Effect of Patient Navigation on Completion of Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations.

BACKGROUND: Although low-dose, CT-based lung cancer screening (LCS) can decrease lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals, the process may be complex and pose challenges to patients, particularly those from minority underinsured and uninsured populations. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of telephone-based navigation for LCS within an integrated, urban, safety-net health care system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients eligible for LCS were randomized (1:1) to usual care with or without navigation at Parkland Health in Dallas, Texas. The primary endpoint was completion of the first 3 consecutive steps in a patient's LCS process. We explored differences in completion of LCS steps between navigation and usual care groups, controlling for patient characteristics using the chi-square test. RESULTS: Patients (N=447) were randomized to either navigation (n=225) or usual care (n=222). Mean patient age was 62 years, 46% were female, and 69% were racial/ethnic minorities. There was no difference in completion of the first 3 steps of the LCS algorithm between arms (12% vs 9%, respectively; P=.30). For ordered LCS steps, completion rates were higher among patients who received navigation (86% vs 79%; P=.03). The primary reason for step noncompletion was lack of order placement. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, lack of order placement was a key reason for incomplete LCS steps. When orders were placed, patients who received navigation had higher rates of completion. Clinical team education and enhanced electronic health record processes to simplify order placement, coupled with patient navigation, may improve LCS in safety-net health care systems.

Geographic Accessibility and Completion of Initial Low-Dose CT-Based Lung Cancer Screening in an Urban Safety-Net Population.

BACKGROUND: Recent modifications to low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening guidelines increase the number of eligible individuals, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. Because these populations disproportionately live in metropolitan areas, we analyzed the association between travel time and initial LDCT completion within an integrated, urban safety-net health care system. METHODS: Using Esri's StreetMap Premium, OpenStreetMap, and the r5r package in R, we determined projected private vehicle and public transportation travel times between patient residence and the screening facility for LDCT ordered in March 2017 through December 2022 at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas. We characterized associations between travel time and LDCT completion in univariable and multivariable analyses. We tested these associations in a simulation of 10,000 permutations of private vehicle and public transportation distribution. RESULTS: A total of 2,287 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 1,553 (68%) completed the initial ordered LDCT. Mean age was 63 years, and 73% were underrepresented minorities. Median travel time from patient residence to the LDCT screening facility was 17 minutes by private vehicle and 67 minutes by public transportation. There was a small difference in travel time to the LDCT screening facility by public transportation for patients who completed LDCT versus those who did not (67 vs 66 min, respectively; P=.04) but no difference in travel time by private vehicle for these patients (17 min for both; P=.67). In multivariable analysis, LDCT completion was not associated with projected travel time to the LDCT facility by private vehicle (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82-1.25) or public transportation (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.44). Similar results were noted across travel-type permutations. Black individuals were 29% less likely to complete LDCT screening compared with White individuals. CONCLUSIONS: In an urban population comprising predominantly underrepresented minorities, projected travel time is not associated with initial LDCT completion in an integrated health care system. Other reasons for differences in LDCT completion warrant investigation.

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Regional Safety-Net Health System over a 10-Year Period: Lessons for Population Health.

BACKGROUND: Despite national policy efforts to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, rates in vulnerable populations remain suboptimal. Many types of interventions have been employed, but their impact on improving population-level rates of CRC screening over time is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of 10 years of different in-reach and outreach strategies to improve CRC screening and identify factors associated with being screen up-to-date (SUTD). DESIGN: Observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50-74 years from 12 community-based primary care clinics in an integrated, regional safety-net health system. INTERVENTIONS: Multiple system-level interventions were implemented over time (visit-based electronic health record [EHR] reminders, quality measurement, annual preventive service letters, and mailed fecal immunohistochemical stool tests [FIT]). MAIN MEASURES: CRC SUTD rates by calendar year among those with a primary care (PC) visit in the prior 1 and 3 years and their multivariable correlates. KEY RESULTS: The sample included 31,786-40,405 patients/year. In 2011, mean age was 58.9, 63.9% were women, 37.0% were Hispanic, 39.3% Black, 16.8% White, and 6.6% Asian/Other, and 60.5% were uninsured/Medicaid. Three-quarters of patients had ≥ 1 PC visit in the prior year. Lower-intensity interventions (EHR reminders, quality measurement, annual prevention letters) had limited impact on SUTD rates (2-3% rise). Implementing system-wide mailed FIT increased rates from 51.2 to 61.9% among those with a PC visit in the past year (40.5 to 46.8% with a PC visit ≤ 3 years). Stopping mailed FIT due to COVID wiped out these gains. Higher screening rates were associated with the following: older age; female; more comorbidities, PC clinic visits, and prior FITs; and better insurance coverage. Hispanics had the highest SUTD rates followed by Asians, Blacks, and Whites (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a system-wide mailed FIT program had the greatest impact on SUTD rates. Lower-intensity interventions (EHR reminders, quality measurement, and patient letters) had limited effects.

Cost Effectiveness of Mailed Outreach Programs for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Analysis of a Pragmatic, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinical guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening suggest use of either stool-based tests or colonoscopy - modalities that differ in recommended screening intervals, adherence, and costs. We know little about the long-term cost differences in population-health outreach strategies to promote these strategies. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 2 mailed outreach strategies to increase CRC screening from a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial: mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits vs invitations to complete a screening colonoscopy. We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to account for differences in screening intervals, adherence, and costs. RESULTS: Mailed FIT kits had a lower 10-year average per-person cost of screening relative to colonoscopy invitations ($1139 vs $1725) but with 10.89 fewer months of compliance and 60 fewer advanced neoplasia detected (37 advanced adenomas and 23 CRC). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for colonoscopy invitations compared with mailed FIT kits were $55.23, $15.84, and $25.48 per additional covered month, advanced adenoma, and CRC, respectively. Although FIT was the preferred strategy at low willingness-to-pay thresholds, the 2 strategies were equal at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $41.31 per covered month gained. CONCLUSION: Mailed FIT or colonoscopy invitations are both options to improve CRC screening completion and advanced neoplasia detection, and the choice of outreach strategy may differ by a health system's willingness-to-pay threshold. Mailed FIT kits are less expensive than colonoscopy invitations but result in fewer months of screening compliance and advanced neoplasia detected.

Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Reduce Health Disparities in Hepatitis C Screening: A Pre-Post Analysis.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing in persons born from 1945 to 1965 has had limited adoption despite guidelines, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, who have a higher prevalence of disease burden. We examined the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve HCV screening in a large safety-net health system. We performed a multifaceted intervention that included provider and patient education, an electronic medical record-enabled best practice alert, and increased HCV treatment capacity. We characterized HCV screening completion before and after the intervention. To identify correlates of HCV screening, we performed logistic regression for the preintervention and postintervention groups and used a generalized linear mixed model for patients observed in both preintervention and postintervention time frames. Before the intervention, 10.1% of 48,755 eligible baby boomer patients were screened. After the intervention, 34.6% of the 34,093 eligible baby boomers were screened (P < 0.0001). Prior to the intervention, HCV screening was lower among older baby boomers and providers with large patient panels and higher in high-risk subgroups including those with signs of liver disease (e.g., elevated transaminases, thrombocytopenia), human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients, and homeless patients. Postintervention, we observed increased screening uptake in older baby boomers, providers with larger patient panel size, and patients with more than one prior primary care appointment. Conclusion: Our multifaceted intervention significantly increased HCV screening, particularly among older patients, those engaged in primary care, and providers with large patient panels.

Mailed Outreach Invitations Significantly Improve HCC Surveillance Rates in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is associated with early tumor detection and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis; however, effectiveness is limited by underuse. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach and patient navigation strategies to increase HCC surveillance in a racially diverse cohort of patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing mailed outreach for screening ultrasound (n = 600), mailed outreach plus patient navigation (n = 600), or usual care with visit-based screening (n = 600) among 1800 patients with cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 to March 2017. Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received reminder telephone calls. Patient navigation included an assessment of barriers to surveillance and encouragement of surveillance participation. The primary outcome was HCC surveillance (abdominal imaging every 6 months) over an 18-month period. All 1800 patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. HCC surveillance was performed in 23.3% of outreach/navigation patients, 17.8% of outreach-alone patients, and 7.3% of usual care patients. HCC surveillance was 16.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0%-20.0%) and 10.5% (95% CI: 6.8%-14.2%) higher in outreach groups than usual care (P < 0.001 for both) and 5.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-10.1%) higher for outreach/navigation than outreach alone (P = 0.02). Both interventions increased HCC surveillance across predefined patient subgroups. The proportion of HCC patients detected at an early stage did not differ between groups; however, a higher proportion of patients with screen-detected HCC across groups had early-stage tumors than those with HCC detected incidentally or symptomatically (83.3% versus 30.8%, P = 0.003). Conclusion: Mailed outreach invitations and navigation significantly increased HCC surveillance versus usual care in patients with cirrhosis.

Screening initiation with FIT or colonoscopy: Post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, randomized trial.

Screening with FIT or colonoscopy can reduce CRC mortality. In our pragmatic, randomized trial of screening outreach over three years, patients annually received mailed FITs or colonoscopy invitations. We examined screening initiation after each mailing and crossover from the invited to other modality. Eligible patients (50-64 years, ≥1 primary-care visit before randomization, and no history of CRC) received mailed FIT kits (n = 2400) or colonoscopy invitations (n = 2400) from March 2013 through July 2016. Among those invited for colonoscopy, we used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening initiation with colonoscopy vs. FIT vs. no screening after the first mailing. Most patients were female (61.8%) and Hispanic (48.9%) or non-Hispanic black (24.0%). Among those invited for FIT, 56.6% (n = 1359) initiated with FIT, whereas 3.3% (n = 78) crossed over to colonoscopy; 151 (15.7%) and 61 (7.7%) initiated with FIT after second and third mailings. Among those invited for colonoscopy, 25.5% (n = 613) initiated with colonoscopy whereas 18.8% (n = 452) crossed over to FIT; 112 (8.4%) and 48 (4.2%) initiated with colonoscopy after second and third mailings. Three or more primary-care visits prior to randomization were associated with initiating with colonoscopy (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17-1.91) and crossing over to FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19-2.23). Although nearly half of patients initiated screening after the first mailing, few non-responders in either outreach group initiated after a second or third mailing. More patients invited to colonoscopy crossed over to FIT than those assigned to FIT crossed over to colonoscopy.

Mailed Outreach Program Increases Ultrasound Screening of Patients With Cirrhosis for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Surveillance of patients with cirrhosis increases early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and prolongs survival. However, its effectiveness is limited by underuse, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach strategies, with and without patient navigation, in increasing the numbers of patients with cirrhosis undergoing surveillance for HCC in a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of patients with documented or suspected cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 through March 2016. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to groups that received mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination (n = 600), mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination and patient navigation (barrier assessment and motivational education for patients who declined screening; n = 600), or usual care (visit-based screening; n = 600). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received up to 3 reminder telephone calls. The primary outcome was completion of abdominal imaging within 6 months of randomization. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. Cirrhosis was documented, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes, for 79.6% of patients, and suspected, based on noninvasive markers of fibrosis, for 20.4%. In an intent-to-treat analysis, significantly greater proportions of patients who received the mailed invitation and navigation (47.2%) or the mailed invitation alone (44.5%) underwent HCC screening than patients who received usual care (24.3%) (P < .001 for both comparisons). However, screening rates did not differ significantly between outreach the outreach groups (P = .25). The effects of the outreach program were consistent in all subgroups, including Caucasian vs non-Caucasian race, documented vs suspected cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A vs B cirrhosis, and receipt of gastroenterology care. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found outreach strategies to double the percentage of patients with cirrhosis who underwent ultrasound screening for HCC. However, adding patient navigation to telephone reminders provided no significant additional benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02312817.

Care coordination for complex cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net system: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The growing numbers of cancer survivors challenge delivery of high-quality survivorship care by healthcare systems. Innovative ways to improve care coordination for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions ("complex cancer survivors") are needed to achieve better care outcomes, improve patient experience of care, and lower cost. Our study, Project CONNECT, will adapt and implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies, shown to be effective for primary care conditions, among complex cancer survivors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to: 1) Implement a system-level EHR-driven intervention for 500 complex cancer survivors at Parkland; 2) Test effectiveness of the strategies on system- and patient-level outcomes measured before and after implementation; and 3) Elucidate system and patient factors that facilitate or hinder implementation and result in differences in experiences of care coordination between complex patients with and without cancer. METHODS: Project CONNECT is a quasi-experimental implementation study among 500 breast and colorectal cancer survivors with at least one of the following chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart disease. We will implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies in a large, county integrated safety-net health system: 1) an EHR-driven registry to facilitate patient transitions between primary and oncology care; 2) co-locating a nurse practitioner trained in care coordination within a complex care team; 3) and enhancing teamwork through coaching. Segmented regression analysis will evaluate change in system-level (i.e. composite care quality score) and patient-level outcomes (i.e. self-reported care coordination). To evaluate implementation, we will merge quantitative findings with structured observations and physician and patient interviews. DISCUSSION: This study will result in an evaluation toolkit identifying key model elements, barriers, and facilitators that can be used to guide care coordination interventions in other safety-net settings. Because Parkland is a vanguard of safety-net healthcare nationally, findings will be widely applicable as other safety-nets move toward increased integration, enhanced EHR capability, and experience with growing patient diversity. Our proposal recognizes the complexity of interventions and scaffolds evidence-based strategies together to meet the needs of complex patients, systems of care, and service integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02943265 . Registered 24 October 2016.

Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions: Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results: All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: A randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited by underuse, particularly among underserved populations. Among a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients, the authors compared the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase screening participation rates, compared with usual visit-based care. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 64 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening but used primary care services in a large safety-net health system were randomly assigned to mailed FIT outreach (2400 patients), mailed colonoscopy outreach (2400 patients), or usual care with opportunistic visit-based screening (1199 patients). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received follow-up telephone reminders. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics across the 3 groups were similar. Using intention-to-screen analysis, screening participation rates were higher for FIT outreach (58.8%) and colonoscopy outreach (42.4%) than usual care (29.6%) (P <.001 for both). Screening participation with FIT outreach was higher than that for colonoscopy outreach (P <.001). Among responders, FIT outreach had a higher percentage of patients who responded before reminders (59.0% vs 29.7%; P <.001). Nearly one-half of patients in the colonoscopy outreach group crossed over to complete FIT via usual care, whereas <5% of patients in the FIT outreach group underwent usual-care colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed outreach invitations appear to significantly increase CRC screening rates among underserved populations. In the current study, FIT-based outreach was found to be more effective than colonoscopy-based outreach to increase 1-time screening participation. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to compare the effectiveness of outreach strategies for promoting completion of the entire screening process.

Clinician-perceived barriers to cervical cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at three US healthcare systems.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic posed serious challenges to cancer screening delivery, including cervical cancer. While the impact of the pandemic on deferred screening has been documented, less is known about how clinicians experienced barriers to screening delivery, and, in particular, the role of pre-pandemic barriers to changes reported during the pandemic. Methods: Survey of clinicians who performed ≥ 10 cervical cancer screening tests in 2019 from Mass General Brigham, Kaiser Permanente Washington, and Parkland Health, the healthcare systems participating in the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium (administered 10/2020-12/2020, response rate 53.7 %). Results: Prior to the pandemic, clinicians commonly noted barriers to the delivery of cervical cancer screening including lack of staff support (57.6%), interpreters (32.5%), resources to support patients with social barriers to care (61.3%), and discrimination or bias in interactions between staff and patients (31.2%). Clinicians who reported experiencing a given barrier to care before the pandemic were more likely than those who did not experience one to report worsening during the pandemic: lack of staff support (odds ratio 4.70, 95% confidence interval 2.94-7.52); lack of interpreters (8.23, 4.46-15.18); lack of resources to support patients in overcoming social barriers (7.65, 4.41-13.27); and discrimination or bias (6.73, 3.03-14.97). Conclusions: Clinicians from three health systems who deliver cervical cancer screening commonly reported barriers to care. Barriers prior to the pandemic were associated with worsening of barriers during the pandemic. Addressing barriers to cervical cancer screening may promote resilience of care delivery during the next public health emergency.

Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening: Initial Findings from a Patient Navigation Intervention.

Low-dose computed tomography-based lung cancer screening represents a complex clinical undertaking that could require multiple referrals, appointments, and time-intensive procedures. These steps may pose difficulties and raise concerns among patients, particularly minority, under-, and uninsured populations. The authors implemented patient navigation to identify and address these challenges. They conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of telephone-based navigation for lung cancer screening in an integrated, urban safety-net health care system. Following standardized protocols, bilingual (Spanish and English) navigators educated, motivated, and empowered patients to traverse the health system. Navigators made systematic contact with patients, recording standardized call characteristics in a study-specific database. Call type, duration, and content were recorded. Univariable and multivariable multinomial logistic regression was performed to investigate associations between call characteristics and reported barriers. Among 225 patients (mean age 63 years, 46% female, 70% racial/ethnic minority) assigned navigation, a total of 559 barriers to screening were identified during 806 telephone calls. The most common barrier categories were personal (46%), provider (30%), and practical (17%). System (6%) and psychosocial (1%) barriers were described by English-speaking patients, but not by Spanish-speaking patients. Over the course of the lung cancer screening process, provider-related barriers decreased 80% (P = 0.008). The authors conclude that patients undergoing lung cancer screening frequently report personal and health care provider-related barriers to successful participation. Barrier types may differ among patient populations and over the course of the screening process. Further understanding of these concerns may increase screening uptake and adherence. Clinical Trial Registration number: (NCT02758054).

Prevalence And Impact of Medical Comorbidities in A Real-World Lung Cancer Screening Population.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening trials generally enroll motivated, relatively healthy, and adherent populations. We therefore evaluated the prevalence and effects of comorbidities in a real-world population undergoing low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We calculated the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of patients for whom an initial low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening was ordered between February 2017 and February 2019 in an integrated safety-net healthcare system. We examined the association between CCI and initial LDCT completion using multivariable logistic regression, assessed the association between specific medical comorbidity and LDCT completion using Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate, and examined the association between CCI and LDCT Lung-RADS results using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 1358 patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 63 years, 57% were women, and 50% were Black. Patients had moderate comorbidity burden (median CCI 3) with chronic pulmonary disease the most common comorbidity. Overall, 943 LDCT (70%) were completed. There was no difference in 30-day, 90-day, or 1-year completion rates of initial LDCT according to CCI. However, 30-day LDCT completion rates did increase over time (P < .001). Lung-RADS scores were not associated with CCI. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, patients undergoing lung cancer screening have moderate comorbidity burden. The degree and type of medical comorbidity are not associated with initial screening completion or results. Timeliness of LDCT completion may improve as program experience increases.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care. Objective: To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders. Results: Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

Clinician Variation in Ordering and Completion of Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Medical System.

BACKGROUND: Less than 5% of eligible individuals in the United States undergo lung cancer screening. Variation in clinicians' participation in lung cancer screening has not been determined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied medical providers who ordered ≥ 1 low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening from February 2017 through February 2019 in an integrated safety-net healthcare system. We analyzed associations between provider characteristics and LDCT orders and completion using chi-square, Fisher exact, and Student t tests, as well as ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Among an estimated 194 adult primary care physicians, 144 (74%) ordered at least 1 LDCT, as did 39 specialists. These 183 medical providers ordered 1594 LDCT (median, 4; interquartile range, 2-9). In univariate and multivariate models, family practice providers (P < .001) and providers aged ≥ 50 years (P = .03) ordered more LDCT than did other clinicians. Across providers, the median proportion of ordered LDCT that were completed was 67%. The total or preceding number of LDCT ordered by a clinician was not associated with the likelihood of LDCT completion. CONCLUSION: In an integrated safety-net healthcare system, most adult primary care providers order LDCT. The number of LDCT ordered varies widely among clinicians, and a substantial proportion of ordered LDCT are not completed.

Tracking the Nonenrolled: Lung Cancer Screening Patterns Among Individuals not Accrued to a Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: For lung cancer screening, the available data are often derived from patients enrolled prospectively in clinical trials. We, therefore, investigated lung cancer screening patterns among individuals eligible for, but not enrolled in, a screening trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From February 2017 through February 2019, we enrolled subjects in a trial examining telephone-based navigation during low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening. We identified patients for whom LDCT was ordered and who were approached, but not enrolled, in the trial. We categorized nonenrollment as the patient had declined or could not be reached. We compared the characteristics and LDCT completion rates among these groups and the enrolled population using the 2-sample t test and χ2 test. RESULTS: Of 900 individuals approached for participation (mean age, 62 years; 45% women, 53% black), 447 were enrolled in the screening clinical trial. No significant demographic differences were found between the enrolled and nonenrolled cohorts. Of the 453 individuals not enrolled, 251 (55%) had declined participation and 202 (45%) could not be reached, despite up to 6 attempts. LDCT completion was significantly associated with enrollment status: 81% of enrolled individuals, 73% of individuals who declined participation, and 49% of those who could not be reached (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present single-center study, demographic factors did not predict for participation in a lung cancer screening trial. Lung cancer screening adherence rates were substantially lower for those not enrolled in a screening trial, especially for those who could not be contacted. These findings may inform the broader implementation of screening programs.

Surveillance for colorectal cancer survivors in an integrated safety-net health system in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Guideline-recommended surveillance reduces likelihood of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence, yet surveillance rates are low in the United States (US). Little is known about CRC surveillance rates among patients without health insurance and their primary care clinicians/oncologists' attitudes towards surveillance care. METHODS: A retrospective study of 205 patients diagnosed with Stage I-III CRC from 2008-2010 was conducted in an integrated system with a network of providers delivering care to patients lacking health insurance coverage. Surveillance patterns were characterized from medical records and logistic regression models examined correlates of guideline-concordant surveillance. 41 Parkland primary care physicians (PCPs) and 24 oncologists completed surveys to assess their attitudes and practices regarding CRC surveillance. RESULTS: 38% of CRC patients received guideline-concordant surveillance; those with early stage cancers were less likely to receive surveillance (OR=0.35; 95 CI: 0.14, 0.87). PCPs and oncologists differed markedly on who is responsible for cancer surveillance care. 77% of oncologists responded that PCPs evaluated patients for cancer recurrence while 76% of PCPs responded that these services were either ordered by oncologists or shared with PCPs. 67% of oncologists said they rarely provide a treatment and surveillance care plan to survivors and over half said that they infrequently communicate with patients' other physicians about who will follow patients for their cancer and other medical issues. DISCUSSION: Care coordination between PCP and oncologist is needed to improve CRC surveillance. New models of shared care clearly delineating roles for oncologists and PCPs are needed to improve CRC survivorship care.

Identifying quality improvement targets to facilitate colorectal cancer screening completion.

The colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process involves multiple interfaces (communication exchanges and transfers of responsibility for specific actions) among primary care and gastroenterology providers, laboratory, and administrative staff. After a retrospective electronic health record (EHR) analysis discovered substantial clinic variation and low CRC screening prevalence overall in an urban, integrated safety-net system, we launched a qualitative analysis to identify potential quality improvement targets to enhance fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion, the system's preferred screening modality. Here, we report examination of organization-, clinic-, and provider-level interfaces over a three-year period (December 2011-October 2014). We deployed in parallel 3 qualitative data collection methods: (1) structured observation (90+ hours, 10 sites); (2) document analysis (n > 100); and (3) semi-structured interviews (n = 41) and conducted iterative thematic analysis in which findings from each method cross-informed subsequent data collection. Thematic analysis was guided by a conceptual model and applied deductive and inductive codes. There was substantial variation in protocols for distributing and returning FIT kits both within and across clinics. Providers, clinic and laboratory staff had differing access to important data about FIT results based on clinical information system used and this affected results reporting. Communication and coordination during electronic referrals for diagnostic colonoscopy was suboptimal particularly for co-morbid patients needing anesthesia clearance. Our multi-level approach elucidated organizational deficiencies not evident by quantitative analysis alone. Findings indicate potential quality improvement intervention targets including: (1) best-practices implementation across clinics; (2) detailed communication to providers about FIT results; and (3) creation of EHR alerts to resolve pending colonoscopy referrals before they expire.

Patient navigation for lung cancer screening in an urban safety-net system: Protocol for a pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated improved lung cancer mortality with annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening, leading to lung cancer screening endorsement by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and coverage by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Adherence to annual CT screens in that trial was 95%, which may not be representative of real-world, particularly medically underserved populations. This pragmatic trial will determine the effect of patient-focused, telephone-based patient navigation on adherence to CT-based lung cancer screening in an urban safety-net population. 340 adults who meet standard eligibility for lung cancer screening (age 55-77years, smoking history≥30 pack-years, quit within 15years if former smoker) are referred through an electronic medical record-based order by physicians in community- and hospital-based primary care settings within the Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas County, Texas. Eligible patients are randomized to usual care or patient navigation, which addresses adherence, patient-reported barriers, smoking cessation, and psycho-social concerns related to screening completion. Patients complete surveys and semi-structured interviews at baseline, 6-month, and 18-month follow-ups to assess attitudes toward screening. The primary endpoint of this pragmatic trial is adherence to three sequential, prospectively defined steps in the screening protocol. Secondary endpoints include self-reported tobacco use and other patient-reported outcomes. Results will provide real-world insight into the impact of patient navigation on adherence to CT-based lung cancer screening in a medically underserved population. This study was registered with the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02758054) on April 26, 2016.