Part A
This presentation is titled mental health screening, and interventions for Level two trauma centers with a purpose to illustrate the need and options for health screening and interventions. The question we should ask is, why is there no mental health screening or interventions available in our local hospital setting, to help identify patients who are at high risk of developing post traumatic stress disorder or PTSD after being involved in an acute traumatic accident. Some of the background mental health screening is not being completed at our local level two trauma center. So identify patients who are at risk of developing PTSD after being involved in a traumatic accident. Intervention options are not available in the inpatient setting, specific to trauma patients. Patients are being discharged back into the community without screening, H later identified as developing mental health issues associated with their injury with lack of resources again it’s provided from the hospital. Patients who are involved in a traumatic event, such as the motor vehicle accident or fall are at higher risk of developing PTSD. Screening does need to be implemented to capture patients at a higher risk of developing PTSD trauma after being died and start interventions as soon as possible. This topic needs to be addressed now because our local level two trauma center does not have screenings and interventions. Additionally, less than 25% of level one and level two trauma centers across the United States screen for depression and less than 7% for PTSD symptoms. When looking at this, stakeholders are Trauma Medical Directors. This is important because they need to be compliant with American College Assurgon guidelines, which recently released guidelines for implementing mental health screening specific to identifying patients that are at higher risk for developing PTSD induced from the traumatic injury that they had. As well as our important patients and offering this screening to them in the hospital. Key factors are nursing staff and the capacity to do the additional screening along with all the other duties that they are responsible for in the hospital. As well as social workers, in developing a protocol for brief inpatient interventions, while patients are still in the hospital. Then our Health Informatics Department in helping to build a screen questionnaire and automated referral system. Looking at evidence based options for screening. The three that I picked. The first one is an automated PTSD screening, which basically pulls from the patient’s EMR, and it collects data with the patient’s history, the suicide screening that’s already being done. Any past traumatic injuries that they have, the current injury or t that they sustain. Known mental health issues and medications that they’re taking, and based on that information that is in the patient’s medical record, all of this data is pulled and gives a PTSD screening score. The pros on that would not require staff to have to ask questions to the patient. The cons to that would be potential limitations with the electronic health record that our hospital system uses being able to automatically pull that data successfully. The second one is called Injured trauma survivor screening or IT S S. In the pros to this, there’s just a simple, yes or no questionnaire consisting of nine questions. This screening has been one of the best practice options, and has been shown to be a stable screening tool studies showing a PTSD predictability of 93.94%. The con to that is just relying on nursing staff to complete and then patients not wanting to complete or refusing. The last screening option is the patient health questionnaire or the PHQ two screening question. The pros to that is the first one is just a quick question two questions that the patient answers, and if those are positive, then it goes into the PHQ nine screening questions. The cons to that, relying nursing staff to complete. And then again, patients refusing to complete. Then as far as the intervention, order the prost to this or positive screening would automated referral generated an electronic health record by submitting an order for the mental health interventions, and whether that be a social workers or inpatient and psychotherapy. The cost of this would be if the EMR is not able to generate the order based on selected screening and or the medical provider if they are having to manually enter that. It just leaves room for error if they do forget to do it before the patient’s discharged. The recommendation for best practice best options is to implement the injured trauma survivor screening, just based on its ease of answering the simple yes or no questions along with just the supporting data from the American College of surgeons that it has a high success rate of identifying trauma patients that are likely to develop PTSD from their injury. Then best practice would be to if their screening is positive, an alert is generated to the trauma provider to order a trauma psychology consultation. We would just have to work with our local health matics to inquire if this is an option. If it can be automatically generated or if it will have to be entered by the provider. Lastly to conclude being the only local level two trauma center here in the State of Idaho, not being compliant with the new guidelines. This is a huge need, and it’s something that needs to be implemented soon to help identify patients. At least just offer that screening to them in the hospital. A lot of the patients are And as far as the care team and the providers are focused on the patient’s acute injuries, getting them stable. Oftentimes the mental health side of it is not looked at. As far as an example of patient is that a motor vehicle collision, and their injury is they are quadriplegic. Everybody, including the patient is focused on this life altering injury. They won’t be able to walk again, do their normal cares, take care of family and patient, take care of family members. Which does affect their mental health. And I think PTSD is just not something on the forefront of patients thinking that that is a possibility, you know, 30 days after being discharged. So I think it’s something that’s very important that needs to be implemented. Thank you.
Part B
Good morning, everybody. My name is Mofaro today. I’m going to be presenting to you my health policy analysis addressing obesity in the Omaha Metropolitan area. So we’re going to begin by saying that obesity has been a very severe health problem, and it has great consequences for individuals for the society at large and the health care system. And obesity has a new line which substantively increases the possibility of chronic diseases, such as type two diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and some type of cancers as well. The above analysis is therefore vital in attempting to curb the analysis or the obesity epidemic and embracing healthier. S that are going to be needed to address obesity require much more than just individuals changing their lifestyles. They need comprehensive strategies from the public health policies, community based interventions, and systematic changes to build an environment that facilitates and supports a healthy living. The problem statement question invited an answer again is continuously rising obesity rates that affect our local population. Obesity is a complex condition, and it is influenced by numerous factors, including poor diet, lag of physical activity, and environmental factors as well. The following practical strategies that can help to address obesity, significantly can be the ones that will help people have a quality life. It reduces the quality of life and life expectancy and significant economic costs. For example, improved healthy food accessibility, safe spaces to engage in physical activities and can also help in managing diabetes in the community. So for the last decade, now this rate has been rising progressively this obesity rate, I’m sorry. With the present percentage at most and more than 30% of adults and more than 20% of children face obesity. The prevalence of obesity puts not only health and well being, but also a heavy economic burden on the healthcare system, and there is no need to overemphasize the agency and importance of formulating strategies for the obesity pandemic. So the environment of the country regarding the problem of obesity represents a very diverse set of stakeholders and essential influencing factors. These stakeholders include obese individuals and families struggling with or suffering from obesity. Strikingly, key contributors to the rate of obesity in society are multi faced with access to health resources, socio economic inequalities, and cultural, dietary norms, all playing a role. Awareness campaigns initiated to promote positive health behaviors are necessary as well. So now the different options that can be implemented, and these are evidence based options to combat the problem of obesity in or community and many. And these can include education and awareness campaigns, and these programs will aim to create awareness about healthy lifestyle, proper nutrition, as well as regular activities that can help reduce obesity. Improved access to resources, Another vital option is improving access to healthy food and physical activity opportunities, supportive policies and regulations, texting, sugar drinks, making school, meals healthier, and regulating food. Advertising may create systematic changes that facilitate more nutritious choices. The best way under recommendations that can help our community with the problem of obesity is through increasing access to health resources supported by supportive policy and regulation. O obesity is complex and multi dimensional. Therefore, different approaches are needed to find a solution. The following are the keys to overcoming these challenges. And these can include the engagement of stakeholders, ensuring adequate funds, having policies change successfully and education and resources to ensure that sustainable behavior is maintained. Once active engagement of such stakeholders is ensured, culturally relevant interventions will be developed and widely accepted. The core of continuous assessment will be monitoring and evaluating the strategies. These stakeholders can work collaboratively drawing on their particular strengths and resources to create a supportive environment that will promote healthy living, as well as reduce the rate of obesity. In conclusion, I just wanted just to go over the things that we went over about obesity, how it is a very urgent public health issue, and this needs to be faced globally, as well as locally, and a problem is overwhelming, Mal as this can only be treated by identifying and addressing its underlying causes within a program of expanded health related resources. The ultimate goal is to build an environment that supports a healthy living choice. And this living and improves our community overall health as well as well being. Addressing both individual behaviors and systematic barriers addresses the causes so that a sustainable impact incapacity is realized and the quality of life enhanced for all members of the community. Maybe periodic monitoring and evaluation of these strategies will set the platform for knowing what works and what areas require further techno engineering for enhancement, and as well as just having a supportive policy and comprehensive education. By fostering a supportive environment and engaging all stakeholders, we can create lasting change that promotes a healthy lifestyle and reduces the prevalence of obesity. Ultimately, improving our community, especially here in Omaha, Nebraska and our communities overall health, as well as the well being And this has been my presentation, and my last page will be the references that I used. And thank you so much for taking time to listen to this presentation. And I hope we have all been challenged on how we can address the different problems that people are facing when it comes to obesity, especially here in my local community of Omaha Nebraska. Thank you very much.