Browsing by Subject "student-run free clinic"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    IUSOC Sexual Assault Protocol
    (Indiana University Student Outreach Clinic, 2021-07) Steele, Emily K.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    We Do it For Our Neighbors: Ethics in Action at a Student-Run Free Clinic
    (2022-03-31) Kabir, Jason
    The Covid-19 pandemic presents a disruption in the services offered by healthcare facilities across the nation, including student-run free clinics (SRFCs).  SRFCs may face extended disruptions during the pandemic due to the sponsoring schools’ policies to protect students and patients.  However, restricting students from participation in SRFCs comes at the cost of acute and chronic disease management of patients, many of whom are marginalized populations whose only source of healthcare is free clinics.  In this paper, we will argue how the management of a SRFC and the trust it has built in its community can demonstrate the emphasis on patient care over volunteer or learning experiences for students. There is literature proposing a virtues-based ethical framework with patients’ needs as the first consideration in management of SRFCs(1).  We will demonstrate what these principles in the ethics literature look like in practice at a SRFC.  We will explain mechanisms by which leaders of a student-run free clinic can take ownership of the care of their patient population, such as by following up appropriately on screening and diagnostic tests offered and having appropriate avenues for referral if results are abnormal.  We will present ethical considerations that arise with this ownership and balancing a student-led learning environment with equitable patient care, as well as opportunities for improvement.  Implementation of these practices can be used to argue the importance of SRFCs for communities in the face of disruptions related to the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond.  1. Coverdale JH, McCullough LB. Responsibly managing students’ learning experiences in student-run clinics: A virtues-based ethical framework. Teaching and Learning in Medicine [Internet]. 2014 Jul 10 [cited 2021Nov 24];26(3):312-15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2014.910460
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Why Did You Draw My Blood?: A Model for Lab Follow-Up Allowing Dynamic Treatment Plans at a Student-Run Free Clinic
    (2022-03-26) Kabir, Jason
    Introduction/Problem: Prompt review and communication of lab results to patients is critical for forming appropriate treatment plans, but it can be a difficult task for student-run free clinics (SRFCs) due to a number of limiting factors, including week-to-week turnover of clinic volunteers and staff. The previous model employed by our SRFC placed the responsibility on one clinic manager the morning of the following clinic day, one week later. This placed a necessary but disproportionate stress on this clinic manager who was less familiar with the previous week’s patient encounters and could not make dynamic changes in patients’ treatment plans due to time constraints. We will present the details of a new model employed by our SRFC for lab follow-up. Methods/Interventions: The responsibilities of entering lab results into the electronic medical record (EMR) and calling patients with their results is divided among five clinic managers to be completed each week following Saturday clinic. Completion of lab follow-up is documented in a shared HIPAA-secure Google Sheet. This hand-off sheet was reviewed with cross-reference to the EMR to evaluate the new model. Results: From March to November 2021, a total of 324 phone conversations and an additional 170 attempts to communicate lab results with patients were documented. Twenty-four of those conversations resulted in a follow-up appointment being made sooner than planned during the previous encounter; 41 conversations included counseling on lifestyle modifications; and 53 conversations included additional counseling on the results, return/emergency department precautions, or connection to a higher level of care. Seventy-three percent of the conversations communicating abnormal results had actions like these beyond communication of the results documented. Conclusion: Dividing lab follow-up responsibilities among clinic leadership following each clinic day allows patients to be more in control of their health and avoids delays in care. This model also relieves pressure and saves time for volunteers the next clinic day by allowing them to focus on the encounters occurring that day. Developing a systematic approach for communication of lab results was an advancement for our SRFC, and this model can be applied at SRFCs across the nation.