Identification of barriers at the primary care provider level to improve inflammatory breast cancer diagnosis and management.

The purpose of this study, based in the United States, was to evaluate knowledge gaps and barriers related to diagnosis and care of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a rare but lethal breast cancer subtype, amongst Primary Care Providers (PCP) as they are often the first point of contact when patients notice initial symptoms. PCP participants in the Duke University Health System, federally qualified health center, corporate employee health and community practices, nearby academic medical center, Duke physician assistant and advanced practice nurse leadership program alumni were first selected in a convenience sample and for semi-structured interviews (n = 11). Based on these data, an online survey tool was developed and disseminated (n = 78) to assess salient measures of IBC diagnosis, health disparity factors, referral and care coordination practices, COVID-19 impact, and continuing medical education (CME). PCP reported access to care and knowledge gaps in symptom recognition (mean = 3.3, range 1-7) as major barriers. Only 31 % reported ever suspecting IBC in a patient. PCP (n = 49) responded being challenged with referral delays in diagnostic imaging. Additionally, since the COVID-19 pandemic started, 63 % reported breast cancer referral delays, and 33 % reported diagnosing less breast cancer. PCP stated interest in CME in their practice for improved diagnosis and patient care, which included online (53 %), lunch time or other in-service training (33 %), patient and provider-facing websites (32 %). Challenges communicating rare cancer information, gaps in confidence in diagnosing IBC, and timely follow-up with patients and specialists underscores the need for developing PCP educational modules to improve guideline-concordant care.

Report on CTSA consortium use of the community engagement consulting service.

INTRODUCTION: The CTSA Community Engagement Consultative Service (CECS) is a national partnership designed to improve community engaged research (CEnR) through expert consultation. This report assesses the feasibility of CECS and presents findings from 2008 to 2009. METHODOLOGY: A coordinating center and five regional coordinating sites managed the service. CTSAs identified a primary previsit CE best practice for consultants to address and completed self-assessments, postvisit evaluations, and action plans. Feasibility was assessed as the percent of CTSAs participating and completing evaluations. Frequencies were calculated for evaluation responses. RESULTS: Of the 38 CTSAs, 36 (95%) completed a self-assessment. Of these 36 sites, 83%, 53%, and 44% completed a consultant visit, evaluation, and action plan, respectively, and 56% of the consultants completed an evaluation. The most common best practice identified previsit was improvement in CEnR (addressing outcomes that matter); however, relationship building with communities was most commonly addressed during consulting visits. Although 90% of the consultants were very confident sites could develop an action plan, only 35% were very confident in the CTSAs' abilities to implement one. CONCLUSIONS: Academic medical centers interested in collaborating with communities and translating research to improve health need to further develop their capacity for CE and CEnR within their institutions.