Biomedical subjects

Maryellen E Gusic

Publications and source records attributed to Maryellen E Gusic.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Empowering junior faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring program.

Empowerment of faculty is essential for academic success. The Junior Faculty Development Program (JFDP), sponsored by the Office of Professional Development of the Penn State College of Medicine, was established in 2003 with the goal of promoting the development and advancement of junior faculty so they can achieve success in their academic careers. The program consists of two components: a curriculum in research, education, clinical practice, and career development, and an individual project completed under the guidance of a senior faculty mentor. The curriculum provides faculty with knowledge, skills, and resources. Mentoring provides relationships and support. Together, these elements combine to empower junior faculty to better manage their careers. The effectiveness of the program has been demonstrated by several measures: participants evaluated the program highly, demonstrated increases in their perceptions of their own abilities, and completed tasks important to the advancement of their careers. Participants stated they were better prepared to advance their academic careers and that the individual projects would contribute to their career advancement. On the basis of this experience, the authors suggest that faculty development programs should empower faculty so that they can more effectively chart a successful career in academic medicine. This report describes an empowerment model, and the design, implementation, and evaluation of the Junior Faculty Development Program in 2003-04 and 2004-05. The authors offer this program as a model for the benefit of other institutions and for one of their most valuable assets: junior faculty.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

PubMed2006

Rural and urban children with asthma: are school health services meeting their needs?

OBJECTIVE: Children with asthma spend a large portion of their day in school, and the extent to which public schools are prepared to meet their health needs is an important issue. The objective of this study was to identify asthma policies and practices in rural and urban school settings and to compare them with current National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendations. METHODS: A stratified random sample of school nurses who represented each of the 500 active Pennsylvania school districts were surveyed in 2004 concerning nurse staffing patterns, availability of asthma monitoring and treatment-related equipment, emergency preparedness, availability of asthma-related support and case management services, school-specific procedures including identification of children with asthma and accessibility of inhaler medication during school hours, presence and content of written asthma management plans, and perceived obstacles to asthma management in the school setting. Sampling weights were incorporated into the analyses to take the survey design into account. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 76%, with a total of 757 surveys analyzed. In more than half of secondary schools and three quarters of elementary schools, nurses were present < 40 hours per week. Nearly 1 in 5 schools reported that staff who know what to do for a severe asthma attack were not always available. In 72% of rural schools, children were allowed to self-carry rescue inhalers, as compared with 47% of urban schools. Asthma management plans were on file for only 1 quarter of children with asthma, and important information often was omitted. Approximately half of the schools were equipped with peak flow meters and nebulizers, and spacers were available in 1 third of schools. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements are needed to bring schools into compliance with current recommendations, including more consistent availability of knowledgeable staff, improved access to asthma monitoring and treatment-related equipment, more universal use of asthma management plans, and greater access to inhalers while at school, including increasing the proportion of children who are allowed to carry and self-administer inhaler medication.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Improving influenza vaccination rates for children through year-round scheduling.

OBJECTIVE: Barriers to influenza vaccination negatively impact immunization rates contributing to the morbidity and mortality from influenza. This study sought to determine if 1) the availability of year-round scheduling of annual autumn/winter influenza vaccination was associated with improved immunization rates for 2 high-risk populations of children and 2) this system was associated with early season vaccine administration. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was utilized to compare immunization rates during the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons. Billing records were used to determine eligible patients and vaccine receipt. A single, pediatric practice was studied, and two groups of patients were analyzed: 1) infants aged 6-23 months and 2) children < 21 years old with asthma. As opposed to Year 1, in Year 2 appointments in "flu clinics" for the following autumn became available 7 months prior to when vaccine became available. Patients and providers could therefore schedule an immunization appointment throughout the year. RESULTS: In Year 1, 552/1365 (40.4%) infants received at least 1 dose of influenza vaccine compared to 940/1265 (74.3%) in Year 2 (p < 0.001). For patients with asthma, 309/1332 (23.2%) received at least 1 dose of vaccine in Year 1 compared with 522/1489 (35.1%) in Year 2 (p <0.001). Both groups also achieved higher immunization rates between September and November in Year 2 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Year-round scheduling of influenza vaccination was associated with improved immunization rates in two high-risk populations, and may remove the barrier of scheduling difficulty, allow for a consistent year-round message from providers, and improve timing of vaccine administration.

Adolescent↗