Most parents of children with cancer have dual primary goals: a primary cancer-directed goal of cure and a primary comfort-related goal of lessening suffering. Early introduction of palliative care principles and practices into their child's treatment is respectful and supportive of these goals. The Individualized Care Planning and Coordination Model is designed to integrate palliative care principles and practices into the ongoing care of children with cancer. Application of the model helps clinicians to generate a comprehensive individualized care plan that is implemented through Individualized Care Coordination processes as detailed here. Clinicians' strong desire to provide compassionate, competent, and sensitive care to the seriously ill child and the child's family can be effectively translated into clinical practice through these processes.
IntroductionThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act acknowledges the value of community health workers (CHWs) as frontline public health workers. Consequently, growing attention has been placed on promoting CHWs as legitimate partners to provide support to health care teams and patients in the prevention, management, and control of chronic disease, particularly among diverse populations and high-need individuals.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods research approach, we investigated the integration of CHWs into health care teams from the CHW perspective. We conducted a survey of 265 CHWs and interviews with 23 CHWs to better understand and describe their experience and their perceived opportunities and challenges regarding their integration within the context of health care reform.ResultsFeelings of organizational support were positively correlated with the number of CHWs in the organization. CHWs reported the following facilitators to integration: having team meetings (73.7%), training inside (70.4%) and outside of the organization (81.6%), access to electronic health records, and ability for CHWs to stay connected to the community.ConclusionThe perspectives of CHWs on their positive and negative experiences offer useful and innovative insight into ways of maximizing their impact on the health care team, patients, and their role as key emissaries between clinical services and community resources.
BackgroundThe fields of implementation and improvement sciences have experienced rapid growth in recent years. However, research that seeks to inform health care change may have difficulty translating core components of implementation and improvement sciences within the traditional paradigms used to evaluate efficacy and effectiveness research. A review of implementation and improvement sciences grant proposals within an academic medical center using a traditional National Institutes of Health framework highlighted the need for tools that could assist investigators and reviewers in describing and evaluating proposed implementation and improvement sciences research.MethodsWe operationalized existing recommendations for writing implementation science proposals as the ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposals Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) scoring system. The resulting system was applied to pilot grants submitted to a call for implementation and improvement science proposals at an academic medical center. We evaluated the reliability of the INSPECT system using Krippendorff’s alpha coefficients and explored the utility of the INSPECT system to characterize common deficiencies in implementation research proposals.ResultsWe scored 30 research proposals using the INSPECT system. Proposals received a median cumulative score of 7 out of a possible score of 30. Across individual elements of INSPECT, proposals scored highest for criteria rating evidence of a care or quality gap. Proposals generally performed poorly on all other criteria. Most proposals received scores of 0 for criteria identifying an evidence-based practice or treatment (50%), conceptual model and theoretical justification (70%), setting’s readiness to adopt new services/treatment/programs (54%), implementation strategy/process (67%), and measurement and analysis (70%). Inter-coder reliability testing showed excellent reliability (Krippendorff’s alpha coefficient 0.88) for the application of the scoring system overall and demonstrated reliability scores ranging from 0.77 to 0.99 for individual elements.ConclusionsThe INSPECT scoring system presents a new scoring criteria with a high degree of inter-rater reliability and utility for evaluating the quality of implementation and improvement sciences grant proposals.
Consumer access to third-party services to interpret raw DNA has raised concerns about downstream healthcare implications. This mixed-methods study set out to examine the extent to which genetic counselors have been contacted by consumers of third-party services and describe counselors' experiences with these "consumer" patients. Counselor views on the quality of information provided to consumers were also examined. Eighty-five genetic counselors completed an online survey, of which 22 completed in-depth telephone interviews. Survey and interview data were analyzed and combined using triangulation techniques. Over half (53%) of the survey respondents indicated they had been contacted by a patient following the use of a third-party raw DNA interpretation service. Among counselors contacted, 72% saw at least one patient. Counselors reported challenges unique to this patient population including overemphasis by patients on the validity of the data and patient resistance to information provided by the counselor. Preparation time burden and counselor inexperience and discomfort counseling these patients were additional challenges. Counselors expressed concern about the quality of the raw data and the clarity and usefulness of interpretation reports. Genetic counselors' experiences with consumer's use of third-party DNA interpretation services provide insight on the opportunities and challenges with the availability of raw DNA directly to consumers. Efforts to better support both consumers and genetic service providers are needed to maximize the effective translation of genome-based knowledge for population health.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.