Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians' diagnosis of their patients' preferences for colon cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: Identify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC. RESULTS: 382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient's preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length. CONCLUSION: Only half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Engaging At-Risk Rural Residents in Secondary Lung Cancer Prevention.

INTRODUCTION: Rural residents are at elevated risk for lung cancer and related mortality, yet limited research has explored their perspectives on cancer risk or prevention options, including tobacco treatment and lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). This qualitative study examined attitudes and beliefs among rural adults who reported either current or former tobacco use, as well as disengagement from the health care system. METHODS: We conducted 6 focus groups with rural Maine residents at risk for lung cancer based on age and smoking history (n = 50). Semistructured interviews explored participants' knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes regarding lung cancer risk, LDCT screening, and patient provider relationships. Inductive qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was conducted to identify key themes. RESULTS: Participants were cognizant of their elevated lung cancer risk, yet few were aware of LDCT screening. When informed about LDCT, most participants indicated a willingness to undergo screening, although a substantial minority indicated reluctance related to fear and fatalism. Participants generally expressed the belief that relationships with a primary care provider could support their health and identified several provider factors that influence these relationships, including attention and time for patient concerns; respect and non-judgmental, nonstigmatizing attitudes; treating patients as individuals; and provider empathy and emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Rural residents at risk for lung cancer report limited knowledge and substantial ambivalence regarding LDCT screening, but identify provider behaviors that may promote patient-provider relationships and greater engagement with their health. More research is needed to confirm these findings and understand how to help rural residents and healthcare providers work together to reduce lung cancer risk.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Cross-sectional Survey Examining Patient Attitudes and Preferences for Rescheduling Screening Colonoscopies Canceled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents (N = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening (P = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them. Highlights: In the wake of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of patients stated they were not likely to follow through with a colonoscopy in the short term, about half were interested in screening with a stool-based test, and only one-quarter were interested in delaying screening until next year.Patients who perceived themselves at higher risk of colorectal cancer were less interested in stool-based testing, and patients who were more worried about colorectal cancer were less interested in delaying screening.A shared decision-making approach may be necessary to tailor screening discussions for patients during subsequent waves of the pandemic, other occasions where resources are limited and patient preferences vary, or where patients hold conflicting views of screening.

Use of PHQ-9 for monitoring patients with depression in integrated primary care practices.

Context: The PHQ-9 is a validated, short self-report questionnaire designed to be used in primary care for diagnosis and management of depression. We wished to assess its use for monitoring symptoms in patients being treated for depression. Objectives: To measure the use of the PHQ-9 in 12 months following an elevated score in adult patients in primary care practices. Study design: Retrospective cohort study with descriptive analysis of use of PHQ-9 for follow up; stratified by age category, gender, severity and chronicity of symptoms, and whether referred to integrated behavioral health. Setting or dataset: EMR data including dates and results of PHQ-9, patient demographics, and referral data. Population studied: Adults aged 18 and older with a PHQ-9 score of 10 or higher during calendar year 2018. No one was excluded. Outcome measure: Primary outcome measure was the number of PHQ-9's done in 12 months following the initial elevated score (index score). Secondary outcome measures are a set of quality measures for depression care related to monitoring with PHQ-9 at 6 and 12 months following index score. Results: Among all patients, mean number of PHQ-9 following index score was 2.1. This was increased for those with chronic symptoms (defined as having an elevated score at least once in calendar year 2017. It was increased slightly as severity of index symptoms increased. It was increased substantially for those referred to integrated behavioral health clinicians in the practices. Conclustions: The PHQ-9 is underutilized as an instrument for monitoring patients who are being treated for depression in primary care. Measurement based care has a strong evidence base and interventions to improve utilization of the PHQ-9 for monitoring are likely to improve depression outcomes in primary care.

Mind, Mood, Mobility: Supporting Independence Among Rural Older Adults at Risk for Functional Decline.

Rural communities need access to effective interventions that can prevent functional decline among a growing population of older adults. We describe the conceptual framework and rationale for a multicomponent intervention ("Mind, Mood, Mobility") delivered by Area Agency on Aging staff for rural older adults at risk for functional decline due to early impairments in cognition, mood, or mobility. Our proposed model utilizes primary care to identify at-risk older adults, combines evidence-based interventions that address multiple risk factors simultaneously, and leverages a community-based aging services workforce for intervention delivery.

Area Deprivation Index and Rurality in Relation to Lung Cancer Prevalence and Mortality in a Rural State.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe lung cancer prevalence and mortality in relation to socioeconomic deprivation and rurality. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional analysis of prevalent lung cancers from a statewide all-payer claims dataset from 2012 to 2016, lung cancer deaths in Maine from the state death registry from 2012 to 2016, rurality, and area deprivation index (ADI), a geographic area-based measure of socioeconomic deprivation. Analyses examined rate ratios for lung cancer prevalence and mortality according to rurality (small and isolated rural, large rural, or urban) and ADI (quintiles, with highest reflecting the most deprivation) and after adjusting for age, sex, and area-level smoking rates as determined by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. RESULTS: Among 1 223 006 adults aged 20 years and older during the 5-year observation period, 8297 received lung cancer care, and 4616 died. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing rurality, but these associations did not persist after adjusting for age, sex, and smoking rates. Lung cancer prevalence and mortality were positively associated with increasing ADI in models adjusted for age, sex, and smoking rates (prevalence rate ratio for ADI quintile 5 compared with quintile 1 = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.30 to 1.54) and mortality rate ratio = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.41 to 1.79). CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic deprivation, but not rurality, was associated with higher lung cancer prevalence and mortality. Interventions should target populations with socioeconomic deprivation, rather than rurality per se, and aim to reduce lung cancer risk via tobacco treatment and control interventions and to improve patient access to lung cancer prevention, screening, and treatment services.

Association Between Rurality and Lung Cancer Treatment Characteristics and Timeliness.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, and rural states bear a greater burden of disease. METHODS: We analyzed tumor registry data to examine relationships between rurality and lung cancer stage at diagnosis and treatment. Cases were from the Maine Cancer Registry from 2012 to 2015, and rurality was defined using rural-urban commuting areas. Multivariable models were used to examine the relationships between rurality and treatment, adjusting for age, sex, poverty, education, insurance status, and cancer stage. RESULTS: We identified 5,338 adults with incident lung cancer; 3,429 (64.2%) were diagnosed at a late stage (III or IV). Rurality was not associated with stage at diagnosis. For patients with early-stage disease (I or II), rurality was not associated with receipt of treatment. However, for patients with late-stage disease, residents of large rural areas received more surgery (10%) compared with metropolitan (9%) or small/isolated rural areas (6%), P = .01. In multivariable analyses, patients in large rural areas received more chemotherapy (OR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.08-2.02) than those in metropolitan areas. Patients with early-stage disease residing in small/ isolated rural areas had delays in treatment (median time to first treatment = 43 days, interquartile range [IQR] 22-68) compared with large rural (34 days, IQR 17-55) and metropolitan areas (35 days, IQR 17-60), P = .0009. CONCLUSION: Rurality is associated with differences in receipt of specific lung cancer treatments and in timeliness of treatment.

Screening for Behavioral Health Conditions in Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence indicates that early recognition and treatment of behavioral health disorders can prevent complications, improve quality of life, and help reduce health care costs. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify and evaluate publicly available, psychometrically tested tools that primary care physicians (PCPs) can use to screen adult patients for common mental and substance use disorders such as depression, anxiety, and alcohol use disorders. METHODS: We followed the Institute of Medicine (IOM) systematic review guidelines and searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments databases to identify literature addressing tools for screening of behavioral health conditions. We gathered information on each tool's psychometrics, applicability in primary care, and characteristics such as number of items and mode of administration. We included tools focused on adults and the most common behavioral health conditions; we excluded tools designed for children, youth, or older adults; holistic health scales; and tools screening for serious but less frequently encountered disorders, such as bipolar disorder. RESULTS: We identified 24 screening tools that met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen tools were subscales stemming from multiple-disorder assessments or tools that assessed more than one mental disorder or more than one substance use disorder in a single instrument. Nine were ultra-short, single-disorder tools. The tools varied in psychometrics and the extent to which they had been administered and studied in primary care settings. DISCUSSION: Tools stemming from the Patient Health Questionnaire had the most testing and application in primary care settings. However, numerous other tools could meet the needs of primary care practices. This review provides information that PCPs can use to select appropriate tools to incorporate into a screening protocol.

Translating evidence to practice: two stories from the field.

Translating research evidence into daily practice is a challenging process at the organizational level. Conceptual models about this process point to the importance of resources for change and environmental influences as two key factors that need to be addressed in translation efforts. Two organizational case studies focused on improving care for adults with depression are described that illustrate lessons about translating evidence to practice that may be helpful to others.

Care management for depression in primary care practice: findings from the RESPECT-Depression trial.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study examined the barriers to adopting depression care management among 42 primary care clinicians in 30 practices. METHODS: The RESPECT-Depression trial worked collaboratively with 5 large health care organizations (and 60 primary care practices) to implement and disseminate an evidence-based intervention. This study used semistructured interviews with 42 primary care clinicians from 30 practice sites, 18 care managers, and 7 mental health professionals to explore experience and perceptions with depression care management for patients. Subject selection in 4 waves of interviews was driven by themes emerging from ongoing data analysis. RESULTS: Primary care clinicians reported broad appreciation of the benefits of depression care management for their patients. Lack of reimbursement and the competing demands of primary care were often cited as barriers. These clinicians at many levels of initial enthusiasm for care management increased their enthusiasm after experiencing care management through the project. Psychiatric oversight of the care manager with suggestions for the clinicians was widely seen as important and appropriate by clinicians, care managers, and psychiatrists. Clinicians and care managers emphasized the importance of establishing effective communication among themselves, as well as maintaining a consistent and continuous relationship with the patients. The clinicians were selective in which patients they referred for care management, and there was wide variation in opinion about which patients were optimal candidates. Care managers were able to operate both from within a practice and more centrally when specific attention was given to negotiating communication strategies with a clinician. CONCLUSIONS: Care management for depression is an attractive option for most primary care clinicians. Lack of reimbursement remains the single greatest obstacle to more widespread adoption.

Implementation of guideline-based care for depression in primary care.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for treating depression in primary care settings were developed, in part, to ensure that health services are provided in a consistent, high-quality, and cost-effective manner. Yet for a variety of reasons, guideline-based primary care for depression remains the exception rather than the rule. This work provides a brief review of effective strategies used to customize and then deliver evidence-based treatment for depression in primary care settings; describes two representative case studies that illustrate locally customized collaborative care strategies for treatment delivery; and concludes with principles and implications for policy and practice based on our practical experiences.

Rural communities improving quality through collaboration: the MaineHealth story.

Small and rural communities face unique challenges in improving healthcare quality. To address these challenges, MaineHealth, an integrated health system serving small and rural communities, leveraged knowledge, resources, and data through collaboration to help providers improve care and outcomes for asthma, heart failure, diabetes, and depression. The programs emphasized patient self-care, used uniform clinical standards, and supported population-based data collection. This collaborative approach provided an effective way to achieve improved outcomes across a geographically and structurally diverse system, and it can help influence improvement efforts in other small and medium-sized rural communities.

Open book tests: assessment of academic learning in clerkships.

An examination of an open-book testing approach in a family medicine clerkship seeks to determine whether this method more closely mirrors the discipline of family medicine, where practitioners refer daily to written resource materials in order to make clinical decisions without compromising the learning and assessment process. Student scores on the multiple-choice test were analysed by year, by quarter and by site using ANOVA. Students in the experimental site were interviewed to determine preparation style, use of text during test, as well as attitudes toward open-book testing. Analysis of variance showed that the interaction of site and year was significant at p = 0.03. The mean score of 88.2 for Maine students in 2002 was significantly different from the other three mean scores. The desired qualitative outcomes of the intervention were confirmed: reducing the anxiety of students, wider reading of the textbook, knowing the structure of the textbook as a learning resource, and deeper understanding of concepts and principles rather than time spent on memorization. While the difference in scores did reach statistical significance, it is important to note that the difference in mean score was only four points on a 100-point scale. Given the percentage of the total grade represented by the test score, it is unlikely that this difference represents any real difference in grade for students in Maine compared with Vermont. The students appeared to approach the textbook and therefore, perhaps, the body of knowledge as a whole with the orientation of a generalist. The MMC Clerkship Director recommended the implementation of the open-book approach to the Family Practice clerkship at all sites and the University of Vermont Medical School accepted the proposal. This recommendation supports advising students on the preparation for an open-book test and on tactics for the best use of the textbook during the test.

Implementing an office system to improve primary care management of depression.

Studies have shown that many patients treated for depression in primary care settings do not achieve the outcomes demonstrated to be possible in randomized controlled trials. In general, multifaceted interventions have been more successful than single focus interventions in improving care of depression in this setting. This article reports on the implementation of such a mulitfaceted intervention in primary care practices. Part of the strategy in this case is to introduce the intervention through an intermediary organization that has a relationship with the practices and has a quality improvement infrastructure to support the implementation and help to sustain changes.