Telemedicine-based serious illness conversations, healthcare utilization, and end of life care among patients with advanced lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Little is known about serious illness conversations (SIC) conducted during telemedicine visits and their impact on end-of-life (EOL) outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis telemedicine visits for patients with metastatic lung cancer conducted during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic (October 3, 2020-October 6, 2020). We used natural language processing (NLP) to characterize documentation of SIC domains (ie, goals of care [GOC], limitation of life-sustaining treatment [LLST], prognostic awareness [PA], palliative care [PC], and hospice). We used unadjusted logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with SIC documentation and the relationship between SIC documentation and EOL outcomes. RESULTS: The study included 634 telemedicine visits across 360 patients. Documentation of at least one SIC domain was present in 188 (29.7%) visits with GOC and PA being the most discussed domains. Family presence (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; P = .004), progressive or newly diagnosed disease (OR, 5.42; P < .000), age ≥ 70 (OR, 1.80; P = .009), and male sex (OR, 2.23; P < .000) were associated with a greater likelihood of discussing ≥ 1 SIC domain. Of the 61 patients who died within 12 months of the study period, having ≥ 1 SIC domain discussed was associated with a lower likelihood of hospitalization in the last 30 days of life (OR, 0.27; P = .020). CONCLUSION: In this study of telehealth visits, we identified important factors associated with an increased likelihood of having documentation of an SIC and demonstrated that SIC documentation correlated with lower likelihood of hospitalization at EOL.

Barriers and proposed solutions to at-home colorectal cancer screening tests in medically underserved health centers across three US regions to inform a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: At-home colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an effective way to reduce CRC mortality, but screening rates in medically underserved groups are low. To plan the implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial comparing two population-based outreach approaches, we conducted qualitative research on current processes and barriers to at-home CRC screening in 10 community health centers (CHCs) that serve medically underserved groups, four each in Massachusetts and California, and two tribal facilities in South Dakota. METHODS: We conducted 53 semi-structured interviews with clinical and administrative staff at the participating CHCs. Participants were asked about CRC screening processes, categorized into eight domains: patient identification, outreach, risk assessment, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) workflows, FIT-DNA (i.e., Cologuard) workflows, referral for a follow-up colonoscopy, patient navigation, and educational materials. Transcripts were analyzed using a Rapid Qualitative Analysis approach. A matrix was used to organize and summarize the data into four sub-themes: current process, barriers, facilitators, and solutions to adapt materials for the intervention. RESULTS: Each site's process for stool-based CRC screening varied slightly. Interviewees identified the importance of offering educational materials in English and Spanish, using text messages to remind patients to return kits, adapting materials to address health literacy needs so patients can access instructions in writing, pictures, or video, creating mailed workflows integrated with a tracking system, and offering patient navigation to colonoscopy for patients with an abnormal result. CONCLUSION: Proposed solutions across the three regions will inform a multilevel intervention in a pragmatic trial to increase CRC screening uptake in CHCs.

Vulnerability and Colorectal screening during the pandemic.

Objective: Disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence across United States neighborhoods may reflect social inequities that create barriers to accessing and completing preventive health services. Our objective was to identify whether neighborhood social vulnerability was associated with a change in CRC screening prevalence in Boston neighborhoods during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Adults ages 50-74 years due for CRC screening who received primary care at one of 35 primary care practices affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital or Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA), 3/1/2020 to 3/1/2022. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is an aggregate measure of neighborhood social factors often used by public health authorities to examine neighborhood susceptibility to many health outcomes. Results: In 2020, 74.9 % of eligible individuals were up to date with CRC screening and this fell to 67.4 % in 2022 (p < 0.001). In 2020, 36.2 % of eligible patients lived in a neighborhood above the 80th percentile of SVI, consistent with high social vulnerability, while the same value was 35.1 % in 2022. There was no association between the change in screening prevalence and SVI: a decrease of 5.5 % screened in neighborhoods with SVI ≤ 80 compared to a decrease of 3.6 % in neighborhoods with SVI > 80 (p = 0.79). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic equalized the prevalence of CRC screening across Boston-area neighborhoods despite pre-existing geographic disparities in screening prevalence and SVI. Strategies to ensure equitable participation in CRC screening to promote health equity should be considered to promote equitable pandemic recovery.