Global practice experience: A useful lens for understanding patient and staff perceptions of successful integration of health information technology in primary care

Making healthcare comprehensive and more efficient remains a complex challenge. Health Information Technology (HIT) is recognized as an important component of this transformation but few studies describe HIT adoption and it's effect on the bedside experience by physicians, staff and patients. This study applied descriptive statistics and correlation analysis to data from the Patient-Centered Medical Home National Demonstration Project (NDP) of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Thirty-six clinics were followed for 26 months by clinician/staff questionnaires and patient surveys. This study characterizes those clinics as well as staff and patient perspectives on HIT usefulness, the doctor-patient relationship, electronic medical record (EMR) implementation, and computer connections in the practice throughout the study. The Global Practice Experience factor, a composite score related to key components of primary care, was then correlated to clinician and patient perspectives. This study found wide adoption of HIT among NDP practices. Patient perspectives on HIT helpfulness on the doctor-patient showed a suggestive trend that approached statistical significance (p = 0.172). Clinicians and staff noted successful integration of EMR into clinic workflow and their perception of helpfulness to the doctor-patient relationship show a suggestive increase also approaching statistical significance (p=0.06). GPE was correlated with clinician/staff assessment of a helpful doctor-patient relationship midway through the study (R 0.460, p = 0.021) with the remaining time points nearing statistical significance. GPE was also correlated to both patient perspectives of EMR helpfulness in the doctor-patient relationship (R 0.601, p = 0.001) and computer connections (R 0.618, p = 0.0001) at the start of the study. ^

An assessment of post-disaster psychological stress in hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER) workers

Personnel involved in natural or man-made disaster response and recovery efforts may be exposed to a wide variety of physical and mental stressors that can exhibit long-lasting and detrimental psychopathological outcomes. In a disaster situation, huge numbers of "secondary" responders can be involved in contaminant clean-up and debris removal and can be at risk of developing stress-related mental health outcomes. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker training hierarchy typically required for response workers, known as "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response" (HAZWOPER), does not address the mental health and safety concerns of workers. This study focused on the prevalence of traumatic stress experienced by secondary responders that had received or expressed interest in receiving HAZWOPER training through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Worker Education and Training Program (NIEHS WETP). ^ The study involved the modification of two preexisting and validated survey tools to assess secondary responder awareness of physical, mental, and traumatic stressors on mental health and sought to determine if a need existed to include traumatic stress-related mental health education in the current HAZWOPER training regimen. The study evaluated post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), resiliency, mental distress, and negative effects within a secondary responder population of 176 respondents. Elevated PTSD levels were seen in the study population as compared to a general responder population (32.9% positive vs. 8%-22.5% positive). Results indicated that HAZWOPER-trained disaster responders were likely to test positive for PTSD, whereas, untrained responders with no disaster experience and responders who possessed either training or disaster experience only were likely to test PTSD negative. A majority (68.75%) of the population tested below the mean resiliency to cope score (80.4) of the average worker population. Results indicated that those who were trained only or who possessed both training and disaster work experience were more likely to have lower resiliency scores than those with no training or experience. There were direct correlations between being PTSD positive and having worked at a disaster site and experiencing mental distress and negative effects. However, HAZWOPER training status does not significantly correlate with mental distress or negative effect. ^ The survey indicated clear support (91% of respondents) for mental health education. The development of a pre- and post-deployment training module is recommended. Such training could provide responders with the necessary knowledge and skills to recognize the symptomology of PTSD, mental stressors, and physical and traumatic stressors, thus empowering them to employ protective strategies or seek professional help if needed. It is further recommended that pre-deployment mental health education be included in the current HAZWOPER 24- and 40-hour course curriculums, as well as, consideration be given towards integrating a stand-alone post-deployment mental health education training course into the current HAZWOPER hierarchy.^

Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^