart audit (n=91) was conducted to assess the completion rate. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the demographic data.
The results of the two-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test were significant based on an alpha value of 0.05, V = 0.00, z = -2.37, p = .018. There was a significant increase in the post-readiness to change average scores. A Mann Whitney test was used to analyze the statistically significant difference between the averages in two ACP types and electronic health record documentation (EHR). Staff did not always code (Mdn = 0.00) but they documented in the EHR (Mdn =1.00; 512.00, p = 0.003). ACP discussion was performed 63% of the time during Annual Wellness Visits (AWV), and there was a 49% increase in the EHR documentation. Trained staff are key stakeholders in guiding ACP conversations. They understand the barriers, impact, and consequences related to the lack of advance directives.
Implementation of a Suicidal Ideation Treatment Algorithm in a Military Medicine Primary Care Clinic
Despite differences in schooling and clinical experience prior to practice, advanced practice providers often have similar scopes of practice, which raises concerns about the quality of care being provided. In this paper, we explore if prescribing patterns are comparable between provider types by comparing differences in time spent on pharmacological interventions utilizing a simulated healthcare environment. Physicians (MDs and DOs), Nurse Practitioners (NPs), and Physician Assistants (PAs) actively practicing in Family Practice/Medicine or Internal Medicine in the U.S. state license/recognition were recruited at healthcare conferences and simulation centers. Participants were provided 20 minutes to complete the patient consultation on a Standardized Patient (SP) presenting with a chief complaint of a post-hospitalization follow-up for heart failure, fatigue, and some edema. All encounters were recorded and uploaded to be reviewed by undergraduate evaluators, who were responsible for quantifying the amount of time the participants spent on each of the task categories, including pharmacologic interventions. With a total of 46 participants in this study, the average amount of time spent discussing this activity per visit across each provider type was 14.8 seconds for MDs/DOs, 29.2 seconds for NPs, and 38.8 seconds for PAs. The results of this study suggest that PAs (p= 0.0028) spent significantly more time discussing pharmacological interventions and were significantly more likely to discuss pharmacological interventions (p=0.0243) when compared with physicians (MD/DOs). It is important to note that the sample size of PAs was very small (N=9), which could potentially skew the results and not be representative of the population. With limited literature that examines whether time spent discussing pharmacological interventions is comparable across provider types, it is important for more simulated healthcare research to be conducted on this topic.
In the late-twentieth century in the United States, Catherine DeAngelis was a pediatric physician, researcher, and editor of multiple medical journals. During her time with the Journal of the American Medical Association, DeAngelis became the journal’s first female editor. At Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, she studied how physician-nurse interactions affected patient care, how immunizations and adolescent pregnancy affected children, and how medications affected men and women differently. She also worked to reduce gender inequality in the practice of medicine by publishing articles that addressed the pay gap between men and women at Johns Hopkins. Throughout her career, DeAngelis advocated for equality between men and women in the medical field and supported equal treatment of women as patients and as practitioners of medicine. By doing so, she helped women become more central participants in medicine and therefore helped increase the focus on women's health in medicine.
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.