He had no abdominal pain. organizations. The learner and faculty group displayed the disciplines of medicine (college students and occupants), psychology, pharmacy, and physicians assistants. One of the individual DPI-3290 organizations was carried out in Spanish. This project was a formative study activity of IMPACcT (Improving Patient Access, Care, and cost through Teaching), a HRSA-funded system to expand the primary care workforce through IP education, teaching, and mentorship. Three raters analyzed group transcripts until common styles across the three organizations emerged. RESULTS: Themes present in all stakeholder organizations were labeled 1) team engagement, 2) the part of technology in care delivery, 3) insurance/cost of care, 4) involving individuals in the learning process, 5) time constraints, 6) scope of practice, and 7) autonomy, interdependence, and decision-making. Both similarities and unique perspectives emerged across stakeholders when discussing these issues and most attitudes were positive. Learners, faculty, and individuals each emphasized the importance of defining functions within a team and communicating functions to individuals. Learners were excited about IP work and anticipated high quality relationships with other professions. Patients mentioned that participating in a teaching medical center was more than about me and explained benefits receiving care from supervised trainees. Faculty perspectives, however, were more ambivalent. They mentioned that IP is not a new point and questioned their ability to integrate PCMH mandates with an authentic mission to provide patient-centered care: theres a difference betweenchecking off all the boxes for PCMH andreally incorporating the soul of itlike possessing a PCMH mind versus a PCMH heart. CONCLUSIONS: This DPI-3290 is the 1st reported data comparing perceptions about IP education and care across these three stakeholder organizations. Commonalities observed across the perspectives of individuals, faculty, and learners suggests the need to attend to stakeholder priorities (e.g. concerning scope of practice and part definition) and bridging gaps between teaching PCMH principles and actually providing patient-centered, high quality care. Focus group material has been integrated into project protocols for interprofessional huddling, communicating with individuals, and in the content of our didactic DPI-3290 curriculum. CONVERSATIONAL Suggestions: A MIXED-METHODS ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL Occupants EXPERIENCES CO-MANAGING Main CARE Individuals WITH BEHAVIORAL HEALTH Companies Patrick Hemming 1; Rachel Levine3; Joseph J. Gallo2. 1Duke University or college School of Medicine, Durham, NC; 2Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; 3Johns Hopkins University or college, Baltimore, MD. (Control ID #2704644) BACKGROUND: Integrated Behavioral Health Clinicians (IBHCs) are progressively common in residency main care clinics. When IBHCs and occupants co-manage individuals, occupants may learn fresh approaches to counseling and medical management. This survey wanted to better understand the effect that patient co-management with IBHCs has on residents learning about behavioral health management. METHODS: Residents were surveyed from 2 Internal Medicine (IM) and 3 Family Medicine (FM) residency teaching programs with behavioral health integration in occupants continuity clinics. To assess the degree of face-to-face connection during their most recent co-managed case, occupants were asked whether or not the co-management included (1) a shared check out with the IBHC and/or (2) achieving face-to-face to discuss the individuals care. Respondents were asked about additional features of the check out, including: (1) whether or not they received opinions from your IBHC on their management, and (2) to rate the DPI-3290 episodes impact on the individuals care. Associations between the degree of face-to-face connection and these two outcomes were assessed using multiple logistic regression and linear regression. Occupants were asked open-ended questions regarding what they had learned from co-managing with an IBHC. Qualitative reactions Mouse monoclonal to LPL were coded thematically by two experts using grounded theory. Associations were examined between face-to-face relationships and the rate of recurrence of each major learning theme category. RESULTS: 113 occupants of 117 respondents experienced experience co-managing a patient and explained their most recent experience co-managing a patient with an IBHC (overall response rate 72%, 117/163). Occupants were significantly more likely to receive opinions on their patient management if they experienced a DPI-3290 shared check out (Modified OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2C7.6). Occupants gave high ratings (mean rating 8.0/10) to the patient effect of their co-management with no association to whether or not they had a shared check out. Fourteen learning sub-themes had been reported from the next major designs: BH abilities awareness, interpersonal conversation skills recognition, and newly-adopted behaviour toward BH. Citizens who reported getting responses were much more likely than those that didn’t receive responses to report designs of interpersonal conversation skills awareness.
