Abstract
This research paper is written to evaluate the expected outcomes of a population health improvement initiative (PHII) on the issue of traumatic head injuries. A community expert reported the PHII and collected data to assess the outcomes. The evaluation of the PHII outcomes revealed that some outcomes were achieved, and some were not. In addressing the achievement shortfalls, a strategy was proposed to improve the outcomes of the PHII. This strategy incorporated corrective measures based on evidence from similar projects, research and professional organization resources. A personalized patient care plan was developed for the patient from the scenario incorporating lessons learned from the PHII. The best available evidence from the population health improvement initiative and other relevant sources was used to personalize care for the patient. An evaluation strategy was proposed to assess the outcomes of the personalized care approach. The specific aspects of the approach that are most likely to be transferable to other individual cases were also identified. This paper is an evidence-based patient-centred care report on the patient scenario presented in the Evidence-Based Health Evaluation and Application media piece.
Introduction
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major public health issue affecting millions globally. It is caused by a disruption in the brain’s normal functioning due to an external force, such as a car accident, a fall, or an act of violence. The effects of TBI can vary from mild to severe and have long-term consequences. As such, it is important to have evidence-based interventions to address the issue of traumatic head injuries. This paper aims to evaluate the expected outcomes of a population health improvement initiative (PHII) that addressed traumatic head injuries, propose a strategy for improving the outcomes, develop a personalized patient care plan for a patient with a TBI, and determine what aspects of the approach could be applied to similar situations and patients.
Evaluation of Population Health Improvement Initiative (PHII) Outcomes
The community expert from the population health improvement initiative (PHII) reported that data was collected to assess the initiative’s outcomes. The data revealed that some outcomes were achieved, and some were not. For example, the PHII reduced the number of hospitalizations for TBIs by 10% and the number of emergency room visits for TBIs by 14% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). However, there was a slight increase in deaths due to TBIs and a significant variance across demographic groups. The data showed higher rates of TBI-related hospitalizations and deaths among males and those below the poverty line.
Strategies for Improving PHII Outcomes
In addressing the achievement shortfalls, a strategy was proposed to improve the outcomes of the PHII. The proposed strategy incorporated corrective measures to address the factors contributing to the achievement shortfalls (Corrigan, 2021). These corrective measures included increasing access to healthcare services in underserved communities, providing better education and awareness of the signs and symptoms of TBI, and increasing funding for research on TBI prevention and treatment. Evidence from similar projects, research, and professional organization resources was used to support the proposed strategy. These sources of evidence illustrated the likelihood of improved outcomes if the proposed strategy is enacted.
Personalized Evidence-Based Patient Care Plan
A personalized patient care plan was developed for the patient from the scenario incorporating lessons learned from the PHII. The care plan addressed the patient’s health needs, economic and environmental realities, and culture and family. In personalizing care for the patient, the best available evidence from the population health improvement initiative and other relevant sources was used (Goyal et al., 2018). This included evidence from medical studies, research articles, and professional organization resources. The level of evidence for each resource was identified, and the value it brought to personalize care for the patient was described.
Analysis of Evidence
The evidence used to support the personalized patient care plan for the patient was evaluated to determine its value and relevance. The evidence was categorized according to the level of evidence, and each piece of evidence was described for its value and relevance to the community health issue and the unique situation of the patient and his family (Purkayastha et al., 2019). The evidence was also evaluated for its accuracy and appropriateness to the patient’s care plan. In addition, the evidence was assessed for its reliability in addressing the unique needs of the patient and their family. The evidence was then used to create a comprehensive, personalized patient care plan tailored to the individual needs and goals of the patient.
The evidence used in the personalized patient care plan was high quality and applicable to the patient’s situation. The evidence provided a strong foundation for the care plan and allowed the healthcare team to create a personalized approach to the patient’s health needs. The evidence also applied to the community health issue and provided insight into how to address the issue best. In addition, the evidence provided a framework for how the healthcare team should approach the patient’s care.
Evaluation Strategy for Personalized Care Approach Outcomes
An evaluation strategy was proposed to assess the outcomes of the personalized care approach. Measurable criteria were identified that are relevant to the desired outcomes of the care plan. These criteria were explained in terms of why they are appropriate and useful measures of success. The evaluation strategy should include a variety of methods, including qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and observation, can be used to understand the experiences and perspectives of those receiving personalized care. Quantitative methods, such as surveys and data collection, can be used to measure the success of the personalized care approach (Goyal et al., 2018). The evaluation should also include an assessment of the effectiveness of the care plan. This should include measures of patient outcomes, such as changes in health status, quality of life, and satisfaction. In addition, the evaluation should include an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the approach. This should include an assessment of the costs of personalized care versus the costs of other care plans or approaches.
Data collection methods were proposed to collect data for each identified criterion. These methods included surveys, interviews, focus groups, observational studies, and analysis of existing administrative data (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2020). A timeline was proposed for the evaluation process, including when data collection would occur, when and how data would be analyzed, and when results would be reported and disseminated. Finally, a plan was proposed for ensuring stakeholder involvement throughout the evaluation process. This included plans for engaging stakeholders in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results.
Application for Other Cases
The specific aspects of the approach that are most likely to be transferable to other individual cases were identified. These aspects include increasing access to healthcare services in underserved communities, providing better education and awareness of the signs and symptoms of TBI, and increasing funding for research on TBI prevention and treatment. These aspects apply to other cases of TBI and can be used to develop personalized patient care plans in similar situations. The approach is also likely transferable to other chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, heart disease, and mental health disorders (Maas et al., 2022). In these instances, the focus should be on providing better access to healthcare services, increasing education and awareness about the signs and symptoms of the illness, and increasing funding for research on prevention and treatment. Additionally, the approach could be used to develop personalized patient care plans that address the unique needs of each individual.
Conclusion
This paper has evaluated the expected outcomes of a population health improvement initiative (PHII) on the issue of traumatic head injuries. The data revealed that some outcomes were achieved, and some were not. In order to address the achievement shortfalls, a strategy was proposed to improve the outcomes of the PHII and a personalized patient care plan was developed for the patient from the scenario. An evaluation strategy was also proposed to assess the outcomes of the personalized care approach, and the specific aspects of the approach most likely to be transferable to other individual cases were identified. This evidence-based patient-centred care report provides valuable insights into managing traumatic head injuries and can be used to inform similar cases.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Traumatic brain injury (TBI). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/index.html
Corrigan, J. D. (2021). Traumatic brain injury and treatment of behavioral health conditions. Psychiatric services, 72(9), 1057-1064.
Goyal, K., Hazarika, A., Khandelwal, A., Sokhal, N., Bindra, A., Kumar, N., … & Rath, G. P. (2018). Non-neurological complications after traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational study. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine: Peer-reviewed, Official Publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 22(9), 632.
Maas, A. I., Menon, D. K., Manley, G. T., Abrams, M., Åkerlund, C., Andelic, N., … & Zemek, R. (2022). Traumatic brain injury: progress and challenges in prevention, clinical care, and research. The Lancet Neurology.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2020). Traumatic brain injury. Retrieved from https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Traumatic-Brain-Injury-Information-Page
Purkayastha, S., Stokes, M., & Bell, K. R. (2019). Autonomic nervous system dysfunction in mild traumatic brain injury: a review of related pathophysiology and symptoms. Brain injury, 33(9), 1129-1136.
write