An observational study of workflows to support fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening in primary care practices serving Medicaid enrollees.
colorectal cancer
early detection of cancer
population health
primary health care
underserved populations
workflow
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jan 2022
25 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
05
01
2021
accepted:
12
12
2021
entrez:
26
1
2022
pubmed:
27
1
2022
medline:
4
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Screening supports early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Provision of fecal immunochemical tests/fecal occult blood tests (FIT/FOBT) in primary care can increase CRC screening, particularly in populations experiencing health disparities. This study was conducted to describe clinical workflows for FIT/FOBT in Oregon primary care practices and to identify specific workflow processes that might be associated (alone or in combination) with higher (versus lower) CRC screening rates. Primary care practices were rank ordered by CRC screening rates in Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned age 50 years from January 2013 to June 2014 (i.e., newly age-eligible). Practices were recruited via purposive sampling based on organizational characteristics and CRC screening rates. Data collected were from surveys, observation visits, and informal interviews, and used to create practice-level CRC screening workflow reports. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, qualitative data analysis using an immersion-crystallization process, and a matrix analysis approach. All participating primary care practices (N=9) used visit-based workflows, and four higher performing and two lower performing used population outreach workflows to deliver FIT/FOBTs. However, higher performing practices (n=5) had more established workflows and staff to support activities. Visit-based strategies in higher performing practices included having dedicated staff identify patients due for CRC screening and training medical assistants to review FIT/FOBT instructions with patients. Population outreach strategies included having clinic staff generate lists and check them for accuracy prior to direct mailing of kits to patients. For both workflow types, higher performing clinics routinely utilized systems for patient reminders and follow-up after FIT/FOBT distribution. Primary care practices with higher CRC screening rates among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees had more established visit-based and population outreach workflows to support identifying patients due for screening, FIT/FOBT distribution, reminders, and follow up. Key to practices with higher CRC screening was having medical assistants discuss and review FIT/FOBT screening and instructions with patients. Findings present important workflow processes for primary care practices and may facilitate the implementation of evidence-based interventions into real-world, clinical settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Screening supports early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Provision of fecal immunochemical tests/fecal occult blood tests (FIT/FOBT) in primary care can increase CRC screening, particularly in populations experiencing health disparities. This study was conducted to describe clinical workflows for FIT/FOBT in Oregon primary care practices and to identify specific workflow processes that might be associated (alone or in combination) with higher (versus lower) CRC screening rates.
METHODS
METHODS
Primary care practices were rank ordered by CRC screening rates in Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned age 50 years from January 2013 to June 2014 (i.e., newly age-eligible). Practices were recruited via purposive sampling based on organizational characteristics and CRC screening rates. Data collected were from surveys, observation visits, and informal interviews, and used to create practice-level CRC screening workflow reports. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, qualitative data analysis using an immersion-crystallization process, and a matrix analysis approach.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All participating primary care practices (N=9) used visit-based workflows, and four higher performing and two lower performing used population outreach workflows to deliver FIT/FOBTs. However, higher performing practices (n=5) had more established workflows and staff to support activities. Visit-based strategies in higher performing practices included having dedicated staff identify patients due for CRC screening and training medical assistants to review FIT/FOBT instructions with patients. Population outreach strategies included having clinic staff generate lists and check them for accuracy prior to direct mailing of kits to patients. For both workflow types, higher performing clinics routinely utilized systems for patient reminders and follow-up after FIT/FOBT distribution.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Primary care practices with higher CRC screening rates among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees had more established visit-based and population outreach workflows to support identifying patients due for screening, FIT/FOBT distribution, reminders, and follow up. Key to practices with higher CRC screening was having medical assistants discuss and review FIT/FOBT screening and instructions with patients. Findings present important workflow processes for primary care practices and may facilitate the implementation of evidence-based interventions into real-world, clinical settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35078444
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-09106-7
pii: 10.1186/s12885-021-09106-7
pmc: PMC8787027
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
106Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : K12 HS022981
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA218923
Pays : United States
Organisme : Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
ID : K12 HS022981 01
Pays : United States
Organisme : Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
ID : R01CA218923
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Dec 1;178(12):1645-1658
pubmed: 30326005
Prev Med. 2017 Aug;101:44-52
pubmed: 28506715
Ann Fam Med. 2020 Sep;18(5):397-405
pubmed: 32928755
Prev Med. 2019 Sep;126:105774
pubmed: 31319118
Prev Med. 2019 Jan;118:113-121
pubmed: 30367972
Implement Sci. 2009 May 08;4:25
pubmed: 19426507
Cancer. 2016 Aug 15;122(16):2479-86
pubmed: 27200481
Ann Fam Med. 2014 Mar-Apr;12(2):142-9
pubmed: 24615310
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2018 Jun;5(3):530-535
pubmed: 28634873
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Feb;15(2):389-94
pubmed: 16492934
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2576-94
pubmed: 27305422
J Gen Pract (Los Angel). 2014 Jan 5;2:
pubmed: 25411657
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):575-82
pubmed: 22493463
Cancer Med. 2012 Dec;1(3):350-6
pubmed: 23342284
Am J Prev Med. 2021 Jan;60(1):72-79
pubmed: 33223363
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013 Nov 8;62(44):881-8
pubmed: 24196665
BMC Cancer. 2018 Jan 06;18(1):40
pubmed: 29304835
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jun 19;17(1):411
pubmed: 28629348
Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Mar;66(3):768-774
pubmed: 32236885
Am J Prev Med. 2020 Feb;58(2):224-231
pubmed: 31786031
Am J Public Health. 2020 Apr;110(4):587-594
pubmed: 32078353