Thursday, September 12, 2019

From health-care to well-care: what it means to be an “upstreamist”


From health-care to well-care: what it means to be an “upstreamist”

By Denise Crismon




Three friends are walking along a river. Suddenly they notice that there are people in the river and a waterfall up ahead. One friend, a strong swimmer, goes in and begins to pull people to safety. Another friend builds a raft to help more people at a time. The third friend is seen swimming upstream. The friends call after her, “what are you doing?” Her reply: “I’m going upstream to find out who’s throwing the people in the river.” 

Introduction

As medicine and technology advance, people are becoming more focused on living life well, not just prolonging it. To do so, heathcare needs more upstreamists. Dr. Rishi Manchanda, M.D., a leading expert in the upstream approach, explains that we need all three aspects depicted in the parable. The first friend represents the specialists, the ones you need when you are in dire straits or when you need help immediately. The raft builders are primary care providers. The friend who went upstream makes the connection between the healthcare system and the community to bring better health to all. Dr. Manchanda argues that there need to be more upstream providers and they need to be supported by communities, governments, and organizations. An upstreamist focuses on where health begins.

Health Begins

Where does health begin? It begins where people work, play, sleep, and eat. It begins with invisible and visible government structures that decide how resources are distributed. Being an upstreamist is more than simply focusing on preventative health over treating disease (sick care to health care). To concentrate upstream, the provider has to look for the environmental or social factors that bring on disease. In order to truly have health and wellness, clinicians and communities have to work together to improve health where it begins. Dr. Manchanda provides resources to clinicians who want to be upstreamists on his website Health Begins.

Organizations

Private clinicians are not the only ones looking upstream, organizations are too. In Boston, hospitals are partnering with legal non-profits to address upstream needs, such as adequate housing, food, and safety. A medical provider can refer a patient to an attorney as part of the patient’s healthcare plan. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, there were more than 1.56 million nonprofit organizations registered in the United States in 2015, many focused on health. If organizations and medical providers work more closely together, they can stop disease where it begins.

Government

Governments are also getting involved in this movement. In response to the high number of people with chronic diseases in the U.S., the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) is focusing on “improv[ing] health across the lifespan where people live, learn, work, and play.” NCCDPHP does this by measuring how many Americans have chronic illnesses, improving environments to facilitate better choices, strengthening the healthcare system to provide prevention services, and connecting clinicians and community.

Despite NCCDPHP’s work, six in ten adults in the U.S. still have a chronic disease and four in ten have two or more. Chronic disease is the leading cause of death and disability in the U.S. and a major portion of the $3.3 Trillion in annual health care costs. More needs to be done in the fight for wellness. 

Communities

Society can do better. Communities need to be more actively involved; regular people need to be empowered. Many are, but there are still too many who do not have enough resources to even know where to find help.

With all of the money and resources infused into the healthcare system in the United States, by focusing upstream, many more people could live full, productive lives, instead of simply living longer. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. is expected to spend 20 percent of GDP on healthcare by 2020, which is the most of any country. The graph below shows the percent of GDP the U.S. spends compared to other countries. As communities work together to better their circumstances and advocate for a more equal distribution of healthcare resources, they can be the means of bettering their lives. These resources need to be used more efficiently and effectively.



Retrieved from OECD healthcare spending


Conclusion

Many advances are being made by governments, organizations, and communities to move from health care to well care. While applaudable, the efforts are not enough. Many at the bottom are still being left out of the progress being made. As everyone works toward an upstream approach to healthcare, we can achieve wellness, not just the rich, but the underprivileged also. As a nation, we will be healthier, happier and better equipped for the future.

References

Cable, K. (n.d.). The Transition from Sick Care to Well Care and the Rise of the Patient-
Consumer. Retrieved from https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/the-transition-from-sick-care-to-well-care-and-the-rise-of-the-patient-consumer/
Chronic Diseases in America. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion (NCCDPHP). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm
Health Begins. (n.d.). Our Approach. Retrieved from https://www.healthbegins.org/our-
approach.html
McKeever, B. (2019). The Nonprofit Sector in Brief. Urban Institute, National Center for
Charitable Statistics. Accessed on July 19, 2019. Retrieved from https://nccs.urban.org/project/nonprofit-sector-brief#overview
National Center for Medical Legal Partnership (n.d.). Retrieved from https://medical-
legalpartnership.org/
Zaugg, J. (n.d.). Rishi Manchanda: “Health is too rarely perceived as a group phenomenon.”


Retrieved from https://www.invivomagazine.com/en/mens_sana/interview/article/196/rishi-manchanda-health-is-too-rarely-perceived-as-a-group-phenomenon




Ph.D. and DNP Collaboration: Bridging the Chasm to Advance Nursing Science

What is a Nurse Practitioner?

By Kelly Mansfield
    In the 1960s, Medicare and Medicaid extended services to low income groups, the elderly, and those with disabilities. The increase in healthcare coverage created a shortage of qualified physicians.
In 1965, the first nurse practitioner program was created to fill that void. Nurse practitioners 
(NP) can work independently or with a physician to diagnose, prescribe and manage a patient’s overall care. Their ability to practice independently varies based on state legislature. They are found in hospitals and clinics as well as many specialty areas. In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released the Future of Medicine report recommending state legislation needed to remove barriers preventing nurse practitioners from practicing to the full extent of their license.
What do all the letters mean?
            Some of the confusion around the role of nurse practitioner comes from the various names and credentials surrounding the profession. Initially, a nurse practitioner held a certification. This quickly evolved to a masters degree in the 1970s. Now, there are a variety of nurse practitioners with different degrees and credentials. Most nurse practitioners are
certified by either the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) or the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC). If the AANP provided the certification, the title will be NP-C, usually with a specialty proceeding the designation. This equates to the designation of FNP-C for a family nurse practitioner. The designation for ANCC is similar - FNP-BC. State designations are either Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (APRN) or Advanced Practice Nurse (APN).
What is a DNP?
            A recent change to the role of nurse practitioner is the addition of a Doctoral Program (DNP). The goal of the AACN was to move advanced practice nursing to a doctoral degree by 2015. The doctoral program adds a research aspect to the role of a nurse practitioner. Nurse practitioners utilize this research knowledge to integrate evidence-based practice into clinical settings.
Retrieved from Alpha Stock Images - http://alphastockimages.com/
What is a Ph.D. in nursing?
  The nursing Ph.D. was officially established in the 1970s. Prior to that time, nurses received a doctor of education degree to teach nursing. Other options were a Ph.D. in a social science with a minor in nursing or a DNSc (Doctor of Nursing Science). A nursing Ph.D. is primarily focused on research and advancing nursing science. This nursing career is founded on a Doctor of Philosophy degree and concentrates on developing new nursing science and education of the next generation of nurses. Ph.D. nurses use a variety of research methods including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods to explain phenomenon. The role of the Ph.D. nurse includes designing studies as well as evaluating and interpreting the results. Nursing studies surround a wide range of health issues which can be clinical in nature as well as focusing on public health issues, patient experiences, social determinants of health and health care policy.
The Paradigm of Nursing Research
            Traditionally, research in nursing has been centered around the research programs of Ph.D. nurses. Until the 1990s, there was a gap between research and practice. The 2001 IOM report stated, “Between the care we have and the care we could have lies not just a gap but a chasm.” This gap was the motivation for the implementation of evidence-based practices. Evidence- based practice (EBP) is defined as nursing practices which are based on the results of scientific research. Nursing education was adapted to teach the skills necessary to investigate practice issues and implement EBP solutions. The move to EBP began to close the chasm between research and practice. It encouraged nurses in many specialties to become involved in research and moved nursing towards a translational model.
Translational Research
            The concept of translational research is to integrate research into practice. Improved access to current research will improve the health system by bringing new knowledge to the bedside. There are 5 levels of translational research. In the first level (T0), health issues are identified. In the next step (T1), research is translated to humans. This can be done via clinical trial, interventions or treatments in controlled settings. In stage 3, research is applied to create evidence-based practice (T2). Then, the research is disseminated to the bedside (T3) and the outcomes are evaluated (T4).
Nursing Roles in Translational Research
            As nurses have breached the gap between research and practice, they have integrated translational research into the nursing model. Translational research is the basis for evidence-based practice. In nursing, a Ph.D. nurse works to identify health issues (T0) and translate that research to humans (T1). A DNP integrates that research into the healthcare system (T3). Both groups are active in evaluating the outcome of the interventions (T4).


Retrieved from: https://www.kisspng.com/
Working together
         The ideal situation in translational research is collaboration between nursing researchers. DNP and Ph.D. nurses have different skill sets within the arena of research. The strength of the Ph.D. nurse lies in research methods, design and data interpretation. The skills of a DNP nurse are focused on researching healthcare issues and implementing changes based on quality improvement. Collaboration enables nursing researchers, on both ends of the spectrum, to make advances in nursing science. Additionally, nursing practice is strengthened by the experience and perspectives of practitioners paired with the expertise of a trained researcher. More importantly, the partnership ensures that nursing research is implemented at the patient level, improves patient outcomes, and community health.
Issues in Collaboration
            One of the largest issues in nursing collaboration is a lack of resources. The Campaign for Action was created to monitor the recommendations of the OIN report. In 2018, they reported 7,039 nurses graduating from a DNP program and 801 graduating with a Ph.D. While there is an increase in graduates in both areas, there is still a shortage of both advanced practice nurses and doctoral graduates. Also, the number of DNP students is too large to be effectively supported by Ph.D. nurses. The recommendation of the OIN report was to double the number of doctoral-prepared nurses by 2020. Continuing to support the growth of nurses with advanced degrees will also support nursing partnership.



References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2019). Fact sheet: The doctor of nursing practice (DNP). Retrieved from https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/News/Factsheets/DNP-Factsheet.pdf
Carter, M. (2006). The Evolution of Doctoral Education in Nursing. Jones and Barrett. Pg 27-35
Dellabella, H. (2015). 50 years of the nurse practitioner program Clinical Advisor. Retrieved from https://www.clinicaladvisor.com/home/web-exclusives/50-years-of-the-nurse-practitioner-profession/
Campaign for Action. (2017). Number of people receiving doctoral degrees annually. Retrieved from https://campaignforaction.org/resource/number-people-receiving-nursing-doctoral-degrees-annually/
Midlevel U. (2015). How to sign your name as a nurse practitioner. Retrieved from https://www.midlevelu.com/blog/how-sign-your-name-nurse-practitioner
Stevens, K. (2013). The impact of evidence-based practice in nursing and the next big ideas. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing retrieved from http://ojin.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Vol-18-2013/No2-May-2013/Impact-of-Evidence-Based-Practice.html
Trautman, D., Idzik, S., Hammersla, M., Rosseter, R. (2018). Advancing scholarship through translational research: The role of PhD and DNP prepared nurses. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, retrieved from http://ojin.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Vol-23-2018/No2-May-2018/Advancing-Scholarship-through-Translational-Research.html

Sharing Research Findings in the Modern World


Sharing Research Findings in the Modern World

Scott Christensen, DNP, MBA, APRN, ACNP-BC


Background
Mass amounts of information are dispersed with the click of a button in our modern world of affordable high-speed Internet and smartphones. For example, five hours of material is posted to YouTube during each minute of the day. In this changing landscape of how information is circulated, one must carefully consider how much info they wish to receive, where they should turn to find the facts, and how they will determine the credibility of what is being shared.


(Creative Commons CC0, 2018)

This global shift in how information is spread has also influenced how academic research is distributed. When researchers finish conducting experiments and interviewing people, there are now many ways to share the information they discovered with others. As with social media postings and online news outlets, those interested in research findings must carefully determine where to look for information and how to evaluate the accuracy of the message. Likewise, researchers need to consider who they want to reach with their findings and to then select the best approach for sharing their message with their intended audience.

Researchers have a few different choices when it comes to sharing their research findings. Most work with a publishing company to share their results, which includes the choice of a traditional publisher or going with open-access publishing. These two approaches will be described in more detail.

Traditional closed-access publishing

Research findings have traditionally been shared by publishers who make the article “closed-access.” This means the publisher copyrights the material and controls how the information is shared. These publishing companies then charge people money to read the research, such as requiring people and libraries to pay a fee for accessing the article.

One benefit to using a closed-access journal is that the author does not have to pay to publish. Another benefit is that traditional journals have been around for a long time, bringing with them name recognition and a network of people who read their findings.

The fees traditional journals charge to end-users is a disadvantage, with some people or libraries not receiving research findings because they cannot afford to pay for it. Another disadvantage is that traditional publishers can take a long time to publish the research article.

Modern open-access publishing

Open-access journals are a newer way to publish. The author retains the rights to their article, and the publisher makes their findings available for free to anyone who has access to the internet. Instead of charging people a fee to read the article, the publisher makes money by instead charging the author to distribute the publication.

The greatest benefit to open-access journals, as suggested by their title, is that people can access the information without paying money. Several reports suggest that this can double the number of people who read the research findings. This also increases the chances that other people, including researchers, will read and cite the research results. Another benefit to open-access publishing is that the time it takes to publish is typically quicker than a traditional journal. This could be a great advantage to an author who has timely information to share.

Open-access articles are not without disadvantages. Some authors cannot afford to pay the publishing fee. There are also malicious publishers, known as “predatory journals,” who charge authors money to publish articles in their fake journal. They send invitations to authors that look legitimate, have journal titles that sound legitimate, but in the end authors pay money to have their article published in a journal that will not reach very many people.

Another disadvantage to open-access journals is that this approach creates the opportunity for conflicts of interest. Publishers are motivated to put out high quality work when they are reliant on people and libraries to pay for information. However, with open-access, publishers just need to collect a fee from the author. This creates the potential for legitimate publishers to be a little less picky in what they choose to publish. Likewise, if an author is under pressure to publish, there could be a conflict of interest in the author paying someone to help assure that the work gets published.

Conclusion
So which publication option is the best for publishing research results? Well, that depends. Closed access and open access journals each come with advantages and disadvantages. An author must carefully consider which option will be the most appropriate way to share their findings. There are also ‘hybrid open access journals,’ where a traditional journal gives the author the choice of whether to have their work become closed access or open access. The author pays the traditional publisher a fee to make their work open-access, but it is a smaller fee than what might be charged by an open-access publisher. The hybrid option might give an author the opportunity to have their cake and eat it too.

While it is important for scientists to discover new information, it is equally important for researchers to consider the best way to share what they find. Selecting a publisher based on open and closed access formats is an important consideration for any author who wishes to share research findings in the modern world.


References

Beall, J. (2015, January 1). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Retrieved from https://beallslist.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/9/5/30958339/criteria-2015.pdf
Bohannon, J. (2013, Oct 4). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60 – 65. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Claudio, L. (2017, March 30). Pros and cons of open access vs traditional publishing in scientific journals. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pros-cons-open-access-vs-traditional-publishing-journals-luz-claudio/
Creative Commons CC0 (2018, Sept 1). Pxhere.com. Retrieved from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1448019
Conte, S. (n.d.) Making the choice: Open access vs. traditional journals. American Journal Experts. Retrieved from https://www.aje.com/arc/making-the-choice-open-access-vs-traditional-journals/
 Limbong, A. (2019, July 9). YouTube creators are trying to fight radicalization online. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739999739/youtube-creators-are-trying-to-fight-radicalization-online
Suarez, A., & McGlynn, T. (2017, November 15). The fallacy of open-access publication. The Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Fallacy-of-Open-Access/241786

Health Care Delivery – Time for a paradigm shift


Health Care Delivery – Time for a paradigm shift
By Shirin Hiatt



Retrieved from: Creative Commons
Health care
Health care in America has a long and complicated history. Health care originated with the industrial revolution as a mean to protect workers from financial and job losses due to injuries and illnesses. However, this form of illness protection was not an organized structure; in fact, the decision on protection was made on a trial and error basis.
Health care system became organized in the early 1900s not through government efforts but organizations such as American Medical Association. Similarly, labor organizations became involved with advancing health care through legislations targeting working class and low-income citizens including children. However, their efforts were objected by some medical societies, despite initial support of the AMA, who were concerned about compensation for doctors. The opposition forced the AMA to pull their support of the bill, and soon after union leaders and private insurance industries followed suit.
Post World War I and the Great Depression, health care debate heightened. As the governments worked on health insurance bills, the medical organizations opposed national health systems. World War II brought the notion of employer-sponsored health insurance, however, left the unemployed, retired and disabled out and vulnerable. This lead to a push from some government official for a national health care system. Once again, the bill was met with opposition and was rejected.
The evolution of health care throughout the 20th and into the 21st century has resulted in a fragmented and profit-driven system that largely ignores its consumers. A paradigm shift in health care is urgently needed that puts the consumers of the health care at its core as the main stakeholders and in the center of the ongoing debate.


Shift in Focus

                    àààà                                                                                         




Taken from: PublicDomainPictures.net


In addition to changes and shifts in the focus of health care reform from the cost and access standpoint, there is a crucial need to shift the healthcare focus from disease-centered to patient-centered and value-based care. This shift in focus will benefit all segments of the population who have varied and differing, yet value-driven, needs and will result in personalized and precision care beyond the genetics and medicine.
What is patient-centered care (PCC)?
Patient-centered care is a model where patients and families’ preferences and wishes are taken into consideration and addressed. Patient centered care allows patients to have an active engagement in the decisions about their own care, and therefore, will result in patients’ satisfaction with overall health and wellbeing regardless of illness trajectory.
A research conducted by the Picker Institute and Harvard Medical School emphasizes that patient-centered care should encompass the following eight elements:
1.      Respect for patient’s values, preferences and needs: involving patients in all aspects of decision making and emphasizing the uniqueness and cultural values of individual patients
2.      Coordination and integration of care: recognize and alleviate patient vulnerability and powerlessness during illness by coordinating patient and clinical care, as well as supportive services
3.      Information and Education: on illness status, process and progression as well as pertinent information on self-care and health promotion
4.      Physical comfort: pain management, assessment and assistance with ADLs
5.      Emotional support: alleviating anxiety associated with illness and its sequel
6.      Social Support: identification, recognition, involvement and support of family and friends
7.      Continuity and transition: information about and continuity of health care needs such as treatments, medication and services as well as preventive care such as nutrition and physical activity, and financial support
8.      Access to care: access and availability of routine and specialized care as well as instrumental assistance and access, such as ease of scheduling, referral and transportation
IOM Report of PCC
Institute of medicine (IOM) defines PCC as “Providing care that is respectful of, and responsive to, individual patient preferences, needs and values, and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions.” IOM has emphasized that in order to change the health care system, the health care must be:
1.      Safe: care should not harm or injure people; “first do no harm”
2.      Effective: care should be based on scientific knowledge, beneficial and avoid under- or over-use of treatments
3.      Patient-centered (human dimension of health care): care that is respectful, responsive and takes into account preferences, needs and values to guide clinical decisions
4.      Timely: care that avoids delays and barriers to patient care
5.      Efficient: care that eliminates waste in all forms
6.      Equitable: care and services that is accessible, and of quality, to all


What is Value-Based Health care?
 
[Photo credit: Dialysis Technician Salary]
Value-based health care is a model where health care entities and providers are paid based on patient outcome and improvements in their health while reducing cost and chronic disease incidence. In this model, maximizing the care value for patients and families is at the core of strategies to reform health care delivery.
Where do we go from here?
The future of health care should incorporate the shift in vision of health and well-being to incorporate value and quality as it is defined by individual patients and those who are affected. With the increase in chronic illness and the aging of the Americans, the need for value-based health care is more crucial than ever. It is an empowering agenda and a “herd immunity” for the rising cost of health care.

Links and sources:
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, & Institute of Medicine Staff. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press.
Griffin, Jeff. “The History of Healthcare in America.” Employee Benefits Consultants - JP Griffin Group, 7 Mar. 2017, www.griffinbenefits.com/employeebenefitsblog/history_of_healthcare.
“What Is Patient-Centered Care?” NEJM Catalyst, 18 Apr. 2019, catalyst.nejm.org/what-is-patient-centered-care/.
“What Is Value-Based Healthcare?” NEJM Catalyst, 17 Apr. 2019, catalyst.nejm.org/what-is-value-based-healthcare/.