Evaluation of the Rural Interprofessional Behavioral Health Scholars Program to Expand Public Health Workforce Capacity During COVID-19.

Mental health and substance use are growing nationwide public health concerns being exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, there is a dire shortage in the public health workforce. This paper shares the design and mixed-method outcome evaluation of a Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training (BHWET)-funded rural, interprofessional, behavioral health training program (RIBHS) delivered during COVID-19 at one southeastern US public university. Twenty-six advanced year MSW students completed the RIBHS program. Data were collected from trainees via pre/post surveys and two focus groups. Trainees' self-reported statistically significant increases in teamwork, behavioral health, and rural practice competencies. Trainees also described how COVID-19 shaped their experience in the RIBHS program. The RIBHS program prepared trainees with the competencies needed to address the growing behavioral health crisis in the US and can serve as a training model for other social work and related public health workforce initiatives.

Telehealth Use during COVID-19: An Exploratory Study on Adaptations and Experiences of Providers.

The current exploratory study examines the impact of the rapid acceleration of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of healthcare providers. Understanding provider perspectives, particularly in terms of adaptations made during this critical time, is a useful lens into service innovation in times of crisis and can help elucidate successful strategies for continuing the use of telehealth during the postpandemic period. Fourteen providers from 11 different service agencies in a southeastern state were interviewed. Findings identified three themes: (1) dynamic adaptations enacted by healthcare providers at the onset of the pandemic, such as hybrid services, rapid innovations in workflow, collective decision making among providers, and outreach to educate patients; (2) the relaxation of policies by regulators/insurers, focused most often on reimbursement of services; and (3) how patient engagement was impacted via telehealth, including openness to telehealth, more family-level accessibility, and reduced no-show rates. Implications for social workers include heightened professional training on telehealth as well as increasing the critical role that social workers serve in educating providers and patients on telehealth.

Exploring Social Work Practitioners' Perspectives on the Contributors to Burnout since the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Burnout has a historic and disproportionate impact on social workers and is one important contributor to the ongoing health and behavioral health workforce crisis in the United States. Little is known, however, about social workers' experiences of burnout and their perceptions of factors that contribute to burnout since the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to explore this by answering the following research questions: (a) To what extent are social workers in South Carolina experiencing burnout? and (b) What do South Carolina social workers view as the top reasons for burnout in their professional role? Seventy social work practitioners and leaders from South Carolina completed an online survey during Fall 2022 that included the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory and an open-ended question focused on identifying their perceptions of the top three reasons for burnout in the profession. Findings suggest that social workers in this study are experiencing moderate levels of burnout since the COVID-19 pandemic and report primarily organizational (83 percent) contributors to burnout. They also identified individual (36 percent), systemic (29 percent), and interpersonal (27 percent) contributors to burnout. Implications are discussed related to policy and practice responses to prevent and address burnout among social workers.

Availability and Quality of Dialysis Care in Rural versus Urban US Counties.

INTRODUCTION: Rural areas face significant disparities in dialysis care compared to urban areas due to limited access to dialysis facilities, longer travel distances, and a shortage of healthcare professionals. The objective of this study was to conduct a national examination of rural-urban differences in quality of dialysis care offered across counties in the USA. METHODS: Data were gathered from Medicare-certified dialysis facilities in 2020 from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. To identify high-need counties, county-level estimated crude prevalence of diabetes in adults was obtained from the 2022 CDC PLACES data portal. Our analysis reviewed 3,141 counties in the USA. The primary outcome measured was whether the county had a dialysis facility. Among those counties that had a dialysis facility, additional outcomes were the average star rating, whether peritoneal dialysis was offered, and whether home dialysis was offered. RESULTS: The type of services offered by dialysis facilities varied significantly, with peritoneal dialysis being the most commonly offered service (50.8%), followed by home hemodialysis (28.5%) and late-shift services (16.0%). These service availabilities are more prevalent in urban facilities than in rural facilities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Five Star Quality ratings were quite different between urban and rural facilities, with 40.4% of rural facilities having a ranking of five, compared to 27.1% in urban. CONCLUSION: The majority of rural counties lack a single dialysis facility. Counties with high rates of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and blood pressure, deemed high need, were less likely to have a highly rated dialysis facility. The findings can be used to further inform targeted efforts to increase diabetes educational programming and design appropriate interventions to those residing in rural communities and high-need counties who may need it the most.

Dyadic shared decision-making in dialysis: An interpretive phenomenological inquiry.

INTRODUCTION: Caregiver and family engagement in dialysis decisions varies over the end-stage kidney disease treatment trajectory, with family preferences as primary consideration factors for patients starting dialysis. This interpretive phenomenological study explores how dialysis patients and their partners experience dialysis decisions. METHODS: Thirteen patient-decision partner dyads (26 participants) were interviewed together about their experience with dialysis decision-making. A 5-step iterative process of data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection. RESULTS: The patients received in-center hemodialysis (n = 6) and home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis (n = 7). Decision partner relationships included romantic partners (n = 9) and either parent, sibling, or friend (n = 4). Fifty-7 percent of participants were White; 46% of patients were women, and 76% of decision partners were women. Three interrelated themes were identified: Their body, but not their life; Seeking semiliberation, and Decision-making is caring. DISCUSSION: Dyads were attuned to patient autonomy while managing the collateral effects of dialysis. Shifting the paradigm of dialysis treatment decisions from promoting patient autonomy to dialogues exploring relational autonomy helps providers balance the competing demands of incentivized standards to promote home dialysis with patients and their decision partners realities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Decisional Conflict About Kidney Failure Treatment Modalities Among Adults With Advanced CKD.

Rationale & Objective: Choosing from multiple kidney failure treatment modalities can create decisional conflict, but little is known about this experience before decision implementation. We explored decisional conflict about treatment for kidney failure and its associated patient characteristics in the context of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting & Participants: Adults (N = 427) who had advanced CKD, received nephrology care in Pennsylvania-based clinics, and had no history of dialysis or transplantation. Predictors: Participants' sociodemographic, physical health, nephrology care/knowledge, and psychosocial characteristics. Outcomes: Participants' results on the Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement (SURE) screening test for decisional conflict (no decisional conflict vs decisional conflict). Analytical Approach: We used multivariable logistic regression to quantify associations between aforementioned participant characteristics and decisional conflict. We repeated analyses among a subgroup of participants at highest risk of kidney failure within 2 years. Results: Most (76%) participants reported treatment-related decisional conflict. Participant characteristics associated with lower odds of decisional conflict included complete satisfaction with patient-kidney team treatment discussions (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.88; P = 0.04), attendance of treatment education classes (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.90; P = 0.03), and greater treatment-related decision self-efficacy (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P < 0.01). Sensitivity analyses showed a similarly high prevalence of decisional conflict (73%) and again demonstrated associations of class attendance (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.96; P = 0.04) and decision self-efficacy (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = 0.03) with decisional conflict. Limitations: Single-health system study. Conclusions: Decisional conflict was highly prevalent regardless of CKD progression risk. Findings suggest efforts to reduce decisional conflict should focus on minimizing the mismatch between clinical practice guidelines and patient-reported engagement in treatment preparation, facilitating patient-kidney team treatment discussions, and developing treatment education programs and decision support interventions that incorporate decision self-efficacy-enhancing strategies.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Patient, Family Member, and Stakeholder Research Engagement: Insights from the PREPARE NOW Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on patient, family member, and stakeholder patient-centered outcomes research engagement. OBJECTIVE: To answer the research questions: (1) What is the impact of COVID-19 on the lives of patients with kidney disease and their families? (2) What is the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement for patient and family member research team members who are themselves at very high risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes? and (3) How can we help patients, family members, and stakeholder team members engage in research during COVID-19? DESIGN: We conducted virtual semi-structured interviews with patient and family member co-investigators and kidney disease stakeholders from the PREPARE NOW study during November 2020. The interview guide included questions about participants' experiences with the impact of COVID-19 on research engagement. PARTICIPANTS: Seven patient and family member co-investigators and eight kidney disease stakeholders involved in a kidney disease patient-centered outcomes research project participated in the interviews, data analysis, and writing this manuscript. APPROACH: We used a content analysis approach and identified the main themes using an inductive process. KEY RESULTS: Respondents reported three main ways that COVID-19 has impacted their lives: emotional impact, changing behaviors, and changes in health care delivery. The majority of respondents reported no negative impact of COVID-19 on their ability to engage in this research project. Suggestions for patient-centered outcomes research during COVID-19 and other emergencies include virtual research activities; active engagement; and promoting trust, honesty, transparency, and authenticity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has had a significant negative impact on patient, family member, and stakeholder research team members; however, this has not resulted in less research engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02722382.

A mixed-method longitudinal study of an interprofessional education course.

The purpose of this mixed-method longitudinal study was to understand how health professional students' perceptions of their professional flexibility, role interdependence, and reflection on their process of working together change over time as a result of participating in an interprofessional education course. Data were collected from students enrolled in an interprofessional service-learning course each year from Fall 2014 to 2018 via online surveys at four assessment points and through qualitative reflection papers that served as course assignments. The 14-week course consisted of both didactic instruction and an experiential component whereby students conducted a service-learning activity in interprofessional teams. Quantitative findings demonstrate that students experienced a significant quadratic growth trajectory in reflection on process and a significant linear growth trajectory in professional flexibility. Students reported experiencing non-significant changes in role interdependence. Qualitative data, however, suggest student learning across all three domains. This study has implications for interprofessional educational initiatives aimed at promoting students' interprofessional competencies.

An academic-community interprofessional telehealth online training partnership: Impact on students and providers.

Telehealth can be used to improve rural communities' access to specialized healthcare services and ameliorate rural care barriers. Use of telehealth quickly increased with the COVID-19 pandemic, and universities shifted to online instruction for the safety of students and faculty. This rapid uptake of telehealth and online instruction has created an urgent need for examples of online training for health professional students in telehealth. Participants for this study included 44 students enrolled in an interprofessional online mental health telehealth course and four health care professionals from rural clinics. Qualitative data were collected and analyzed from students and providers. Four primary themes were identified: student benefits from the IPE telehealth course, patient benefits, clinic benefits, and technological challenges. Student subthemes included learning skills needed for telehealth, improving team skills, learning about professional roles and responsibilities, and understanding rural health needs. Clinic benefits included improving telehealth readiness. This study presents an early example of online interprofessional mental health telehealth training using an academic-community partnership. Our pilot findings suggest that this course experience resulted in positive benefits for students and rural clinic providers.

Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Telehealth in Rural Settings: A Mixed-Methods Study of Behavioral Medicine Providers.

Social workers and other healthcare professionals face increasing pressure to expand access, efficiency, and quality of healthcare to rural patients. Telehealth has become a viable and necessary tool to address gaps in healthcare for rural areas. Unfortunately, little is known about the benefits and challenges of using these services to meet the needs of rural communities. This mixed-methods study examines telehealth implementation among healthcare organizations in a predominantly rural state. Seventeen providers from 11 organizations were interviewed. Most had used live video conferencing, and about a third used mobile technologies, but fewer providers had experience with store-and-forward or remote patient monitoring. Analyses of qualitative data collected via interviews revealed two main themes among benefits of telehealth implementation: (1) increased inter- and intra-agency coordination and (2) savings in time, travel, and efficiency. Three main themes emerged among barriers to telehealth: (1) organizational capacity, (2) patient skills and comfort, and (3) provider knowledge and skills. Recommendations are provided for social workers and other healthcare professionals related to expanding utilization of telehealth services to improve access to healthcare for rural populations.

Development and initial validity and reliability of the Rural Practice Awareness and Skills Scale.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop and provide initial evidence of the validity and reliability of the Rural Practice Awareness and Skills Scale (RPASS). METHODS: A pool of 63 items was reviewed by an expert panel, subjected to 2 additional face validity checks, and reduced to 39 items. The scale was then completed by 333 participants, and an exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted. FINDINGS: Results revealed a 3-factor, 20-item scale with evidence of reliability and convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: RPASS has utility for advancing research to support recruitment and retention of rural health providers and ultimately enhance rural health care delivery.

A Systematic Literature Review of Relational Autonomy in Dialysis Decision Making.

Nephrology interdisciplinary guidelines, professional codes of ethics, principle-based ethical standards, and literature promote patient autonomy and self-determination through shared decision making as ethical practice. Healthcare professionals are accountable for practice that is mindful of the impact of cultural diversity and community on the values and beliefs of the patient, an important part of shared decision making (SDM). Despite previous research regarding dialysis decision making, relational autonomy in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease SDM conversations is not well understood. This systematic literature review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework for identifying peer-reviewed literature on SDM for CKD. The findings were summarized into four broad themes: (1) promoting autonomy is a foundation of medical caring; (2) providers have a responsibility to respond to their asymmetrical social power; (3) autonomy is situated within the context of the patient; and (4) dialogue is a tool that negotiates clinical recommendations and patient goals. The caring practices of promoting autonomy with a dialogical resolution of a conflict acknowledging the interdependence of the parties and the patient's social-relational situatedness support a perspective of relational autonomy in dialysis decision-making practice and research.

Preferences for and Experiences of Shared and Informed Decision Making Among Patients Choosing Kidney Replacement Therapies in Nephrology Care.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can progress rapidly, and patients are often unprepared to make kidney failure treatment decisions. We aimed to better understand patients' preferences for and experiences of shared and informed decision making (SDM) regarding kidney replacement therapy before kidney failure. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving nephrology care at CKD clinics in rural Pennsylvania. PREDICTORS: Estimated glomerular filtration rate, 2-year risk for kidney failure, duration and frequency of nephrology care, and preference for SDM. OUTCOMES: Occurrence and extent of kidney replacement therapy discussions and participants' satisfaction with those discussions. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Multivariable logistic regression to quantify associations between participants' characteristics and whether they had discussions. RESULTS: The 447 study participants had a median age of 72 (IQR, 64-80) years and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 33 (SD, 12) mL/min/1.73 m2. Most (96%) were White, high school educated (67%), and retired (65%). Most (72%) participants preferred a shared approach to kidney treatment decision making, and only 35% discussed dialysis or transplantation with their kidney teams. Participants who had discussions (n = 158) were often completely satisfied (63%) but infrequently discussed potential treatment-related impacts on their lives. In multivariable analyses, those with a high risk for kidney failure within 2 years (OR, 3.24 [95% CI, 1.72-6.11]; P < 0.01), longer-term nephrology care (OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.05-1.20] per 1 additional year; P < 0.01), and more nephrology visits in the prior 2 years (OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.20-1.51] per 1 additional visit; P < 0.01) had higher odds of having discussed dialysis or transplantation. LIMITATIONS: Single health system study. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients preferred sharing CKD treatment decisions with their providers, but treatment discussions were infrequent and often did not address key treatment impacts. Longitudinal nephrology care and frequent visits may help ensure that patients have optimal SDM experiences.

Improving Access to Kidney Transplantation: Perspectives From Dialysis and Transplant Staff in the Southeastern United States.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: There are many barriers to meeting the goal of increasing kidney transplants in the United States. It is important to understand dialysis and transplant center providers' existing practices and identified barriers to increasing the number of dialysis patients who are evaluated for and get wait-listed for a transplant. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of dialysis unit and transplant center staff in End Stage Renal Disease Network 6 (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina). SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-one transplant staff from all 9 transplant centers in the region and 421 dialysis staff from 421 facilities responded to the survey. PREDICTORS: N/A. OUTCOME: Provider perceptions of barriers faced by patients in the kidney transplant evaluation process and suggestions for improving care. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Mixed methods. Descriptive analyses of responses to multiple-choice questions and qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses. RESULTS: The top 5 barriers to kidney transplantation as reported by transplant staff were transportation (63.7%), low health literacy (50.5%), lack of understanding about the transplant process (37.4%), distance to transplant center (29.7%), and low socioeconomic status (28.6%). When asked how dialysis units can help patients complete the evaluation process, the most common responses from transplant center staff were educating patients about transplant (54%), helping patients through steps in the process (35%), and better communication with transplant centers (15%). When dialysis unit staff were asked what could be done to help the facility improve its transplant wait-list rate, the most common responses were educational materials for patients and staff (55%), better communication with transplant centers (12%), and transportation and financial assistance (9%). LIMITATIONS: Survey responses are from 1 end stage renal disease network. CONCLUSIONS: Dialysis units, transplant centers, and ESRD networks can work together to help patients address key barriers to transplantation to improve the country's transplantation rate.

Integrated Digital Health System Tools to Support Decision Making and Treatment Preparation in CKD: The PREPARE NOW Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Digital health system tools to support shared decision making and preparation for kidney replacement treatments for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are needed. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive study of the implementation of digital infrastructure to support a patient-centered health system intervention. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 4 CKD clinics within a large integrated health system. EXPOSURE: We developed an integrated suite of digital engagement tools to support patients' shared decision making and preparation for kidney failure treatments. Tools included an automated CKD patient registry and risk prediction algorithm within the electronic health record (EHR) to identify and prioritize patients in need of nurse case management to facilitate shared decision making and preparation for kidney replacement treatments, an electronic patient-facing values clarification tool, a tracking application to document patients' preparation for treatments, and an EHR work flow to broadcast patients' treatment preferences to all health care providers. OUTCOMES: Uptake and acceptability. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Mixed methods. RESULTS: From July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, the CKD registry identified 1,032 patients in 4 nephrology clinics, of whom 243 (24%) were identified as high risk for progressing to kidney failure within 2 years. Kidney Transitions Specialists enrolled 117 (48%) high-risk patients by the end of year 1. The values tool was completed by 30/33 (91%) patients who attended kidney modality education. Nurse case managers used the tracking application for 100% of patients to document 287 planning steps for kidney replacement therapy. Most (87%) high-risk patients had their preferred kidney replacement modality documented and displayed in the EHR. Nurse case managers reported that the tools facilitated their identification of patients needing support and their navigation activities. LIMITATIONS: Single institution, short duration. CONCLUSIONS: Digital health system tools facilitated rapid identification of patients needing shared and informed decision making and their preparation for kidney replacement treatments. FUNDING: This work was supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project Program Award (IHS-1409-20967). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02722382.

Dialysis Facility Profit Status and Early Steps in Kidney Transplantation in the Southeastern United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dialysis facilities in the United States play a key role in access to kidney transplantation. Previous studies reported that patients treated at for-profit facilities are less likely to be waitlisted and receive a transplant, but their effect on early steps in the transplant process is unknown. The study's objective was to determine the association between dialysis facility profit status and critical steps in the transplantation process in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this retrospective cohort study, we linked referral and evaluation data from all nine transplant centers in the Southeast with United States Renal Data System surveillance data. The cohort study included 33,651 patients with kidney failure initiating dialysis from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2016. Patients were censored for event (date of referral, evaluation, or waitlisting), death, or end of study (August 31, 2017 for referral and March 1, 2018 for evaluation and waitlisting). The primary exposure was dialysis facility profit status: for profit versus nonprofit. The primary outcome was referral for evaluation at a transplant center after dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were start of evaluation at a transplant center after referral and waitlisting. RESULTS: Of the 33,651 patients with incident kidney failure, most received dialysis treatment at a for-profit facility (85%). For-profit (versus nonprofit) facilities had a lower cumulative incidence difference for referral within 1 year of dialysis (-4.5%; 95% confidence interval, -6.0% to -3.2%). In adjusted analyses, for-profit versus nonprofit facilities had lower referral (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.88). Start of evaluation within 6 months of referral (-1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -3.1% to 1.3%) and waitlisting within 6 months of evaluation (1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -1.2 to 3.3) did not meaningfully differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest lower access to referral among patients dialyzing in for-profit facilities in the Southeast United States, but no difference in starting the evaluation and waitlisting by facility profit status.