Need help? We are here

Re: Topic 5 DQ 2  Technology is integral to successful implementation in many projects,   through either support or integration or both. Name at least one   technology that could improve the implementation process and the   outcomes of your EBP project. Do you plan to use this technology? If   not, what are the barriers that prevent its use?

ANSWER BY ANNE
Technology Support/Integration That Can Improve EBP Project

In the Nelson presentation (2015), one of the research questions put forth was, “Can a centralized, telephone-based model of early childhood developmental screening and care coordination improve quality of care for young children and their families” (Nelson, 2015). There are 211 Call centers that cover over 90% of the US population. In a LA based 211 developmental screening, over 11,000 early childhood screenings and coordinated care have been coordinated with appropriate services. The 211 potential advantages include time availability, standardized and validated online screening tools, extensive resource directory that includes care coordination, data collection and dissemination, continuity of care, and coordination with clinical settings. Of the children screened over 90% received some kind of referral. As the presenter reported, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends universal screening and surveillance at every well visit, screening at 9, 18, and 24-30 months, autism-specific screening tool at 18 and 24-30 months, and prompt referral to evaluation and intervention services. The impact of early screening and intervention has evidence pointing to the improvement in developmental, social, educational, and health outcomes. Society benefits with a pronounced ROI in every dollar invested (Nelson, 2015).

Plans for Use and Barriers to Implement

The idea of starting a similar resource would be fantastic. It is an idea that could potentially be integrated into the school district and county for which I work. The same barriers I see from making it happen are the same barriers that the article mentioned, and that is the 211 has limited documentation. The same concerns that plague us now are the same for 211 regarding lag time between referral and service implantation. Eligibility and participation in services are always the big hinderances to making this work, and of course the age-old question of who will pay for this service (Nelson, 2015).

Nelson, B. (2015). Clinical-community partnerships and 2-1-1 technology to improve early childhood

developmental screening and care. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.publichealthsystems.org/sites/default/files/PHS4/PresBioProjInfo_Nov%2019_Nelson%20UC

LA.pdf