Is Lung Cancer Screening Knowledge Associated with Patient-Centered Outcomes? A Multi-institutional Cohort Study.

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate that clinicians use a shared decision-making interaction to provide information about the harms and benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS). Methods. We enrolled patients from 3 geographically diverse medical centers after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving a low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. We performed the primary analysis based on the primary knowledge question, "Which of these conditions do you think that the CT scan screens for?" We used the knowledge summary score in secondary analyses. We evaluated LCS care experience by using validated instruments to measure participant-reported communication quality (Consultation Care Measure), perception of the primary LCS clinician (Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems), and decision conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Results. Of the 409 participants, 44% correctly answered the primary LCS knowledge question. Clinician communication quality was rated positively by 93% of participants. Most (93%) participants rated their LCS clinician as good. Only 14% reported decision conflict. Correctly answering the primary LCS knowledge question was associated with higher patient-clinician communication quality scores (b = 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.1, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.03) and higher LCS clinician ratings (b = 0.4; 95% CI [0.0, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.02) but not with decision conflict. In secondary analyses, higher total LCS knowledge score was associated with lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores (b = -2.2; 95% CI [-3.4, -0.9]; R 2 change = 0.24), indicating lower decision conflict. Conclusions. After an LCS decision-making interaction, many patients do not retain basic knowledge about LCS but nevertheless had low levels of decision conflict. Primary LCS knowledge may be important but insufficient to ensure high-quality, patient-centered LCS care. Highlights: Survey of patients with a lung cancer screening (LCS) decision-making interaction.Only 44% of patients correctly answered the knowledge question about LCS.Primary LCS knowledge was not associated with decision conflict.Patient knowledge about LCS may not equate to high-quality patient-centered care.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Optimizing strategies for lung nodule evaluation and management.

Lung nodules are frequently detected on low-dose computed tomography scans performed for lung cancer screening and incidentally detected on imaging performed for other reasons. There is wide variability in how lung nodules are managed by general practitioners and subspecialists, with high rates of guideline-discordant care. This may be due in part to the level of evidence underlying current practice guideline recommendations (primarily based on findings from uncontrolled studies of diagnostic accuracy). The primary aims of lung nodule management are to minimize harms of diagnostic evaluations while expediting the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. Potentially useful tools such as lung cancer probability calculators, automated methods to identify patients with nodules in the electronic health record, and multidisciplinary team evaluation are often underused due to limited availability, accessibility, and/or provider knowledge. Finally, relatively little attention has been paid to identifying and reducing disparities among individuals with screening-detected or incidentally detected lung nodules. This contribution to the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Strategic Plan aims to identify and describe these knowledge gaps in lung nodule management and propose recommendations to advance clinical practice and research. Major themes that are addressed include improving the quality of evidence supporting lung nodule evaluation guidelines, strategically leveraging information technology, and placing emphasis on equitable approaches to nodule management. The recommendations outlined in this strategic plan, when carried out through interdisciplinary efforts with a focus on health equity, ultimately aim to improve early detection and reduce the morbidity and mortality of lung cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung nodules may be identified on chest scans of individuals who undergo lung cancer screening (screening-detected nodules) or among patients for whom a scan was performed for another reason (incidental nodules). Although the vast majority of lung nodules are not lung cancer, it is important to have evidence-based, standardized approaches to the evaluation and management of a lung nodule. The primary aims of lung nodule management are to diagnose lung cancer while it is still in an early stage and to avoid unnecessary procedures and other harms.

Longitudinal Assessment of Communication With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Many organizations recommend clinicians use structured communication processes, referred to as shared decision-making, to improve patient-reported outcomes for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS). RESEARCH QUESTION: Which components of high-quality patient-centered communication are associated with decision regret and distress? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal, repeated measures cohort study among patients undergoing LCS in three different health care systems. We surveyed participants using validated measures of decision regret, decision satisfaction, distress, and patient-clinician communication domains up to 1 year after the low-dose CT (LDCT) imaging for LCS. For longitudinal analyses, we applied a series of generalized estimating equations to measure the association of the patient as person communication domain, screening knowledge, and decision concordance with decision regret and distress. RESULTS: When assessed 2 to 4 weeks after the LDCT imaging, 202 respondents (58.9%) and eight respondents (2.3%) of 343 total respondents reported mild and moderate or severe decision regret, respectively, whereas 29 respondents (9.2%) of 315 total respondents reported mild distress and 19 respondents (6.0%) reported moderate or greater distress. The mean ± SD decision satisfaction scores (scale, 0-10) were 9.82 ± 0.89, 9.08 ± 1.54, and 6.13 ± 3.40 among those with no, mild, and moderate or severe regret, respectively. Distress scores remained low after the LDCT imaging, even among those with nodules. Patient-centered communication domains were not associated with decision regret or distress. INTERPRETATION: Patients undergoing LCS rarely experience moderate or greater decision regret and distress. Although many participants reported mild decision regret, most were very satisfied over the 1 year after LDCT imaging for LCS. Communication processes were not associated with regret and distress, suggesting that it may be challenging for communication interventions to reduce the harms of LCS.

Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators to Choosing Care in VA Facilities Versus VA-Purchased Care.

Many Veterans receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-purchased care from non-VA facilities but little is known about factors that Veterans consider for this choice. Between May 2020 and August 2021, we surveyed VA-purchased care-eligible VA patients about barriers and facilitators to choosing where to receive care. We examined the association between travel time to their VA facility and their choice of VA-purchased care (VA-paid health care received in non-VA settings) versus VA facility and whether this association was modified by distrust. We received 1,662 responses and 692 (42%) chose a VA facility. Eighty percent reported quality care was in their top three factors that influenced their decision. Respondents with the highest distrust and who lived >1 hr from the nearest VA facility had the lowest predicted probability (PP) of choosing VA (PP 15%; 95% confidence interval: 10%-20%). Veterans value quality of care. VA and other health care systems should consider patient-centered ways to improve and publicize quality and reduce distrust.

Summary of Veterans Health Administration Cancer Data Sources.

Objectives: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a leader in generating transformational research across the cancer care continuum. Given the extensive body of cancer-related literature utilizing VHA data, our objectives are to: (1) describe the VHA data sources available for conducting cancer-related research, and (2) discuss examples of published cancer research using each data source. Methods: We identified commonly used data sources within the VHA and reviewed previously published cancer-related research that utilized these data sources. In addition, we reviewed VHA clinical and health services research web pages and consulted with a multidisciplinary group of cancer researchers that included hematologist/oncologists, health services researchers, and epidemiologists. Results: Commonly used VHA cancer data sources include the Veterans Affairs (VA) Cancer Registry System, the VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR), the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW)-Oncology Raw Domain (subset of data within the CDW), and the VA Cancer Care Cube (Cube). While no reference standard exists for cancer case ascertainment, the VACCR provides a systematic approach to ensure the complete capture of clinical history, cancer diagnosis, and treatment. Like many population-based cancer registries, a significant time lag exists due to constrained resources, which may make it best suited for historical epidemiologic studies. The CDW-Oncology Raw Domain and the Cube contain national information on incident cancers which may be useful for case ascertainment and prospective recruitment; however, additional resources may be needed for data cleaning. Conclusions: The VHA has a wealth of data sources available for cancer-related research. It is imperative that researchers recognize the advantages and disadvantages of each data source to ensure their research questions are addressed appropriately.

Longitudinal quality of life after sublobar resection and stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with early-stage lung cancer are not candidates for lobectomy because of various factors, with treatment options including sublobar resection or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Limited information exists regarding patient-centered outcomes after these treatments. METHODS: Subjects with stage I-IIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at high risk for lobectomy who underwent treatment with sublobar resection or SBRT were recruited from five medical centers. Quality of life (QOL) was compared with the Short Form 8 (SF-8) for physical and mental health and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) surveys at baseline (pretreatment) and 7 days, 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months after treatment. Propensity score methods were used to control for confounders. RESULTS: Of 337 subjects enrolled before treatment, 63% received SBRT. Among patients undergoing resection, 89% underwent minimally invasive video-assisted thoracic surgery or robot-assisted resection. Adjusted analyses showed that SBRT-treated patients had both higher physical health SF-8 scores (difference in differences [DID], 6.42; p = .0008) and FACT-L scores (DID, 2.47; p = .004) at 7 days posttreatment. Mental health SF-8 scores were not different at 7 days (p = .06). There were no significant differences in QOL at other time points, and all QOL scores returned to baseline by 12 months for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is associated with better QOL immediately posttreatment compared with sublobar resection. However, both treatment groups reported similar QOL at later time points, with a return to baseline QOL. These findings suggest that sublobar resection and SBRT have a similar impact on the QOL of patients with early-stage lung cancer deemed ineligible for lobectomy.

Lung Cancer Survival Trends in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer survival is improving in the United States. We investigated whether there was a similar trend within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry were analyzed for temporal survival trends using Kaplan-Meier estimates and linear regression. RESULTS: A total number of 54,922 Veterans were identified with lung cancer diagnosed from 2010 to 2017. Histologies were classified as non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (64.2%), small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (12.9%), and 'other' (22.9%). The proportion with stage I increased from 18.1% to 30.4%, while stage IV decreased from 38.9% to 34.6% (both P < .001). The 3-year overall survival (OS) improved for stage I (58.6% to 68.4%, P < .001), stage II (35.5% to 48.4%, P < .001), stage III (18.7% to 29.4%, P < .001), and stage IV (3.4% to 7.8%, P < .001). For NSCLC, the median OS increased from 12 to 21 months (P < .001), and the 3-year OS increased from 24.1% to 38.3% (P < .001). For SCLC, the median OS remained unchanged (8 to 9 months, P = .10), while the 3-year OS increased from 9.1% to 12.3% (P = .014). Compared to White Veterans, Black Veterans with NSCLC had similar OS (P = .81), and those with SCLC had higher OS (P = .003). CONCLUSION: Lung cancer survival is improving within the VHA. Compared to White Veterans, Black Veterans had similar or higher survival rates. The observed racial equity in outcomes within a geographically and socioeconomically diverse population warrants further investigation to better understand and replicate this achievement in other healthcare systems.

Association of patient and health care organization factors with incidental nodule guidelines adherence: A multi-system observational study.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations are increasingly developing systems to ensure patients with pulmonary nodules receive guideline-adherent care. Our goal was to determine patient and organization factors that are associated with radiologist adherence as well as clinician and patient concordance to 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines for incidental pulmonary nodule follow-up. MATERIALS: Trained researchers abstracted data from the electronic health record from two Veterans Affairs health care systems for patients with incidental pulmonary nodules as identified by interpreting radiologists from 2008 to 2016. METHODS: We classified radiology reports and patient follow-up into two categories. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was the agreement between the radiologist's recommendation in the computed tomography report and the 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines. Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance was agreement between patient follow-up and the guidelines. We calculated multivariable-adjusted predicted probabilities for factors associated with Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence and Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance. RESULTS: Among 3150 patients, 69% of radiologist recommendations were adherent to 2005 Fleischner guidelines, 4% were more aggressive, and 27% recommended less aggressive follow-up. Overall, only 48% of patients underwent follow-up concordant with 2005 Fleischner Society guidelines, 37% had less aggressive follow-up, and 15% had more aggressive follow-up. Radiologist-Fleischner Adherence was associated with Clinician/Patient-Fleischner Concordance with evidence for effect modification by health care system. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and patients seem to follow radiologists' recommendations but often do not obtain concordant follow-up, likely due to downstream differential processes in each health care system. Health care organizations need to develop comprehensive and rigorous tools to ensure high levels of appropriate follow-up for patients with pulmonary nodules.

What Goes into Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening? Factors Associated with Clinician Judgments of Suitability for Screening.

Rationale: Achieving the net benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS) depends on optimizing patient selection. Objective: To identify factors associated with clinician assessments that a patient was unlikely to benefit from LCS ("LCS-inappropriate") because of comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients assessed for LCS at 30 Veterans Health Administration facilities from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2021. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with clinicians' designations of LCS inappropriateness (primary outcome), accounting for 3-year predicted probability (i.e., competing risk) of non-lung cancer death. Measurements and Main Results: Among 38,487 LCS-eligible patients, 1,671 (4.3%) were deemed LCS-inappropriate by clinicians, whereas 4,383 (11.4%) had an estimated 3-year competing risk of non-lung cancer death greater than 20%. Patients with higher competing risks of non-lung cancer death were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate (odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-3.05). Older patients (ages 75-80; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78) and those with interstitial lung disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.59) were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate than would be explained by competing risk of non-lung cancer death, whereas patients currently smoking (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) were less likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate, suggesting that clinicians over- or underweighted these factors. The probability of being deemed LCS-inappropriate varied from 0.4% to 74%, depending on the clinician making the assessment (median OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.89-3.25). Conclusion: Concerningly, the likelihood that a patient is deemed LCS-inappropriate is more strongly associated with the clinician making the assessment than with patient characteristics. Patient selection may be optimized by providing decision support to help clinicians assess net LCS benefit.

Primary Care Providers Experiences Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Describe primary care providers' (PCPs) barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening programs in rural settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with PCPs practicing in rural Oregon from November 2019 to September 2020. The interview questions and analytic framework were informed by the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used inductive and deductive approaches for analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 key participants from 12 distinct health care systems. We identified several Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research factors affecting lung cancer screening implementation. 1) Most PCPs did not have workflows to assist in discussing screening and relied on their memory and knowledge of the patient's history to prompt discussions. PCPs supported screening and managed the patient throughout the process. 2) PCPs reported several patient-level barriers, including geographic access to lung cancer screening scans and out-of-pocket cost concerns. 3) PCPs reported that champions are necessary to create opportunities for local practices to adopt lung cancer screening programs. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-practicing PCPs were supportive of lung cancer screening, however workflow processes, time challenges, and patient-reported barriers remain impediments to improved screening in their clinics. We identified several areas for improvement in lung cancer screening implementation in rural primary care practices, ranging from designing clinic workflows and processes to designating clinic staff to support referral, screening, and follow-up care for patients.

Implementing Smoking Cessation Telehealth Technologies Within the VHA: Lessons Learned.

Background: Health care systems need to reach patients who are smokers and connect them to evidence-based resources that can help them quit. Telehealth, such as an interactive voice response (IVR) system, may be one solution, but there is no roadmap to develop or implement an IVR system within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Observations: We describe the development and implemention of IVR at the VA Portland Health Care System in Oregon to proactively reach veterans who use tobacco and connect them with cessation resources. We coordinated with local departments to verify the necessary processes and strategies that are important. We recommend several questions to ask the IVR vendor and be prepared to answer before contract finalization. The Patient Engagement, Tracking, and Long-term Support (PETALS) initiative may be an excellent place to start for VA IVR-related questions and can be used for IVR initiation within the VA, but other vendors will be needed for nonresearch purposes. Finally, we describe the process timeline and steps to help potential users. Conclusions: IVR systems, once they are developed and implemented, can be efficient, low-cost, resource-nonintensive solutions that can effectively connect patients with needed health care services. Developing an IVR system within the VA was challenging for our research team. We experienced a large learning curve during implementation and hope that our experience and lessons will help VA personnel in the future.

Lung Cancer Screening Among U.S. Military Veterans by Health Status and Race and Ethnicity, 2017-2020: A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study.

Introduction: Veterans are at high risk for lung cancer and are an important group for lung cancer screening. Previous research suggests that lung cancer screening may not be reaching healthier and/or non-White individuals, who stand to benefit most from lung cancer screening. We sought to test whether lung cancer screening is associated with poor health and/or race and ethnicity among veterans. Methods: This cross-sectional, population-based study included veterans eligible for lung cancer screening (aged 55-79 years, ≥30 pack-year smoking history, current smokers or quit within 15 years, no previous lung cancer) in the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys. Exposures were (1) poor health, defined as fair/poor health status and difficulty walking or climbing stairs, aligning with eligibility criteria for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial, and (2) race/ethnicity. The outcome was a receipt of lung cancer screening. All variables were self-reported. Results: Of 3,376 lung cancer screening-eligible veterans representing an underlying population of 866,000 individuals, 20.3% (95% CI=17.3, 23.6) had poor health, and 13.7% (95% CI=10.6, 17.5) identified as non-White. Poor health was strongly associated with lung cancer screening (adjusted RR=1.64, 95% CI=1.06, 2.27); one third of veterans screened for lung cancer would not qualify for a pivotal lung cancer screening trial in terms of health. Marked racial disparities were observed among veterans: after adjustment, non-White veterans were 67% less likely to report lung cancer screening than White veterans (adjusted RR=0.33, 95% CI=0.11, 0.66). Conclusions: Lung cancer screening is correlated with poorer health and White race/ethnicity among veterans, which may undermine its population-level effectiveness. These results highlight the need to promote lung cancer screening, especially for healthier and/or non-White veterans, an important group of Americans for lung cancer screening.

Understanding care coordination for Veterans with complex care needs: protocol of a multiple-methods study to build evidence for an effectiveness and implementation study.

Background: For patients with complex health and social needs, care coordination is crucial for improving their access to care, clinical outcomes, care experiences, and controlling their healthcare costs. However, evidence is inconsistent regarding the core elements of care coordination interventions, and lack of standardized processes for assessing patients' needs has made it challenging for providers to optimize care coordination based on patient needs and preferences. Further, ensuring providers have reliable and timely means of communicating about care plans, patients' full spectrum of needs, and transitions in care is important for overcoming potential care fragmentation. In the Veterans Health Administration (VA), several initiatives are underway to implement care coordination processes and services. In this paper, we describe our study underway in the VA aimed at building evidence for designing and implementing care coordination practices that enhance care integration and improve health and care outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs. Methods: In a prospective observational multiple methods study, for Aim 1 we will use existing data to identify Veterans with complex care needs who have and have not received care coordination services. We will examine the relationship between receipt of care coordination services and their health outcomes. In Aim 2, we will adapt the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Veteran Care questionnaire to survey a sample of Veterans about their experiences regarding coordination, integration, and the extent to which their care needs are being met. For Aim 3, we will interview providers and care teams about their perceptions of the innovation attributes of current care coordination needs assessment tools and processes, including their improvement over other approaches (relative advantage), fit with current practices (compatibility and innovation fit), complexity, and ability to visualize how the steps proceed to impact the right care at the right time (observability). The provider interviews will inform design and deployment of a widescale provider survey. Discussion: Taken together, our study will inform development of an enhanced care coordination intervention that seeks to improve care and outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs.

Prevalence and correlates of high-dose opioid use among survivors of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: We characterized prescription opioid medication use up to 2 years following the head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis and examined associations with moderate or high daily opioid prescription dose. METHODS: Using administrative data from Veterans Health Administration, we conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 5522 Veterans treated for cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract between 2012 and 2019. Data included cancer diagnosis and treatments, pain severity, prescription opioid characteristics, demographics, and other clinical factors. RESULTS: Two years post-HNC, 7.8% (n = 428) were receiving moderate or high-dose opioid therapy. Patients with at least moderate pain (18%, n = 996) had 2.48 times higher odds (95% CI = 1.94-3.09, p < 0.001) to be prescribed a moderate opioid dose or higher at 2 years post diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of HNC with at least moderate pain were at elevated risk of continued use of moderate and high dose opioids.

Emotional Distress, Anxiety, and General Health Status in Patients With Newly Identified Small Pulmonary Nodules: Results From the Watch the Spot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and emotional distress have not been studied in large, diverse samples of patients with pulmonary nodules. RESEARCH QUESTION: How common are anxiety and distress in patients with newly identified pulmonary nodules, and what factors are associated with these outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study surveyed participants in the Watch the Spot Trial, a large, pragmatic clinical trial of more vs less intensive strategies for radiographic surveillance of patients with small pulmonary nodules. The survey included validated instruments to measure patient-centered outcomes such as nodule-related emotional distress (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and anxiety (Six-Item State Anxiety Inventory) 6 to 8 weeks following nodule identification. Mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between study arms following adjustment for potential confounders and clustering within enrollment site, while also examining a limited number of prespecified explanatory factors, including nodule size, mode of detection, type of ordering clinician, and lack of timely notification prior to contact by the study team. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 34,699 patients; 2,049 individuals completed the baseline survey (5.9%). Respondents and nonrespondents had similar demographic and nodule characteristics, although more respondents were non-Hispanic and White. Impact of Event Scale-Revised scores indicated mild, moderate, or severe distress in 32.2%, 9.4%, and 7.2% of respondents, respectively, with no difference in scores between study arms. Following adjustment, greater emotional distress was associated with larger nodule size and lack of timely notification by a clinician; distress was also associated with younger age, female sex, ever smoking, Black race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Anxiety was associated with lack of timely notification, ever smoking, and female sex. INTERPRETATION: Almost one-half of respondents experienced emotional distress 6 to 8 weeks following pulmonary nodule identification. Strategies are needed to mitigate the burden of distress, especially in younger, female, ever smoking, and minoritized patients, and those with larger nodules. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02623712; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Intersection of Palliative Care and Hospice Use Among Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer.

Background: Hospice and palliative care (PC) are important components of lung cancer care and independently provide benefits to patients and their families. Objective: To better understand the relationship between hospice and PC and factors that influence this relationship. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (stage IIIB/IV) within the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA) from 2007 to 2013 with follow-up through 2017 (n = 22,907). Mixed logistic regression models with a random effect for site, adjustment for patient variables, and propensity score weighting were used to examine whether the association between PC and hospice use varied by U.S. region and PC team characteristics. Results: Overall, 57% of patients with lung cancer received PC, 69% received hospice, and 16% received neither. Of those who received hospice, 60% were already enrolled in PC. Patients who received PC had higher odds of hospice enrollment than patients who did not receive PC (adjusted odds ratio = 3.25, 95% confidence interval: 2.43-4.36). There were regional differences among patients who received PC; the predicted probability of hospice enrollment was 85% and 73% in the Southeast and Northeast, respectively. PC team and facility characteristics influenced hospice use in addition to PC; teams with the shortest duration of existence, with formal team training, and at lower hospital complexity were more likely to use hospice (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Among patients with advanced lung cancer, PC was associated with hospice enrollment. However, this relationship varied by geographic region, and PC team and facility characteristics. Our findings suggest that regional PC resource availability may contribute to substitution effects between PC and hospice for end-of-life care.

National Survey of Lung Cancer Screening Practices in Veterans Health Administration Facilities.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening can save lives through the early detection of lung cancer, and professional societies recommend key lung cancer screening program components to ensure high-quality screening. Yet, little is known about the key components that comprise the various screening program models in routine clinical settings. The objective was to compare the utilization of these key components across centralized, hybrid, and decentralized lung cancer screening programs. METHODS: The survey was designed to identify current structures and processes of lung cancer screening programs. It was administered electronically to Veterans Health Administration facilities nationally (N=122) between August and December 2021. Results were analyzed between March and August 2022 and stratified by self-identified lung cancer screening program type, and we tested the hypothesis that centralized screening programs would be more likely to have implemented practices that support lung cancer screening, followed by hybrid and decentralized programs, using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. RESULTS: Overall, 69 (56.6%) facilities completed the survey, and respondents were lung cancer screening coordinators (39.1%), pulmonologists (33.3%), and oncologists (10.1%). Facilities most frequently self-identified as having a centralized (37.7%) program model, followed by identifying as having hybrid (30.4%) and decentralized (20.3%) programs. There was varying implementation of practices to support lung cancer screening, with hybrid and decentralized programs less likely to have lung cancer screening registries, lung cancer screening steering committees, or dedicated lung cancer screening coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is overlap between the components of various lung cancer screening program types, centralized programs more frequently implemented practices before the initial screening to support lung cancer screening. This work provides a path for future investigations to identify which lung cancer screening practices are effective to improve lung cancer screening outcomes, which could help inform implementation in settings with limited resources.

The Association of Organizational Readiness With Lung Cancer Screening Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening is widely underutilized. Organizational factors, such as readiness for change and belief in the value of change (change valence), may contribute to underutilization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between healthcare organizations' preparedness and lung cancer screening utilization. METHODS: Investigators cross-sectionally surveyed clinicians, staff, and leaders at10 Veterans Affairs from November 2018 to February 2021 to assess organizational readiness to implement change. In 2022, investigators used simple and multivariable linear regression to evaluate the associations between facility-level organizational readiness to implement change and change valence with lung cancer screening utilization. Organizational readiness to implement change and change valence were calculated from individual surveys. The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible Veterans screened using low-dose computed tomography. Secondary analyses assessed scores by healthcare role. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 27.4% (n=1,049), with 956 complete surveys analyzed: median age of 49 years, 70.3% female, 67.6% White, 34.6% clinicians, 61.1% staff, and 4.3% leaders. For each 1-point increase in median organizational readiness to implement change and change valence, there was an associated 8.4-percentage point (95% CI=0.2, 16.6) and a 6.3-percentage point increase in utilization (95% CI= -3.9, 16.5), respectively. Higher clinician and staff median scores were associated with increased utilization, whereas leader scores were associated with decreased utilization after adjusting for other roles. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare organizations with higher readiness and change valence utilized more lung cancer screening. These results are hypothesis generating. Future interventions to increase organizations' preparedness, especially among clinicians and staff, may increase lung cancer screening utilization.