Date Available


Year of Publication


Degree Name

Doctor of Nursing Practice

Committee Chair

Dr. Dianna Inman

Clinical Mentor

Dr. Leslie Scott

Committee Member

Dr. Jane Anne Smith


PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the outcome of healthcare provider education on the incidence of dyslipidemia screening in a pediatric primary care clinic.

METHODS: The design of this study was a descriptive pre and post design to evaluate if dyslipidemia screening rates, knowledge, and self-efficacy of healthcare providers changed following an education series at a general pediatric clinic in Lexington, KY. The rates of dyslipidemia screening were calculated prior to providing provider education as well as afterwards to see whether there was an improvement in screening rates. Provider’s knowledge and confidence before the education series was also assessed via a survey. The sample of this study consisted of 11 pediatric healthcare providers at a general pediatric clinic. The secondary sample of this study were the medical records of children between the ages of 9 and 11 years who presented to a general pediatric clinic for an annual well-child exam. The sample consisted of 256 medical records during the pre-education time period, June 2018 to August 2018, and 65 medical records during the post-education time period, September 10, 2018 to October 19, 2018.

RESULTS: The Chi-square test of association was used to compare dyslipidemia screening rates before and after the educational intervention was given in the pediatric primary care clinic. The Chi-square test was also used after the educational burst e-mail was sent to all healthcare providers three weeks after the start of the study. Three months prior to the educational intervention being implemented, 17.2% of providers performed routine dyslipidemia screening on children between the ages of 9-11 years during annual well-child exams. Post-educational intervention, dyslipidemia screening rates increased to 24.6% (P=0.1701). An e-mail serving as an educational burst was sent to all providers at the clinic three weeks after the start of the study, regardless of whether they received education, reminding them of the evidence-based guidelines and the need to screen. Dyslipidemia screening rates increased from 18.75% prior to the e-mail to 26.53% after the e-mail was sent (P=0.7409). Lastly, descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations were used to summarize healthcare provider’s confidence and knowledge in dyslipidemia screening. The results yielded that many healthcare providers do not feel confident in the evidence-based guidelines regarding dyslipidemia screening and management in the pediatric primary care population nor feel comfortable treating.

CONCLUSION: Dyslipidemia screening rates improved from 17.2% to 24.6%, an increase of 43% between the two percentages, at a general pediatric clinic after the educational intervention was implemented. This is a significant improvement and evidence that education on the current AAP guidelines was needed. Of the providers that participated, 81.8% strongly agreed that they felt more confident in when and how to screen, diagnose, and manage dyslipidemia in children between the ages of 9 and 11 years after they received education. Providing quality, evidence-based care is of utmost importance in the clinic. This intervention will likely lead to improved early diagnoses and treatment of dyslipidemia in the pediatric population and reduce morbidity and mortality in adulthood.