Developing Appropriateness Criteria for Pediatric Vascular Access.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the methodology undertaken to provide guidance on the appropriateness, as well as inappropriateness, of vascular access device selection, characteristics, and insertion technique for pediatric patients. METHODS: The RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used. After definition of key terms and scope, a systematic review of the pediatric vascular access literature was undertaken. Clinical scenarios were developed to reflect the common indications for vascular access across pediatric health care. These were sectioned according to (1) device selection, (2) device characteristics, and (3) insertion technique. An interdisciplinary panel of experts (N = 14) consisting of leading experts representing diverse pediatric clinical disciplines including anesthesiology, cardiology and cardiac surgery, critical care and emergency, general surgery, hematology and oncology, hospital medicine, infectious disease, interventional radiology, pharmacology, regional pediatric hospitalist, and vascular access nursing specialties was convened. The scenarios were rated for appropriateness by the panel over 2 rounds (1 [highly inappropriate] to 9 [highly appropriate]). Round 1 ratings were completed anonymously and independently by panel members and classified into 3 levels of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate, or disagreement. For round 2, panelists met in-person to discuss the round 1 ratings and independently rerated the indications. All indications were reclassified into 3 levels of appropriateness or disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: The RAND Corporation-University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method provides a rigorous, in-depth and transparent methodology to develop the first appropriateness criteria for the selection of pediatric vascular access devices in a range of patient groups.

Catheter management after benign transurethral prostate surgery: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To formally assess the appropriateness of different timings of urethral catheter removal after transurethral prostate resection or ablation. Although urethral catheter placement is routine after this common treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), no guidelines inform duration of catheter use. STUDY DESIGN: RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: Using a standardized, multiround rating process (ie, the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology), an 11-member multidisciplinary panel reviewed a literature summary and rated clinical scenarios for urethral catheter duration after transurethral prostate surgery for BPH as appropriate (ie, benefits outweigh risks), inappropriate, or of uncertain appropriateness. We examined appropriateness across 4 clinical scenarios (no preexisting catheter, preexisting catheter [including intermittent], difficult catheter placement, significant perforation) and 5 durations (postoperative day [POD] 0, 1, 2, 3-6, or ≥7). RESULTS: Urethral catheter removal and first trial of void on POD 1 was rated appropriate for all scenarios except clinically significant perforations. In this case, waiting until POD 3 was deemed the earliest appropriate timing. Waiting 3 or more days to remove the catheter for patients with or without preexisting catheter needs, or for those with difficult catheter placement in the operating room, was rated as inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: We defined clinically relevant guidance statements for the appropriateness of urethral catheter duration after transurethral prostate surgery. Given the lack of guidelines and this robust expert panel approach, these ratings may help clinicians and healthcare systems improve the consistency and quality of care for patients undergoing transurethral surgery for BPH.

Michigan Appropriate Perioperative (MAP) criteria for urinary catheter use in common general and orthopaedic surgeries: results obtained using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Indwelling urinary catheters are commonly used for patients undergoing general and orthopaedic surgery. Despite infectious and non-infectious harms of urinary catheters, there is limited guidance available to surgery teams regarding appropriate perioperative catheter use. OBJECTIVE: Using the RAND Corporation/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method, we assessed the appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheter placement and different timings of catheter removal for routine general and orthopaedic surgery procedures. METHODS: Two multidisciplinary panels consisting of 13 and 11 members (physicians and nurses) for general and orthopaedic surgery, respectively, reviewed the available literature regarding the impact of different perioperative catheter use strategies. Using a standardised, multiround rating process, the panels independently rated clinical scenarios (91 general surgery, 36 orthopaedic surgery) for urinary catheter placement and postoperative duration of use as appropriate (ie, benefits outweigh risks), inappropriate or of uncertain appropriateness. RESULTS: Appropriateness of catheter use varied by procedure, accounting for procedure-specific risks as well as expected procedure time and intravenous fluids. Procedural appropriateness ratings for catheters were summarised for clinical use into three groups: (1) can perform surgery without catheter; (2) use intraoperatively only, ideally remove before leaving the operating room; and (3) use intraoperatively and keep catheter until postoperative days 1-4. Specific recommendations were provided by procedure, with postoperative day 1 being appropriate for catheter removal for first voiding trial for many procedures. CONCLUSION: We defined the appropriateness of indwelling urinary catheter use during and after common general and orthopaedic surgical procedures. These ratings may help reduce catheter-associated complications for patients undergoing these procedures.

Perceived Barriers to Implementing Individual Choosing Wisely® Recommendations in Two National Surveys of Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: While some research has examined general attitudes about efforts to reduce overutilization of services, such as the Choosing Wisely® (CW) initiative, little data exists regarding primary care providers' attitudes regarding individual recommendations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify whether particular CW recommendations were perceived by primary care providers as difficult to follow, difficult for patients to accept, or both. DESIGN: Two national surveys, one by mail to a random sample of 2000 U.S. primary care physicians in November 2013, and the second electronically to a random sample of 2500 VA primary care providers (PCPs) in October-December 2014. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 603 U.S. primary care physicians and 1173 VA primary care providers. Response rates were 34 and 48 %, respectively. MAIN MEASURES: PCP ratings of whether 12 CW recommendations for screening, testing and treatments applicable to adult primary care were difficult to follow and difficult for patients to accept; and ratings of potential barriers to reducing overutilization. KEY RESULTS: For four recommendations regarding not screening or testing in asymptomatic patients, less than 20 % of PCPs found the CW recommendations difficult to accept (range 7.2-16.6 %) or difficult for patients to follow (12.2-19.3 %). For five recommendations regarding testing or treatment for symptomatic conditions, however, there was both variation in reported difficulty to follow (9.8-32 %) and a high level of reported difficulty for patients to accept (35.7-87.1 %). The most frequently reported barriers to reducing overuse included malpractice concern, patient requests for services, lack of time for shared decision making, and the number of tests recommended by specialists. CONCLUSIONS: While PCPs found many CW recommendations easy to follow, they felt that some, especially those for symptomatic conditions, would be difficult for patients to accept. Overcoming PCPs' perceptions of patient acceptability will require approaches beyond routine physician education, feedback and financial incentives.

Appropriateness Criteria for Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The adoption of active surveillance varies widely across urological communities, which suggests a need for more consistency in the counseling of patients. To address this need we used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop appropriateness criteria and counseling statements for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panelists were recruited from MUSIC urology practices. Combinations of parameters thought to influence decision making were used to create and score 160 theoretical clinical scenarios for appropriateness of active surveillance. Recent rates of active surveillance among real patients across the state were assessed using the MUSIC registry. RESULTS: Low volume Gleason 6 was deemed highly appropriate for active surveillance whereas high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4 were deemed appropriate to uncertain. No scenario was deemed inappropriate or highly inappropriate. Prostate specific antigen density, race and life expectancy impacted scores for intermediate and high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. The greatest degree of score dispersion (disagreement) occurred in scenarios with long life expectancy, high volume Gleason 6 and low volume Gleason 3+4. Recent rates of active surveillance use among real patients ranged from 0% to 100% at the provider level for low or intermediate biopsy volume Gleason 6, demonstrating a clear opportunity for quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: By virtue of this work urologists have the opportunity to present specific recommendations from the panel to their individual patients. Community-wide efforts aimed at increasing rates of active surveillance and reducing practice and physician level variation in the choice of active surveillance vs treatment are warranted.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

The Ann Arbor Criteria for Appropriate Urinary Catheter Use in Hospitalized Medical Patients: Results Obtained by Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Interventions to reduce urinary catheter use involve lists of "appropriate" indications developed from limited evidence without substantial multidisciplinary input. Implementing these lists, however, is challenging given broad interpretation of indications, such as "critical illness." To refine criteria for appropriate catheter use-defined as use in which benefits outweigh risks-the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied. After reviewing the literature, a 15-member multidisciplinary panel of physicians, nurses, and specialists in infection prevention rated scenarios for catheter use as appropriate, inappropriate, or of uncertain appropriateness by using a standardized, multiround rating process. The appropriateness of Foley catheters, intermittent straight catheters (ISCs), and external condom catheters for hospitalized adults on medical services was assessed in 299 scenarios, including urinary retention, incontinence, wounds, urine volume measurement, urine sample collection, and comfort. The scenarios included patient-specific issues, such as difficulty turning and catheter placement challenges. The panel rated 105 Foley scenarios (43 appropriate, 48 inappropriate, 14 uncertain), 97 ISC scenarios (15 appropriate, 66 inappropriate, 16 uncertain), and 97 external catheter scenarios (30 appropriate, 51 inappropriate, 16 uncertain). The refined criteria clarify that Foley catheters are appropriate for measuring and collecting urine only when fluid status or urine cannot be assessed by other means; specify that patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) need specific medical indications for catheters because ICU location alone is not an appropriate indication; and recognize that Foley and external catheters may be pragmatically appropriate to manage urinary incontinence in select patients. These new appropriateness criteria can inform large-scale collaborative and bedside efforts to reduce inappropriate urinary catheter use.

Engagement with automated patient monitoring and self-management support calls: experience with a thousand chronically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient self-care support via Interactive Voice Response (IVR) can improve disease management. However, little is known about the factors affecting program engagement. METHODS: We compiled data on IVR program engagement for 1173 patients with: heart failure, depression, diabetes, or cancer who were followed for 28,962 person-weeks. Patients in programs for diabetes or depression (N=727) had the option of participating along with an informal caregiver who received electronic feedback based on the patient's IVR assessments. Analyses focused on factors associated with completing weekly IVR calls. RESULTS: Patients were on average 61 years old, 37% had at most a high school education, and 48% reported incomes of ≤$30,000. Among patients given the option of participating with an informal caregiver, 65% chose to do so. Patients completed 83% of attempted IVR assessments, with rates higher for heart failure (90%) and cancer programs (90%) than for the diabetes (81%) or depression programs (71%) (P<0.001). Among patients in diabetes or depression programs, those opting to have feedback provided to an informal caregiver were more likely to complete assessments [adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.77]. Older patients had higher call completion rates, even among patients aged 75 years and older. Missed clinic appointments, prior hospitalizations, depression program participation, and poorer mental health were associated with lower completion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a variety of chronic conditions will complete IVR self-care support calls regularly. Risk factors for missed IVR calls overlap with those for missed appointments. Involvement of informal caregivers may significantly increase engagement.

Solitary pulmonary nodules and masses: a meta-analysis of the diagnostic utility of alternative imaging tests.

The purpose was to assess the clinical utility of diagnostic tests for identifying malignancy within a solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN), and to create a nomogram or "look-up" table using clinical data and non-invasive radiology (positive) test results to estimate post-test probability of malignancy. Studies that examined computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for the evaluation of SPN. Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality. Study-specific and overall positive likelihood ratios (LRs) for each diagnostic test confirming a diagnosis of malignancy and negative LR for each diagnostic test excluding a diagnosis of malignancy within an SPN were calculated. Forty-four of 242 articles were included. Positive LRs for diagnostic tests were: CT 3.91 (95% confidence interval 2.42, 5.40), MRI 4.57 (3.03, 6.1), PET 5.44 (3.56, 7.32) and SPECT 5.16 (4.03, 6.30). Negative LRs were: CT 0.10 (0.03, 0.16), MRI 0.08 (0.03, 0.12), PET 0.06 (0.02, 0.09) and SPECT 0.06 (0.04, 0.08). Differences in performance for all tests were negligible; therefore, the clinician may confidently use any of the four tests presented in further evaluating an SPN. Given the low cost and prevalence of the technology, SPECT appears to be the leading choice for additional testing in SPN evaluation.

Meta-analysis: effectiveness of drugs for preventing contrast-induced nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: N-Acetylcysteine, theophylline, and other agents have shown inconsistent results in reducing contrast-induced nephropathy. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of these agents on preventing nephropathy. DATA SOURCES: Relevant randomized, controlled trials were identified by computerized searches in MEDLINE (from 1966 through 3 November 2006), EMBASE (1980 through November 2006), PubMed, Web of Knowledge (Current Contents Connect, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, and ISI Proceedings for the latest 5 years), and the Cochrane Library databases (up to November 2006). Databases were searched for studies in English, Spanish, French, Italian, and German. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials that administered N-acetylcysteine, theophylline, fenoldopam, dopamine, iloprost, statin, furosemide, or mannitol to a treatment group; used intravenous iodinated contrast; defined contrast-induced nephropathy explicitly; and reported sufficient data to construct a 2 x 2 table of the primary effect measure. DATA EXTRACTION: Abstracted information included patient characteristics, type of contrast media and dose, periprocedural hydration, definition of contrast-induced nephropathy, and prophylactic agent dose and route. DATA SYNTHESIS: In the 41 studies included, N-acetylcysteine (relative risk, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.88]) and theophylline (relative risk, 0.49 [CI, 0.23 to 1.06]) reduced the risk for contrast-induced nephropathy more than saline alone, whereas furosemide increased it (relative risk, 3.27 [CI, 1.48 to 7.26]). The remaining agents did not significantly affect risk. Significant subgroup heterogeneity was present only for N-acetylcysteine. No publication bias was discerned. LIMITATIONS: All trials evaluated the surrogate end point of contrast-induced nephropathy as the primary outcome. The lack of a statistically significant renoprotective effect of theophylline may result from insufficient data or study heterogeneity. True study quality remains uncertain. CONCLUSION: N-acetylcysteine is more renoprotective than hydration alone. Theophylline may also reduce risk for contrast-induced nephropathy, although the detected association was not significant. Our data support the administration of N-acetylcysteine prophylaxis, particularly in high-risk patients, given its low cost, availability, and few side effects.

Area socioeconomic status and mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the role of hospital volume.

BACKGROUND: Individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) have reduced access to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). It is unknown if low-SES CABG patients have reduced access to hospitals with better outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of the California CABG Mortality Reporting Program, consisting of individuals with zip code information who underwent CABG at participating hospitals in 1999-2000 (n = 18,961). Primary outcome measures were inhospital mortality after CABG; primary independent variables of interest were area-level SES, clinical risk factors, and hospital volume. We used 2-level hierarchical random-effects logit models to estimate the relationship between explanatory variables and inhospital mortality. RESULTS: Within high-volume hospitals, patients of low-SES areas had greater mortality than those of mid- and high-SES areas (2.5% vs 1.5% vs 1.8%, P = .024). However, there was no relationship between SES and mortality in lower-volume hospitals. Contrary to expectations, individuals of high-SES areas (42%) underwent surgery at low-volume hospitals more often than patients of low-SES areas (28%, P < .001), although mortality at low-volume hospitals was greater than that at high-volume facilities (P < .001). Discrepancies were not explained by distance traveled. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after CABG is modified by both SES and hospital volume. Within high-volume hospitals, patients of low-SES areas fared worse than patients of higher-SES areas. Patients of high SES tended to have CABG surgery at low-volume hospitals where mortality was greater and therefore had higher mortality than expected.

Missed opportunities for type 2 diabetes mellitus screening among women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine rates and factors associated with screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We retrospectively studied women with diagnosed gestational diabetes mellitus who delivered at a university-affiliated hospital (n=570). Data sources included medical and administrative record review. Main outcome measures were the frequency of any type of glucose testing at least 6 weeks after delivery and the frequency of recommended glucose testing. We assessed demographic data, past medical history, and prenatal and postpartum care characteristics. RESULTS: Rates of glucose testing after delivery were low. Any type of glucose testing was performed at least once after 38% of deliveries, and recommended glucose testing was performed at least once after 23% of deliveries. Among women with at least 1 visit to the health care system after delivery (n=447), 42% received any type of glucose test at least once, and 35% received a recommended glucose test at least once. Factors associated with testing were being married, having a visit with an endocrinologist after delivery, and having more visits after delivery. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that most women with gestational diabetes mellitus are not screened for type 2 DM after delivery. Opportunities for DM prevention and early treatment are being missed.

Gender disparities in lipid management: the presence of disparities depends on the quality measure.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the use of a more detailed quality measure affected the finding of gender disparities in lipid management. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Study subjects included 2589 patients with diabetes mellitus in a managed care plan in 2000-2001. We compared the quality of lipid management in men and women using the following 3 measures: (1) the traditional screening measure (measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] level), (2) the LDL-C level (ie, among those with an LDL-C level measured, an LDL-C level < 130 mg/dL [< 3.37 mmol/L]), and (3) a more detailed appropriate management measure (an LDL-C level < 130 mg/dL or an LDL-C level >or= 130 mg/dL plus statin initiation or intensification). Multivariate models were adjusted for clustering within clinic and for patient age, insulin use, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, congestive heart failure, and number of visits. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, using the traditional screening measure, women were less likely to be screened than men (P < .001). Using the LDL-C measure, women were less likely to have an LDL-C level less than 130 mg/dL (P = .047). However, using the appropriate management measure, women were as likely to receive appropriate management as men once their lipid levels were measured (P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: Quality measures that only examine LDL-C screening or LDL-C levels may demonstrate that women receive poorer lipid management than men among patients with diabetes mellitus. However, this gender disparity does not persist with the use of a more detailed measure.

Colorectal cancer screening behavior in women attending screening mammography: longitudinal trends and predictors.

PURPOSE: Nationally representative surveys demonstrate that the adherence to screening mammography guidelines are associated with increased prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; however, the incidence of CRC screening in the screening mammography population is unknown. Our purpose was to describe non-fecal occult blood test (FOBT) CRC screening utilization by women prior to and subsequent to screening mammography at a large academic medical center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the institutional administrative data base, 17,790 women aged 50 and older who underwent screening mammography between 1998 and 2002 were retrospectively identified. We determined that women were current with non-FOBT CRC screening at the time of mammography if they had undergone flexible sigmoidoscopy or double-contrast barium enema in the 5 years or colonoscopy since 1995, the earliest for which data are available. We excluded FOBT as a form of CRC screening because the administrative data base did not adequately capture episodes of FOBT. Women who were not current were considered eligible for non-FOBT CRC screening. We then assessed the number of women who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy, barium enema, or colonoscopy within 12 months following mammography. Age, insurance status, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification, recommendations after screening mammography and year of mammography were examined as potential predictors of non-FOBT CRC screening completion. RESULTS: At the time of mammography, 13.3% women were current with non-FOBT CRC screening. Of women eligible for non-FOBT CRC screening at the time of mammography, 1.1% completed non-FOBT CRC screening within 12 months after mammography. The rate of non-FOBT CRC screening completion increased over time. After multivariate analysis, being insured by a commercial managed care organization or by Medicaid remained significant predictors of non-FOBT CRC screening. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of non-FOBT CRC screening is low in the population of women undergoing screening mammography, with an incidence of 1.0%. Future studies should examine whether delivering CRC screening interventions at a screening mammography visit increase adherence to non-FOBT CRC screening.

Associations in breast and colon cancer screening behavior in women.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Gender-based psychosocial factors appear to influence colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. Given its near-universal acceptance by the public, screening mammography represents a potential "teachable moment" for educating patients about the risk of CRC. Accordingly, to better understand screening behaviors among women, data from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) were analyzed to identify potential relationships that would allow interventions to enhance CRC screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women 50 years and older who participated in the BRFSS 2001 survey were included in the analysis. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening adherence with American Cancer Society guidelines was determined. We identified the association between breast and cervical cancer screening adherence and general health and demographic characteristics with CRC screening adherence. RESULTS: After adjustment for sociodemographic factors in a multivariate analysis, women 60-69 years old (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.50; P < .01) and 70-79 years old (adjusted OR, 1.39; P < .01), having achieved at least some high school (adjusted OR, 1.62; P < .01) or college (adjusted OR, 2.11; P < .01) education, having health coverage (adjusted OR, 1.67; P < .01) or a personal physician (adjusted OR, 1.60; P < .01), and adherence to screening mammography (adjusted OR, 2.42; P < .01) and Pap smear (adjusted OR, 1.70; P < .01) were independently associated with an increased likelihood CRC screening adherence. Women in self-reported good general health were less likely to have adhered to CRC screening guidelines (adjusted OR, 0.79; P < .01). Current smokers were also less likely to have adhered to CRC screening guidelines than were women who never smoked or formerly smoked (adjusted OR, 0.76; P < .01). Participants who adhered to both mammography and Pap smear guidelines were significantly more likely to adhere to CRC screening (51.5% CRC screening adherence) compared with women who adhered to neither screening test (8.2% CRC screening adherence), with an adjusted OR of 5.67 (P < .001). Participants who adhered to both mammography and Pap smear guidelines were significantly more likely to adhere to CRC screening than were women who adhered to either screening test (38.0% CRC screening adherence) with an adjusted OR of 1.94 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Women with up-to-date mammography and cervical cancer screening were more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening. Regardless of the increased association between non-CRC-related cancer screening and CRC screening, rates of CRC screening utilization remained low in these otherwise compliant populations.

Impact of patient risk on the hospital volume-outcome relationship in coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: The impact of surgical risk on the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is uncertain. We assessed (1) whether in-hospital mortality rates differ across lower- and higher-volume hospitals by expected surgical risk and (2) whether high-risk patients are more likely to undergo CABG at low-volume centers. METHODS: We used clinical data on 27,355 adults who underwent CABG at 68 hospitals in California between 1997 and 1998. Hospitals were divided into low-volume (n=44), medium-volume (n=19), and high-volume (n=5) categories on the basis of tertiles of annual CABG volume. Using hierarchical logistic regression and log-binomial regression models, we assessed for differences in in-hospital mortality rates across hospital volume categories and the likelihood of CABG being performed in each hospital volume category after adjusting for expected surgical risk. RESULTS: Differences in adjusted in-hospital mortality rates between low- and high-volume centers rose as the expected risk of in-hospital death increased: 0.8% vs 0.4% at the 20th risk percentile and 3.8% vs 2.5% at the 80th risk percentile (P<.001 for all comparisons). While a similar trend was seen between medium- and high-volume centers, absolute differences were substantially smaller. The likelihood of patients having surgery at a low-volume center also rose significantly with expected surgical risk (relative risk of undergoing CABG at a low-volume center for patients at 80th vs 20th risk percentile, 1.29 [95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.51; P<.001]). CONCLUSION: High-risk patients are more likely to undergo CABG at low-volume facilities where their risk of dying is higher.

Behavioral associations between prostate and colon cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Despite the controversy over the utility of routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in reducing prostate cancer-specific mortality, it has gained widespread use throughout the United States. Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC mortality and appears to be cost effective, CRC screening adherence is suboptimal. To better understand screening behaviors among men, the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey was used to identify potential relationships that would allow interventions to enhance CRC screening. STUDY DESIGN: We included in our analysis 22,304 men, 50 years and older, who participated in the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey. Chi-square and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the independent correlates of adherence to CRC screening. Independent variables evaluated were age, race, educational level, employment status, income, health insurance, the presence of a personal physician, self-reported general health, current smoking status, and receiving a PSA test. RESULTS: Men were more adherent with PSA screening than CRC screening (50.4% versus 47.6%;p < 0.002). In multivariate analysis, adherence to PSA screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.24, p < 0.001) exerted the largest independent effect on CRC screening adherence. Other positive correlates of adherence to CRC screening were having health insurance (adjusted OR 1.39, p < 0.01) and a personal physician (adjusted OR 2.01, p < 0.01). Age predicted CRC screening with an inverse-U correlation. Failure to adhere to CRC screening was associated with self-reported good health (adjusted OR 0.87, p < 0.01) and being a current smoker (adjusted OR 0.65, p < 0.01). Even in men who were compliant with PSA testing, CRC screening remained suboptimal (65%). CONCLUSIONS: More men received PSA testing than CRC screening. Men who received PSA testing were more likely to adhere to CRC screening. Taken together, PSA testing may represent a "teachable moment" for a behavior-related intervention aimed at reducing the risk of colon cancer. Targeting men who already accept one form of cancer screening can potentially increase CRC screening adherence.

Completion of colorectal cancer screening in women attending screening mammography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to begin at age 50 in individuals at average risk for CRC. To estimate rate at which women eligible for CRC screening at the time of screening mammography attendance later completed in CRC screening, we retrospectively evaluated CRC screening utilization in women who underwent screening mammography at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 3357 women between the ages of 50 to 75 who received screening mammography in 1998 at a single academic medical center using the institution's Radiology Information System (RIS). Additional information collected from the institution's Health System Data Warehouse and the Radiology department's mammography quality assurance data included mammography results, Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS) classification of mammography findings, recommendation for screening mammography follow-up, insurance status, and CRC screening utilization after screening mammography. After excluding women who were current with CRC screening at the time of mammography, we determined the proportion of eligible women who completed CRC screening after mammography. Age, insurance type, BI-RADS code, and recommendation code were evaluated as potential predictors of CRC screening completion in eligible women. RESULTS: Of the 3357 women between the ages of 50 and 75 who received screening mammography in 1998, only 414 (12.3%) were current with CRC screening at the time of screening mammography. Of the remaining 2943 women who were eligible for CRC screening at the time of screening mammography, 142 (4.8%) subsequently completed CRC screening. Average time to completion of CRC screening after screening mammography is 35.4 months (range, 0.27-64.9). Managed care insurance was the only significant predictor of CRC screening completion after screening mammography in eligible women after adjusting for other variables (adjusted OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21-2.47, P < .0001). Neither BI-RADS classification nor postmammography recommendations were significantly associated with CRC screening completion. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence studies have demonstrated that women who were compliant with screening mammography were more compliant with CRC screening. Our data suggest that despite this increased compliance, overall incidence of CRC screening is low in the screening mammography population.

Can breast and cervical cancer screening visits be used to enhance colorectal cancer screening?

PURPOSE: Despite high acceptance levels of mammography and cervical cancer screening by U.S. women, adherence with colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. A better understanding of the relationship among cancer screening behaviors by women may provide insight into interventions to enhance colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Women 50 years and older who participated in the 2000 Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey and lived in one of the five states that administered the colorectal cancer module (Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Utah) were queried regarding cancer screening patterns. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening were determined using multivariate analysis from sociodemographic data and non-colorectal cancer screening adherence rates (based on American Cancer Society guidelines). RESULTS: Among the 1300 colorectal cancer module respondents, cancer screening adherence was significantly less for colorectal cancer (24.9%) compared with cervical cancer (57.2%) or breast cancer (78.6%). In multivariate analysis, increasing age, health insurance, adherence with cervical cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.09, p < 0.01) and adherence with breast cancer screening (adjusted OR 1.89, p < 0.01) were independent predictors of colorectal cancer screening. Participants who adhered to both mammography and Pap smear guidelines were significantly more likely to adhere to colorectal cancer screening compared with women who adhered to either screening test alone (adjusted OR 1.88, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women adherent to mammography and cervical cancer screening guidelines were significantly more likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening than those who were not adherent, although colorectal cancer acceptance in the adherent group was still suboptimal. Because psychological barriers to colorectal cancer screening exist, non-colorectal cancer screening visits that women already readily accept potentially represent a setting (or "teachable moment") for the delivery of education and behavior-related interventions aimed at reducing the burden of colorectal cancer.