ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nursing homes were ill-equipped for the pandemic; though facilities are required to have infection control staff, only 3% have taken a basic infection control course. Little is known about the implementation of effective practices outside of the acute care setting. We proposed an intervention utilizing Project ECHO, to connect Penn State University experts with nursing home staff and administrators to explore how infection control guidelines can be implemented effectively. METHODS: A stratified cluster randomized design was used to assign nursing homes to either AHRQ-funded COVID-19 ECHO or AHRQ-funded COVID-19 ECHO+. RESULTS: 136 nursing homes participated. There were no significant differences in COVID-19 infection rate, hospitalization, deaths, or influenza, between ECHO or ECHO+. DISCUSSION: The ECHO model has significant strengths when compared to traditional training, as it allows for remote learning delivered by a multidisciplinary team of experts and utilizes case discussions that match the context of nursing homes.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Nursing Homes , Skilled Nursing Facilities , Patient-Centered CareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Our qualitative study explored prenatal care providers' methods for identifying and counseling pregnant women to reduce or stop smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and the risk of domestic violence. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups (five with OB/Gyn physicians, one with nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives), total N=49, using open-ended questions. Investigators analyzed transcripts to identify and describe themes. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged: (1) specific risk-prevention tactics or strategies exist that are useful during pregnancy; (2) some providers address patients' isolation or depression; and (3) providers can adopt a policy of "just chipping away" at risks. Specific tactics included normalizing risk prevention, using specific assessment techniques and counseling strategies, employing a patient-centered style of smoking reduction, and involving the family. CONCLUSIONS: Providers generally agreed that addressing behavioral risks in pregnant patients is challenging. Patient-centered techniques and awareness of patients' social contexts help patients disclose and discuss risks. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Brief but routine assessment and risk reduction messages require little time of the provider, but can make a big difference to the patient, who may make changes later.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Counseling/methods , Health Behavior , Pregnancy Complications/prevention & control , Prenatal Care/methods , Risk Assessment/methods , Female , Focus Groups , Humans , Nurse Midwives/psychology , Nurse Practitioners/psychology , Nursing Assessment/methods , Nursing Methodology Research , Obstetrics/methods , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Pregnancy , Qualitative Research , Risk Reduction Behavior , San Francisco , Smoking Prevention , Spouse Abuse/prevention & control , Substance-Related Disorders/prevention & control , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to examine primary care physicians' screening practices for female partner abuse in different clinical situations and to investigate the relationship between perceived barriers and screening practices. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to Alaska physicians practicing in the following specialties: family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology and general practice. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 80 percent (305/383). The majority (85.7%) of primary care physicians screened often or always when a female patient presents with an injury, but they rarely screened at initial visits (6.2%) or annual exams (7.5%). More than one-third of respondents estimated that 10% or more of their female patients had experienced some type of intimate partner abuse. Several barriers to screening described in the literature were not predictive of physicians' screening practice patterns. Physicians' perceptions that abuse is prevalent among their patients and physicians' beliefs that they have a responsibility to deal with abuse were the only variables independently associated with screening at initial visits and annual exams. The only variable predictive of screening when a patient presents with an injury was physicians' perceived prevalence of abuse. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians have not integrated screening for partner abuse into routine care. Strategies to increase awareness of the high prevalence of abuse in the primary care setting and to educate providers on the negative health effects of victimization can help physicians to acknowledge their responsibility in addressing abuse and the importance of screening at routine visits. Further rigorous studies are needed to identify and evaluate predictors of screening for abuse.
