scholarly journals A Strategy to Prepare Primary Care Clinicians for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening With Adults Older Than 75 Years

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mara A Schonberg ◽  
Maria Karamourtopoulos ◽  
Alicia R Jacobson ◽  
Gianna M Aliberti ◽  
Adlin Pinheiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Screening Intentions ◽  
Signed Rank Test

Abstract Background and Objectives Adults older than 75 years are overscreened for cancer, especially those with less than 10-year life expectancy. This study aimed to learn the effects of providing primary care providers (PCPs) with scripts for discussing stopping mammography and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and with information on patient’s 10-year life expectancy on their patients’ intentions to be screened for these cancers. Research Design and Methods Patient participants, identified via PCP appointment logs, completed a questionnaire pre- and postvisit. Primary care providers were given scripts for discussing stopping screening and information on patient’s 10-year life expectancy before these visits. Primary care providers completed a questionnaire at the end of the study. Patients and PCPs were asked about discussing stopping cancer screening and patient life expectancy. Patient screening intentions (1–15 Likert scale; lower scores suggest lower intentions) were compared pre- and postvisit using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results Ninety patients older than 75 years (47% of eligible patients reached by phone) from 45 PCPs participated. Patient mean age was 80.0 years (SD = 2.9), 43 (48%) were female, and mean life expectancy was 9.7 years (SD = 2.4). Thirty-seven PCPs (12 community-based) completed a questionnaire. Primary care providers found the scripts helpful (32 [89%]) and thought they would use them frequently (29 [81%]). Primary care providers also found patient life expectancy information helpful (35 [97%]). However, only 8 PCPs (22%) reported feeling comfortable discussing patient life expectancy. Patients’ intentions to undergo CRC screening (9.0 [SD = 5.3] to 6.5 [SD = 6.0], p < .0001) and mammography screening (12.9 [SD = 3.0] to 11.7 [SD = 4.9], p = .08) decreased from pre- to postvisit (significantly for CRC). Sixty-three percent of patients (54/86) were interested in discussing life expectancy with their PCP previsit and 56% (47/84) postvisit. Discussion and Implications PCPs found scripts for discussing stopping cancer screening and information on patient life expectancy helpful. Possibly, as a result, their patients older than 75 years had lower intentions of being screened for CRC. Clinical Trials Registration Number NCT03480282

scholarly journals Linking lab, program, and administrative data to provide comprehensive colorectal cancer screening status of patients to primary care providers in Calgary, Alberta

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Law ◽  
Jeannine Viczko ◽  
Robert Hilsden ◽  
Emily McKenzie ◽  
Mark Watt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Summary Report ◽  
Positive Screen ◽  
Crc Screening

IntroductionColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is associated with significant reductions in burden, mortality and cost. Primary care providers in Alberta do not have access to integrated CRC testing histories for patients. Providing this information will support CRC screening among patients at average and high risk, follow-up of abnormal tests, and surveillance. Objectives and ApproachCalgary Laboratory Services, Colon Cancer Screening Centre, Alberta Cancer Registry, and endoscopy data were linked to create a comprehensive CRC screening history at the patient level. Based on screening histories and the current Clinical Practice Guideline, an algorithm was created to determine CRC screening statuses with the aim of providing accurate screening rates when linked to primary care provider patient panels. Results from the linkage are designed to be incorporated into clinic and EMR workflow processes to support adherence to evidence-based screening recommendations at the point of care. ResultsA comprehensive assessment of screening status was determined by integrating Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) and colonoscopy data. Among a sample cohort, patients were identified as being due for screening with FIT, requiring follow-up for a positive FIT test, or requiring appropriate surveillance for a positive-screen or abnormal colonoscopy findings. A summary report, actionable list, and resources were developed to convey findings. The summary report displayed CRC screening rates for a provider’s panel. The actionable list provided CRC screening statuses for each patient aged 40 to 84 indicating patients due for screening with FIT, for follow-up of positive FIT, or for surveillance colonoscopy. The resources were developed to support quality improvement for colorectal cancer screening for patients. Conclusion/ImplicationsThe data linkages and algorithm provide comprehensive CRC screening, follow-up, and surveillance information that could support guideline-adherent screening, increase screening rates, reduce duplication or unnecessary testing, and provide primary care providers with timely and robust information to support clinical decisions for individuals inside and outside of the target screening population.

scholarly journals Primary care providers’ beliefs and practices on colorectal cancer screening in Kuwait

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
E L Tolma ◽  
S M Aljunid ◽  
M N Amrizal ◽  
J Longenecker ◽  
A Al-Basmy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Health System ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
Crc Screening

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health issue in the Arab region. In Kuwait, CRC is the second most frequent cancer, with an age-standardized (world) incidence rate of 13.2 cases/100,000 in 2018. Despite the national efforts to promote CRC screening the current participation rate is very low (5 to 17%). Primary Care Providers (PCPs) are considered as the gatekeepers of cancer screening globally. This is one of the first studies in Kuwait that examined the current beliefs/practices of PCPs on CRC screening. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at governmental primary care centers in Kuwait from 2015-2017. Of 564 PCPs invited to participate from all centers, 255 completed the self-administered questionnaires. The 14-page survey contained 75 questions on PCPs’ beliefs and practices of CRC screening. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Results The study sample consisted primarily of females (52.0%) and non-Kuwaiti (79%) physicians, with mean age =43.3 (SD: 11.2) years. Most respondents (92%) believed that colonoscopy is the most effective screening tool. The majority (78%) reported that they recommend CRC screening to their patients, with colonoscopy as the most frequent modality (87%) followed by the Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) (52%). Around 40% of the respondents stated that they did not have time to discuss CRC screening with their patients. The majority (72%) believed that their patients did not complete their CRC screening tests. Health system related barriers included difficulties in obtaining test results from the gastroenterologist (61.4%), ordering follow-up test after a positive screening test (50.6%) and shortage of trained staff to conduct the screening test (44.2%). Conclusions A majority of PCPs in Kuwait recommend CRC screening to their patients, but not all patients follow through their recommendation. More research is needed to find out how to further enhance patient uptake of CRC screening. Key messages Colonoscopy is the most frequent screening CRC modality used in Kuwait. Health system related factors can be important future intervention targets to promote CRC screening.

scholarly journals How to decide adequately? Qualitative study of GPs’ view on decision-making in self-referred and physician-referred emergency department consultations in Berlin, Germany

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e026786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Oslislo ◽  
Christoph Heintze ◽  
Martina Schmiedhofer ◽  
Martin Möckel ◽  
Liane Schenk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Wide Spectrum ◽  
Influencing Factor ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Registration Number

ObjectivesPatients with acute symptoms present not only to general practitioners (GPs), but also frequently to emergency departments (EDs). Patients’ decision processes leading up to an ED self-referral are complex and supposed to result from a multitude of determinants. While they are key providers in primary care, little is known about GPs’ perception of such patients. This qualitative study explores the GPs’ view regarding motives and competences of patients self-referring to EDs, and also GPs’ rationale for or against physician-initiated ED referrals.DesignQualitative study with semi-structured, face-to-face interviews; qualitative content analysis.SettingGP practices in Berlin, Germany.Participants15 GPs (female/male: 9/6; mean age 53.6 years).ResultsThe interviewed GPs related a wide spectrum of factors potentially influencing their patients’ decision to visit an ED, and also their own decision-making in potential referrals. Considerations go beyond medical urgency. Statements concerning patients’ surmised rationale corresponded to GPs’ reasoning in a variety of important areas. For one thing, the timely availability of an extended spectrum of diagnostic and therapeutic options may make ED services attractive to both. Access difficulties in the ambulatory setting were mentioned as additional triggers for an ED visit initiated by a patient or a GP. Key patient factors like severity of symptoms and anxiety also play a major role; a desire for reassurance may lead to both self-referred and physician-initiated ED visits. Patients’ health competence was prevailingly depicted as limited, with the internet as an important influencing factor. Counselling efforts by GP were described as crucial for improving health literacy.ConclusionsHealth education could hold promise when aiming to reduce non-urgent ED consultations. Primary care providers are in a key position here. Amelioration of organisational shortages in ambulatory care, for example, limited consultation hours, might also make an important impact, as these trigger both self-referrals and GP-initiated ED referrals.Trial registration numberDRKS00011930.

scholarly journals Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 2553-2559
Author(s):  
Emily Nachtigal ◽  
Noelle K. LoConte ◽  
Sarah Kerch ◽  
Xiao Zhang ◽  
Amanda Parkes
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers

scholarly journals Understanding primary care providers’ perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Saman ◽  
Kayla M. Walton ◽  
Melissa L. Harry ◽  
Stephen E. Asche ◽  
Anjali R. Truitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Prevention And Screening

Abstract Background Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy. Methods We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR’s ability to help assess and manage patients’ cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients. Results In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues. Conclusions The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.

Driving action through data: Delivering online cancer screening reports to primary care providers.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 174-174
Author(s):  
Nicki Cunningham ◽  
Shama Umar ◽  
Dafna Carr ◽  
Richard Smith ◽  
Patrick Flynn
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Management System ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Access Management ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Screening Activity

174 Background: The Screening Activity Report (SAR), a supplementary tool for primary care providers (PCPs), was released in April, 2014. Providers are able to access this comprehensive report securely via an online solution and view the screening activity of their patients across Cancer Care Ontario (CCO)’s three organized cancer screening programs; breast, cervical and colorectal. The objectives of the SAR are to improve the quality of cancer screening by increasing provincial screening rates, improving the rate of appropriate follow-up of abnormal results and promote the alignment of cancer screening practices with CCO’s evidence-based clinical guidelines. Methods: CCO partnered with eHealth Ontario in 2012 to leverage their identity and access management system to provide safe and secure online access to the report. Since this time, CCO has implemented a multi-faceted campaign to support registrations to the system, encourage report access, and gather feedback on how to improve the report for future iterations. Using a detailed methodology developed by a wide range of subject matter experts at CCO, the SAR employs numerous provincial data sources to provide an overview of the patient rosters. Actionable categories are assigned at the patient level using a unique algorithm based on the latest clinical guidelines. Results: Previous to April 2014, the SAR was referred to as the ColonCancerCheck SAR (CCC SAR) as it included colorectal cancer screening data only. The last release of the CCC SAR was in October, 2013. At this time 4,824 providers were registered to the identity and access management system and adoption of this report had reached 31% after being available for five months to providers. To date, 4,992 providers are now registered and adoption of the April SAR has already reached 27% after being available for almost two months. Conclusions: The SAR is the first tool of its kind to make widespread use of eHealth’s identity and access management system service and target a broad user base of PCPs. The successful launch of the SAR has provided key insights into how technology can be leveraged to share provincial data in a meaningful way with providers and support them in improving the quality of cancer screening.

scholarly journals Primary Care Provider Perceptions of Colorectal Cancer Screening Barriers: Implications for Designing Quality Improvement Interventions

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Weiss ◽  
Perry J. Pickhardt ◽  
Jessica R. Schumacher ◽  
Aaron Potvien ◽  
David H. Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Provider Perceptions ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Improvement Interventions ◽  
Quality Improvement Interventions ◽  
Screening Barriers

Aims. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Increasing CRC screening rates requires interventions targeting multiple barriers at each level of the healthcare organization (patient, provider, and system). We examined groups of primary care providers (PCPs) based on perceptions of screening barriers and the relationship to CRC screening rates to inform approaches for conducting barrier assessments prior to designing and implementing quality improvement interventions.Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking EHR and survey data. PCPs with complete survey responses for questions addressing CRC screening barriers were included (N=166PCPs; 39,430 patients eligible for CRC screening). Cluster analysis identified groups of PCPs. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for predictors of membership in one of the PCP groups.Results. We found two distinct groups: (1) PCPs identifying multiple barriers to CRC screening at patient, provider, and system levels (N=75) and (2) PCPs identifying no major barriers to screening (N=91). PCPs in the top half of CRC screening performance were more likely to identify multiple barriers than the bottom performers (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.43–7.08).Conclusions. High-performing PCPs can more effectively identify CRC screening barriers. Targeting high-performers when conducting a barrier assessment is a novel approach to assist in designing quality improvement interventions for CRC screening.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document