scholarly journals Clinical experiences at veterans administration primary care clinics: An interprofessional education project for advanced practice nurses and health professions students

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Margaret Brommelsiek ◽  
Jane Anthony Peterson ◽  
Sarah Knopf-Amelung ◽  
Tracy Lynn Graybill

There is limited literature that specifically addresses how academic institutions and healthcare facilities effectively establish and manage clinical experiences for students. Since advanced practice nursing education (APRN) programs strive to provide appropriate clinical experiences as part of their students’ educational training, it is imperative that academic institutions and clinical facilities establish working relationships and protocols for productive collaboration. Barriers may exist in arranging student clinical placements, including scheduling conflicts and provider workload burden. Collaborative approaches for placing APRN students in primary care settings can be beneficial for student learning and the clinical care of patients. The purpose of this paper is to provide an initial roadmap for coordinating APRN and other health professional students’ placement in clinical rotations at a Veterans Health Administration Medical Center (VAMC) primary care clinic in the Midwest.

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Peterson ◽  
Margaret Brommelsiek ◽  
Sarah Knopf Amelung

Background/Objective: The number of veterans and their families seeking healthcare and support within civilian communities is increasing worldwide. There is a need for healthcare providers to provide sensitive, comprehensive care for veterans with both physical and behavioral health conditions. Many civilian providers are unfamiliar with veterans’ issues and need training on military culture and combat experiences in order to provide compassionate, high quality care. An interprofessional (IPE) course to increase health professional students’ understanding of military culture and the associated health problems of veterans was implemented and evaluated. Methods: An 8-week IPE immersion course was offered for students with clinical experience at a Veterans’ Health primary care clinic and a didactic component. The class content included military culture, behavioral and physical health disorders common among veterans, and the related behavioral and pharmacological treatments. Faculty-led discussions with students in IPE teams used veteran-focused case studies and standardized patients to prepare students to work in IPE teams in the clinical care of veterans. Results: This educational project was evaluated using quantitative surveys and qualitative reflection questions and focus groups. Students scored high for readiness for interprofessional learning pre-course. Post-course students reported valuing the team approach to veterans care and students engaged in high levels of communication and collaboration within the team. Students’ knowledge scores increased related to understanding of military culture and their patient advocate role. Conclusions: Students learned about military culture and the provision of humanistic, high quality care for military veterans in this clinical and didactic immersion IPE course.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 947-955
Author(s):  
Andrew T Harris ◽  
Catherine Hoover ◽  
Brendan Cmolik ◽  
Mariel Zaun ◽  
Corinna Falck-Ytter ◽  
...  

BackgroundLoss to follow-up is an under-recognised problem in primary care. Continuity with a primary care provider improves morbidity and mortality in the Veterans Health Administration. We sought to reduce the percentage of patients lost to follow-up at the Northeast Ohio Veterans Affairs Healthcare System from October 2017 to March 2019.MethodsThe Panel Retention Tool (PRT) was developed and tested with primary care teams using multiple Plan, Do, Study and Act cycles to identify and schedule lost to follow-up patients. Baseline data on loss to follow-up, defined as the percentage of panelled patients not seen in primary care in the past year, was collected over 6 months during tool development. Outcomes were tracked from implementation through spread and sustainment (12 months) across 14 primary care clinics.ResultsOf the 96 170 panelled patients at the beginning of the study period, 2715 (2.8%) were found to be inactive and removed from provider panels, improving panel reliability. Among the remaining, 1856 (1.9%) patients without scheduled follow-up were scheduled for future care, and 1239 (1.3%) without recent prior care completed encounters during the study period. The percentage of patients lost to follow-up decreased from 10.1% (lower control limit (LCL) 9.8%–upper control limit (UCL) 10.4%) at baseline to 6.4% (LCL 6.2%–UCL 6.7%) postintervention and patients without planned future care decreased from 21.7% (LCL 21.3%–UCL 22.1%) to 17.1% (LCL 16.7%–UCL 17.5%).ConclusionsThe PRT allowed primary care teams in an integrated health system to identify and schedule lost to follow-up patients. Ease of use, adaptability and encouraging outcomes facilitated spread. This has the potential to contribute to more appropriate utilisation of healthcare resources and improved access to primary care.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 137 (Supplement 3) ◽  
pp. 93A-93A
Author(s):  
Lwbba Chait ◽  
Angeliki Makri ◽  
Rawan Nahas ◽  
Gwen Raphan

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110350
Author(s):  
Pasitpon Vatcharavongvan ◽  
Viwat Puttawanchai

Background Most older adults with comorbidities in primary care clinics use multiple medications and are at risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescription. Objective This study examined the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs using Thai criteria for PIMs. Methods This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were collected from electronic medical records in a primary care clinic in 2018. Samples were patients aged ≥65 years old with at least 1 prescription. Variables included age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. The list of risk drugs for Thai elderly version 2 was the criteria for PIMs. The prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs were calculated, and multiple logistic regression was conducted to examine associations between variables and PIMs. Results Of 2806 patients, 27.5% and 43.7% used ≥5 medications and PIMs, respectively. Of 10 290 prescriptions, 47% had at least 1 PIM. The top 3 PIMs were anticholinergics, proton-pump inhibitors, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Polypharmacy and dyspepsia were associated with PIM prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio 2.48 [95% confident interval or 95% CI 2.07-2.96] and 3.88 [95% CI 2.65-5.68], respectively). Conclusion Prescriptions with PIMs were high in the primary care clinic. Describing unnecessary medications is crucial to prevent negative health outcomes from PIMs. Computer-based clinical decision support, pharmacy-led interventions, and patient-specific drug recommendations are promising interventions to reduce PIMs in a primary care setting.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S200-S200
Author(s):  
Michael Hansen ◽  
Barbara Trautner ◽  
Roger Zoorob ◽  
George Germanos ◽  
Osvaldo Alquicira ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Use of antibiotics without a prescription (non-prescription use) contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Non-prescription use includes obtaining and taking antibiotics without a prescription, taking another person’s antibiotics, or taking one’s own stored antibiotics. We conducted a quantitative survey focusing on the factors that impact patients’ decisions to use non-prescription antibiotics. Methods We surveyed patients visiting public safety net primary care clinics and private emergency departments in a racially/ethnically diverse urban area. Surveys were read aloud to patients in Spanish and English. Survey domains included patients’ perspectives on which syndromes require antibiotic treatment, their perceptions of health care, and their access to antibiotics without a prescription. Results We interviewed 190 patients, 122 from emergency departments (64%), and 68 from primary care clinics (36%). Overall, 44% reported non-prescription antibiotic use within the past 12 months. Non-prescription use was higher among primary care clinic patients (63%) than the emergency department patients (39%, p = 0.002). The majority felt that antibiotics would be needed for bronchitis (78%) while few felt antibiotics would be needed for diarrhea (30%) (Figure 1). The most common situation identified “in which respondents would consider taking antibiotics without contacting a healthcare provider was “got better by taking this antibiotic before” (Figure 2). Primary care patients were more likely to obtain antibiotics without prescription from another country than emergency department patients (27% vs. 13%, P=0.03). Also, primary care patients were more likely to report obstacles to seeking a doctor’s care, such as the inability to take time off from work or transportation difficulties, but these comparisons were not statistically significant. Figure 1. Patients’ agreement that antibiotics would be needed varied by symptom/syndrome. Figure 2. Situations that lead to non-prescription antibiotic use impacted the two clinical populations differently Conclusion Non-prescription antibiotic use is a widespread problem in the two very different healthcare systems we included in this study, although factors underlying this practice differ by patient population. Better understanding of the factors driving non-prescription antibiotic use is essential to designing patient-focused interventions to decrease this unsafe practice. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document