Best Practices in Youth Philanthropy

This document -- which we hope you will use, not merely consign to your estimable list of good intentions -- was inspired by the 1999 White House Conference on Philanthropy. Youth and adults extolled the virtues of involving youth in philanthropy to an enthusiastic audience that included the President and First Lady. The White House and several national foundations sponsored a series of follow-up meetings, culminating in a request to the Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth, a national organization of 200 community foundations, to organize next steps. We believe thisdocument is a step in the right direction, but what you do with it will determine if it in fact has traction. In advocating for youth philanthropy, the Coalition is motivated by two values: * Philanthropy as a means of mobilizing society's assets for the betterment of all is enhanced by providing authentic opportunities for youth voice and influence; and * Young people are a current -- not a deferred -- source of insight and knowledge about issues affecting community well being. Youth philanthropy contributes to community now as well as in the future. What makes youth philanthropy effective? This document probes the lessons learned from a decade of experience to extract what qualities youth philanthropy programs have in common. It does not advance any single model or prescribe a set of activities. Rather, the aim is to provide a framework for understanding the principles that underlie sound practice and sound program design decisions. By looking at what's best and what's promising, we hope to stir new, renewed and deeper commitment to the investments needed to support quality youth philanthropy opportunities

'My expectations remain the same. The student has to be competent to practise' : practice assessor perspectives on the new social work degree qualification in England

Research has emphasized the importance of practice learning to social work qualifying education but has tended to feature social work educator and student perspectives more strongly than the views of those responsible for assessing students' practice in the field. This article draws on 195 responses to a postal questionnaire sent at two points in time to practice assessors working with students from nine social work qualifying programmes run in six higher education institutions collected as part of the evaluation of the new social work degree qualification in England. While practice assessors described changes in their role and in the opportunities available to students, they also emphasized continuities, particularly in the skills that they expected students to possess. The key difficulty they identified was the heavy workload resulting from combining their role as practice assessors with their other responsibilities at work. Increases in the number of social work students and changes to the organization of services are likely to create further pressures on practice assessors. Given that these issues are faced by a number of different professions, the article concludes that there is potential for future studies to look at the experiences of practice educators across different professional qualifying programmes

Joint Annual Wellness Visit Scheduling

Problem/Impact Statement: The pharmacists in Scarborough & Westbrook Primary Care conduct Medicare Annual Wellness Visits (AWVs) with a physician. The pharmacist and physician see the patient individually. The practices achieved and sustained FY18 Joint AWV volume goals through a new process to reschedule physician-only AWVs to Joints AWVs with a pharmacist. This leads to reschedule rework and reduced time practice staff have for patient care

Ensuring quality: a key consideration in scaling-up HIV-related point-of-care testing programs.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the WHO/US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief consultation was to discuss innovative strategies, offer guidance, and develop a comprehensive policy framework for implementing quality-assured HIV-related point-of-care testing (POCT). METHODS: The consultation was attended by representatives from international agencies (WHO, UNICEF, UNITAID, Clinton Health Access Initiative), United States Agency for International Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Cooperative Agreement Partners, and experts from more than 25 countries, including policy makers, clinicians, laboratory experts, and program implementers. MAIN OUTCOMES: There was strong consensus among all participants that ensuring access to quality of POCT represents one of the key challenges for the success of HIV prevention, treatment, and care programs. The following four strategies were recommended: implement a newly proposed concept of a sustainable quality assurance cycle that includes careful planning; definition of goals and targets; timely implementation; continuous monitoring; improvements and adjustments, where necessary; and a detailed evaluation; the importance of supporting a cadre of workers [e.g. volunteer quality corps (Q-Corps)] with the role to ensure that the quality assurance cycle is followed and sustained; implementation of the new strategy should be seen as a step-wise process, supported by development of appropriate policies and tools; and joint partnership under the leadership of the ministries of health to ensure sustainability of implementing novel approaches. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this consultation have been well received by program implementers in the field. The recommendations also laid the groundwork for developing key policy and quality documents for the implementation of HIV-related POCT

Classification of patient-safety incidents in primary care

Primary care lags behind secondary care in the reporting of, and learning from, incidents that put patient safety at risk. In primary care, there is no universally agreed approach to classifying the severity of harm arising from such patient-safety incidents. This lack of an agreed approach limits learning that could lead to the prevention of injury to patients. In a review of research on patient safety in primary care, we identified 21 existing approaches to the classification of harm severity. Using the World Health Organization's (WHO's) International Classification for Patient Safety as a reference, we undertook a framework analysis of these approaches. We then developed a new system for the classification of harm severity. To assess and classify harm, most existing approaches use measures of symptom duration (11/21), symptom severity (11/21) and/or the level of intervention required to manage the harm (14/21). However, few of these approaches account for the deleterious effects of hospitalization or the psychological stress that may be experienced by patients and/or their relatives. The new classification system we developed builds on WHO's International Classification for Patient Safety and takes account not only of hospitalization and psychological stress but also of so-called near misses and uncertain outcomes. The constructs we have outlined have the potential to be applied internationally, across primary-care settings, to improve both the detection and prevention of incidents that cause the most severe harm to patients

Understanding the epidemiology of avoidable significant harm in primary care:Protocol for a retrospective cross-sectional study

Introduction: Most patient safety research has focused on specialist-care settings where there is an appreciation of the frequency and causes of medical errors, and the resulting burden of adverse events. There have, however, been few large-scale robust studies that have investigated the extent and severity of avoidable harm in primary care. To address this, we will conduct a 12-month retrospective cross-sectional study involving case note review of primary care patients. Methods and Analysis: We will conduct electronic searches of general practice (GP) clinical computer systems to identify patients with avoidable significant harm. Up to sixteen general practices from three areas of England (East Midlands, London and the North West) will be recruited based on practice size, to obtain a sample of around 100,000 patients. Our investigations will include an ‘enhanced sample’ of patients with the highest risk of avoidable significant harm. We will estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm and express this as ‘per 100,000 patients per year’. Univariate and multivariate analysis will be conducted to identify the factors associated with avoidable significant harm. Ethics/Dissemination: The decision regarding participation by general practices in the study is entirely voluntary; the consent to participate may be withdrawn at any time. We will not seek individual patient consent for the retrospective case note review, but if patients respond to publicity about the project and say they do not wish their records to be included we will follow these instructions. We will produce a report for the Department of Health’s Policy Research Programme and several high-quality peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals. The study has been granted a favourable opinion by the East Midlands Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference 15/EM/0411) and Confidentiality Advisory Group approval for access to medical records without consent under section 251 of the NHS Act 2006 (reference 15/CAG/0182)

Incidence, nature and causes of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England:retrospective case note review

Objective To estimate the incidence of avoidable significant harm in primary care in England; describe and classify the associated patient safety incidents and generate suggestions to mitigate risks of ameliorable factors contributing to the incidents. Design Retrospective case note review. Patients with significant health problems were identified and clinical judgements were made on avoidability and severity of harm. Factors contributing to avoidable harm were identified and recorded. Setting Primary care. Participants Thirteen general practitioners (GPs) undertook a retrospective case note review of a sample of 14 407 primary care patients registered with 12 randomly selected general practices from three regions in England (total list size: 92 255 patients). Main outcome measures The incidence of significant harm considered at least ‘probably avoidable’ and the nature of the safety incidents. Results The rate of significant harm considered at least probably avoidable was 35.6 (95% CI 23.3 to 48.0) per 100 000 patient-years (57.9, 95% CI 42.2 to 73.7, per 100 000 based on a sensitivity analysis). Overall, 74 cases of avoidable harm were detected, involving 72 patients. Three types of incident accounted for more than 90% of the problems: problems with diagnosis accounted for 45/74 (60.8%) primary incidents, followed by medication-related problems (n=19, 25.7%) and delayed referrals (n=8, 10.8%). In 59 (79.7%) cases, the significant harm could have been identified sooner (n=48) or prevented (n=11) if the GP had taken actions aligned with evidence-based guidelines. Conclusion There is likely to be a substantial burden of avoidable significant harm attributable to primary care in England with diagnostic error accounting for most harms. Based on the contributory factors we found, improvements could be made through more effective implementation of existing information technology, enhanced team coordination and communication, and greater personal and informational continuity of care