No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Disasters cause significant human and monetary destruction and society as a whole is underprepared to address them. Disaster preparedness education is not covered extensively enough for health professionals or for the general public. METHODS:A disaster preparedness education intervention was performed using a non-randomized controlled trial of a convenience sample with a pre-and post-intervention survey. The adapted Emergency Preparedness Information Questionnaire (EPIQ), a validated survey tool, was utilized. Participants came from a health professions educational enrichment program for students from under-resourced high schools in the Kansas City area. RESULTS:The experimental group shows statistically significant improvement in knowledge of disaster topics post-intervention. Of 18 adapted EPIQ tool questions, 17 show statistically significant improvement in disaster knowledge post-intervention for the experimental group with significance set at p < .05 (range of significant p values .000-.017). CONCLUSIONS:The education intervention was effective and cost-efficient. Disaster preparedness education should be included in THE secondary school curriculum.

No abstract

Background The 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule was created to increase patient access to health information. This federally mandated policy has been met with praise and concern. However, little is known about patient and clinician opinions of this policy within cancer care. Methods We conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results. Results Overall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients. Conclusions Our findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.