Health Design Thinking: An Innovative Approach in Public Health to Defining Problems and Finding Solutions.

Current trends in the United States health care landscape call for innovative and adaptive approaches to improve outcomes and reduce inefficiencies. Design Thinking is an innovative approach to problem-solving that leverages insights from the end-users of new products, services, and experiences in order to develop best-fit solutions that are rapidly prototyped and iteratively refined. When compared to traditional problem-solving methods in health care and other public health adjacent fields, Design Thinking leads to more successful and sustainable interventions. Design Thinking has facilitated improvements in patient, provider, and community satisfaction, and in public health, has increased efficiency and collaboration in intervention development. Given the promising nature of Design Thinking as an effective problem-solving method, it follows that Design Thinking training would prove a beneficial addition to public health education. The integration of Design Thinking in public health education may equip public health leaders with essential skills necessary to understand and more effectively approach historically intractable challenges. This article describes the development and evaluation of a hands-on Design Thinking workshop, piloted with Master of Public Health (MPH) students in April, 2019 at Thomas Jefferson University. Preceding and following the workshop, evaluation forms were used to assess participants' knowledge about Design Thinking concepts and attitudes towards the workshop experience. Metrics were aligned with established learning objectives related to process, impact, and outcomes of the workshop. We hypothesized that the workshop intervention would increase participants understanding of Design Thinking concepts and applications in public health. Evaluations demonstrated that after attending the workshop, participants were able to understand and apply Design Thinking concepts in a public health context. Following the evaluation of pilot data, the workshop was refined and embedded in the MPH curriculum at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA.

Rural Hospital Nursing Skill Mix and Work Environment Associated with Frequency of Adverse Events.

INTRODUCTION: Though rural hospitals serve about one fifth of the United States (U.S.), few studies have investigated relationships among nursing resources and rural hospital adverse events. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to determine relationships among nursing skill mix (proportion of Registered Nurses (RNs) to all nursing staff), the work environment and adverse events (medication errors, patient falls with injury, pressure ulcers, and urinary tract infections) in rural hospitals. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, nurse survey data from a large study examining nurse organizational factors, patient safety, and quality from four U.S. states were linked to the 2006 American Hospital Association data. The work environment was measured using the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI). Nurses reported adverse event frequency. Data analyses were descriptive and inferential. RESULTS: On average, 72% of nursing staff were RNs (range = 45% to 100%). Adverse event frequency ranged from 0% to 67%, across 76 hospitals. In regression models, a 10-point increase in the proportion of RNs among all nursing staff and a one standard deviation increase in the PES-NWI score were significantly associated with decreased odds of frequent adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rural hospitals that increase the nursing skill mix and improve the work environment may achieve reduced adverse event frequency.

Isolated, small, and large hospitals have fewer nursing resources than urban hospitals: Implications for rural health policy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to compare nurse education, patient-to-nurse staffing, nursing skill mix, and nurse work environments across hospitals depending on extent of rurality. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, comparative, and descriptive. SAMPLE: The final sample included 566 urban, 49 large, 18 small, and 9 isolated hospitals from California, Florida, and Pennsylvania. MEASUREMENT: Data collected from large random samples from the 2005-2008 Multi-State Nursing Care and Patient Safety Study funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research and National Institutes of Health were linked to 2005-2006 American Hospital Association data. Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes developed by the University of Washington and the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service were used to determine the extent of hospital rurality across the sample. RESULTS: Hospital percentages of baccalaureate prepared nurses differed significantly among urban (38%), large (28%), small (31%), and isolated rural hospitals (21%). Patient-to-registered nurse ratios in urban (4.8), large (5.6), small (5.6), and isolated rural hospitals (7.3) differed. Rural hospital nursing skill mix differed, and was lowest in isolated rural hospitals (65%). Nursing foundations for quality care were poorer in large, small, and isolated rural hospitals. CONCLUSION: Results support bolstering rural nursing resources in more remote locations, potentially through rural health policies.

Association of Nurse Engagement and Nurse Staffing on Patient Safety.

BACKGROUND: Nurse engagement is a modifiable element of the work environment and has shown promise as a potential safety intervention. PURPOSE: Our study examined the relationship between the level of engagement, staffing, and assessments of patient safety among nurses working in hospital settings. METHODS: A secondary analysis of linked cross-sectional data was conducted using survey data of 26 960 nurses across 599 hospitals in 4 states. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between nurse engagement, staffing, and nurse assessments of patient safety. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of nurses gave their hospital a poor or failing patient safety grade. In 25% of hospitals, nurses fell in the least or only somewhat engaged categories. A 1-unit increase in engagement lowered the odds of an unfavorable safety grade by 29% (P < .001). Hospitals where nurses reported higher levels of engagement were 19% (P < .001) less likely to report that mistakes were held against them. Nurses in poorly staffed hospitals were 6% more likely to report that important information about patients "fell through the cracks" when transferring patients across units (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve nurse engagement and adequate staffing serve as strategies to improve patient safety.

Assessing community perspectives of the community based education and service model at Makerere University, Uganda: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Community partnerships are defined as groups working together with shared goals, responsibilities, and power to improve the community. There is growing evidence that these partnerships contribute to the success and sustainability of community-based education and service programs (COBES), facilitating change in community actions and attitudes. Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS) is forging itself as a transformational institution in Uganda and the region. The College is motivated to improve the health of Ugandans through innovative responsive teaching, provision of service, and community partnerships. Evaluating the COBES program from the community perspective can assist the College in refining an innovative and useful model that has potential to improve the health of Ugandans. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 11 COBES sites was selected to examine the community's perception of the program. Key Informant Interviews of 11 site tutors and 33 community members were completed. The data was manually analyzed and themes developed. RESULTS: Communities stated the students consistently engaged with them with culturally appropriate behaviour. They rated the student's communication as very good even though translators were frequently needed. Half the community stated they received some feedback from the students, but some communities interpreted any contact after the initial visit as feedback. Communities confirmed and appreciated that the students provided a number of interventions and saw positive changes in health and health seeking behaviours. The community reflected that some programs were more sustainable than others; the projects that needed money to implement were least sustainable. The major challenges from the community included community fatigue, and poor motivation of community leaders to continue to take students without compensation. CONCLUSIONS: Communities hosting Makerere students valued the students' interventions and the COBES model. They reported witnessing health benefits of fewer cases of disease, increased health seeking behavior and sustainable healthcare programs. The evidence suggests that efforts to standardize objectives, implement structural adjustments, and invest in development of the program would yield even more productive community interactions and a healthcare workforce with public health skills needed to work in rural communities.