Content area
Full text
CONCURRENT SESSIONS
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Concurrent Session A:
Innovations in Rehabilitation & Select Topics in Allied Health
A.1: Enhancing Outcomes by Bridging the Gaps in Engagement Through RehabTracker
Tammy Graham, Matt Sivret (Kindred Healthcare)
Hypothesis/Issue: RehabTracker positively impacts Kindred Healthcare's engagement with new avenues of advanced technology for the patient, their families and our treating clinicians. RehabTracker shares just the right information to suit the specific needs of each participant in the rehab journey addressing the issues of: Aging Populations & Technology, Complex Rehabilitation Networks and Data Overload.
Method: Through live observation, routine data analysis and continuous collaboration with patients, families and clinicians, RehabTracker is designed and built to suit the changing needs and desire of the users, creating a more robust and engaging experience.
Outcomes: RehabTracker provides positive clinical and operational impact. In a recent study, facilities with higher adoption of the tool show higher quality scores, FIM gains, length of stay efficiency, and discharge to community.
Conclusion: Communication barriers from technological age gaps, rehab network complexity and data overload can cause us to derail from the primary focus of quality engagement. RehabTracker helps us to embrace these changes as a means to nurture engagement and enhance outcomes. The world will continue to evolve. The way we care for our patients should too.
A.2: Understanding the Scope: Official and Unofficial Faculty Work in a Mature Interprofessional Education Program
Kathryn Bell, Saje Davis-Risen (Pacific Univ.)
Hypothesis/Issue: This study was to assess the scope of faculty participation in interprofessional education (IPE) at Pacific University including: training in facilitation; types of activities; and perceived enablers and barriers to IP work. We hypothesized that faculty members participated in IPE work outside the formal IPE program.
Method: An initial questionnaire was sent to the entire faculty assessing history of participation in IPE and willingness to participate in a longer subsequent survey. Forty-six faculty members were sent a detailed follow up questionnaire.
Observations/outcomes: Faculty (n=16, response rate of 35%) reported wide variation in IPE training. Work outside the formal IPE program included laboratory and service-learning activities. Faculty reported recognition for IPE work as scholarship (13%), service (13%), teaching (6%), and "none" (13%). Enablers of IPE programming included administrative support (81%), available schedule/calendar (81%), and positive faculty attitudes (81%). Barriers...