scholarly journals 77: Time to definitive diagnosis and change in state newborn screening: Quality improvement focused on sweat testing and education for families and primary care providers

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. S39
Author(s):  
L. DuBose ◽  
R. Peace ◽  
P. Lloyd ◽  
M. Fields ◽  
J. Amati ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Sarah Stalder ◽  
Aimee Techau ◽  
Jenny Hamilton ◽  
Carlo Caballero ◽  
Mary Weber ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: The specific aims of this project were to create a fully integrated, nurse-led model of a psychiatric nurse practitioner and behavioral health care team within primary care to facilitate (1) patients receiving an appropriate level of care and (2) care team members performing at the top of their scope of practice. METHOD: The guiding model for process implementation was Rapid Cycle Quality Improvement. Three task forces were established to develop interventions in the areas of Roles and Responsibilities, Training and Implementation, and the electronic health record. INTERVENTION: The four interventions that emerged from these task forces were (1) the establishment of patient tiers based on diagnosis, medications, and risk assessment; (2) the creation of process maps to engage care team members; (3) just-in-time education regarding psychiatric medication management for primary care providers; and (4) use of a registry to track patients. RESULTS: The process measures of referrals to the psychiatric care team and psychiatric assessment intakes performed as expected. Both measures were higher at the onset of the project and lower 1 year later. The outcome indicator, number of case reviews, increased dramatically over time. CONCLUSIONS: For psychiatric nurse practitioners, this quality improvement effort provides evidence that a consultative role can be effective in supporting primary care providers. Through providing education, establishing patient tiers, and establishing an effective workflow, more patients may have access to psychiatric services.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey Ufholz ◽  
Amy Sheon ◽  
Daksh Bhargava ◽  
Goutham Rao

BACKGROUND Since the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine appointments have replaced many in-person healthcare visits [1 2]. However, older people are less likely to participate in telemedicine, preferring either in-person care or foregoing care altogether [3-6]. With a high prevalence of chronic conditions and vulnerability to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality through exposure to others in health care environments, (1-4), promoting telemedicine use should be a high priority for seniors. Seniors face significant barriers to participation in telemedicine, including lower internet and device access and skills, and visual, auditory, and tactile difficulties with telemedicine. OBJECTIVE Hoping to offer training to increase telemedicine use, we undertook a quality improvement survey to identify barriers to, and facilitators of telemedicine among seniors presenting to an outpatient family medicine teaching clinic which serves predominantly African American, economically disadvantaged adults with chronic illness in Cleveland, Ohio. METHODS Our survey, designated by the IRB as quality improvement, was designed based on a review of the literature, and input from our primary care providers and a digital equity expert (Figure 1). To minimize patient burden, the survey was limited to 10 questions. Because we were interested in technology barriers, data were collected on paper rather than a tablet or computer, with a research assistant available to read the survey questions. Patients presenting with needs that could be accomplished remotely were approached by a research assistant to complete the survey starting February 2021 until we reached the pre-determined sample size (N=30) in June 2021. Patients with known dementia, those who normally resident in a long-term care facility, and those presenting with an acute condition (e.g. fall or COPD exacerbation) were ineligible. Because of the small number of respondents, only univariate and bivariate tabulations were performed, in Excel. RESULTS 83% of respondents said they had devices that could be used for a telemedicine visit and that they went on the internet, but just 23% had had telemedicine visits. Few patients had advanced devices (iPhones, desktops, laptops or tablets); 46% had only a single device that was not IOS based mobile (Table 1). All participants with devices said they used them for “messaging on the internet,” but this was the only function used by 40%. No one used the internet for banking, shopping, and few used internet functions commonly needed for telemedicine (23.3% had email; 30% did video calling) (Table 1). 23.3% of respondents had had a telemedicine appointment. Many reported a loss of connection to their doctor as a concern. Participants who owned a computer or iPhone used their devices for a broader range of tasks, (Table 2 and 3), were aged 65-70 (Table 4), and were more likely to have had a telemedicine visit and to have more favorable views of telemedicine (Table 2). Respondents who had not had a telemedicine appointment endorsed a greater number of telemedicine disadvantages and endorsed less interest in future appointments (Table 2). Respondents who did not own an internet-capable device did not report using any internet functions and none had had a telemedicine appointment (Table 2). CONCLUSIONS This small survey revealed significant gaps in telemedicine readiness among seniors who said they had devices that could be used for telemedicine and that they went online themselves. No patients used key internet functions needed for staying safe during COVID, and few used internet applications that required skills needed for telemedicine. Few patients had devices that are optimal for seniors using telemedicine. Patients with more advanced devices used more internet functions and had more telemedicine experience and more favorable attitudes than others. Our results confirm previous studies [7-9] showing generally lower technological proficiency among older adults and some concerns about participating in telemedicine. However, our study is novel in pointing to subtle dimensions of telemedicine readiness that warrant further study—device capacity and use of internet in ways that build skills needed for telemedicine such as email and video calling. Before training seniors to use telemedicine, it’s important to ensure that they have the devices, basic digital skills and connectivity needed for telemedicine. Larger studies are needed to confirm our results and apply multivariate analysis to understand the relationships among age, device quality, internet skills and telemedicine attitudes. Development of validated scales of telemedicine readiness and telemedicine training to complement in-person care can help health systems offer precision-matched interventions to address barriers, facilitate increased adoption, and generally improve patients’ overall access to primary care and engagement with their primary care provider.


2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (15) ◽  
pp. 147-148
Author(s):  
Robin Z. Hayeems ◽  
Fiona A. Miller ◽  
Carolyn J. Barg ◽  
Yvonne Bombard ◽  
Peter Durie ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Weiss ◽  
Perry J. Pickhardt ◽  
Jessica R. Schumacher ◽  
Aaron Potvien ◽  
David H. Kim ◽  
...  

Aims. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Increasing CRC screening rates requires interventions targeting multiple barriers at each level of the healthcare organization (patient, provider, and system). We examined groups of primary care providers (PCPs) based on perceptions of screening barriers and the relationship to CRC screening rates to inform approaches for conducting barrier assessments prior to designing and implementing quality improvement interventions.Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking EHR and survey data. PCPs with complete survey responses for questions addressing CRC screening barriers were included (N=166PCPs; 39,430 patients eligible for CRC screening). Cluster analysis identified groups of PCPs. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for predictors of membership in one of the PCP groups.Results. We found two distinct groups: (1) PCPs identifying multiple barriers to CRC screening at patient, provider, and system levels (N=75) and (2) PCPs identifying no major barriers to screening (N=91). PCPs in the top half of CRC screening performance were more likely to identify multiple barriers than the bottom performers (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.43–7.08).Conclusions. High-performing PCPs can more effectively identify CRC screening barriers. Targeting high-performers when conducting a barrier assessment is a novel approach to assist in designing quality improvement interventions for CRC screening.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Deborah Badawi ◽  
Katharine Bisordi ◽  
Marilyn J. Timmel ◽  
Scott Sorongon ◽  
Erin Strovel

This demonstration project explored the feasibility of utilizing data from pediatric primary care providers to evaluate the long-term outcomes of children with disorders identified by newborn screening (NBS). Compliance with national guidelines for care and the morbidity for this population was also examined. Primary care practices were recruited and patients with sickle cell disease or who were deaf/hard of hearing were given the opportunity to enroll in the study. Data were collected on the quality of the medical home with practice data compared to family responses. Clinical outcomes for each patient were assessed by review of medical records and patient surveys. These data sources were compared to determine accuracy of primary care data, morbidity, and receipt of preventive care. Electronic data sharing was explored through transmission of Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) files. Care coordination was a challenge, even in highly accredited medical homes. Providers did not have complete information regarding clinical outcomes and children were not consistently receiving recommended preventive care. Electronic data sharing with public health departments encountered interface challenges. Primary care providers in the USA should not currently be used as a sole source to evaluate long-term outcomes of children with disorders identified by NBS.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document