Extent of Follow-Up on Abnormal Cancer Screening in Multiple California Public Hospital Systems: A Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: Inequitable follow-up of abnormal cancer screening tests may contribute to racial/ethnic disparities in colon and breast cancer outcomes. However, few multi-site studies have examined follow-up of abnormal cancer screening tests and it is unknown if racial/ethnic disparities exist. OBJECTIVE: This report describes patterns of performance on follow-up of abnormal colon and breast cancer screening tests and explores the extent to which racial/ethnic disparities exist in public hospital systems. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from five California public hospital systems. We used multivariable robust Poisson regression analyses to examine whether patient-level factors or site predicted receipt of follow-up test. MAIN MEASURES: Using data from five public hospital systems between July 2015 and June 2017, we assessed follow-up of two screening results: (1) colonoscopy after positive fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and (2) tissue biopsy within 21 days after a BIRADS 4/5 mammogram. KEY RESULTS: Of 4132 abnormal FITs, 1736 (42%) received a follow-up colonoscopy. Older age, Medicaid insurance, lack of insurance, English language, and site were negatively associated with follow-up colonoscopy, while Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were positively associated with follow-up colonoscopy. Of 1702 BIRADS 4/5 mammograms, 1082 (64%) received a timely biopsy; only site was associated with timely follow-up biopsy. CONCLUSION: Despite the vulnerabilities of public-hospital-system patients, follow-up of abnormal cancer screening tests occurs at rates similar to that of patients in other healthcare settings, with colon cancer screening test follow-up occurring at lower rates than follow-up of breast cancer screening tests. Site-level factors have larger, more consistent impact on follow-up rates than patient sociodemographic traits. Resources are needed to identify health system-level factors, such as test follow-up processes or data infrastructure, that improve abnormal cancer screening test follow-up so that effective health system-level interventions can be evaluated and disseminated.

Warfarin Monitoring in Safety-Net Health Systems: Analysis by Race/Ethnicity and Language Preference.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities in anticoagulation management are well established. Differences in warfarin monitoring can contribute to these disparities and should be measured. OBJECTIVE: We assessed for differences in international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring by race/ethnicity and language preference across safety-net care systems serving predominantly low-income, ethnically diverse populations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of process and safety data shared from the Safety Promotion Action Research and Knowledge Network (SPARK-Net) initiative, a consortium of five California safety-net hospital systems. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, received warfarin for at least 56 days during the measurement period from July 2015 to June 2017, and had INR testing in an ambulatory care setting at a participating healthcare system. MAIN MEASURES: We conducted a scaled Poisson regression for adjusted rate ratio of having at least one INR checked per 56-day time period for which a patient had a warfarin prescription. Adjusting for age, sex, healthcare system, and insurance status/type, we assessed for racial/ethnic and language disparities in INR monitoring. KEY RESULTS: Of 8129 patients, 3615 (44%) were female; 1470 (18%), Black/African American; 3354 (41%), Hispanic/Latinx; 1210 (15%), Asian; 1643 (20%), White; and 452 (6%), other. Three thousand five hundred forty-nine (45%) were non-English preferring. We did not observe statistically significant disparities in the rate of appropriate INR monitoring by race/ethnicity or language; the primary source of variation was by healthcare network. Older age, female gender, and uninsured patients had a slightly higher rate of appropriate INR monitoring, but differences were not clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a race/ethnicity nor language disparity in INR monitoring; safety-net site was the main source of variation.