"We don't get that information right back to us unless it's a full-blown cancer": Challenges coordinating lung cancer screening across healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how lung cancer screening (LCS) is coordinated across healthcare systems, specifically Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA settings. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We conducted primary qualitative data collection in six VA medical centers with established LCS programs from November 2020 to November 2021. STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 48 primary care providers, LCS program coordinators and directors, and pulmonologists. Thematic analysis examined spontaneously raised narratives related to initiating and coordinating LCS for Veterans screened in non-VA settings. We mapped coordination challenges to each step of the LCS care continuum. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: While non-VA options increased access to LCS for Veterans, VA medical centers lacked clear processes for initiating LCS referrals and tracking Veterans across the LCS continuum when screening occurred in non-VA settings. The responsibility of coordinating LCS with community providers often fell to VA primary care providers rather than LCS programs. Gaps in communication and data transfer contributed to delayed evaluation of potentially cancerous nodules post-screening, raising concerns about compromised care quality when LCS was shared with non-VA settings. CONCLUSIONS: While policies expanding LCS for Veterans in non-VA settings increase access, lack of consistent processes to initiate referrals, obtain results, and promote timely downstream evaluation fragmented care and delayed evaluation of concerning nodules. These unintended consequences highlight a need to address cross-system coordination challenges. Strategies to better coordinate LCS between VA and non-VA settings are essential to achieve high quality LCS and prevent Veterans from falling through the cracks.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making. RESULTS: Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

Tackling Guideline Non-concordance: Primary Care Barriers to Incorporating Life Expectancy into Lung Cancer Screening Decision-Making-A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) are often the first point of contact for discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) with patients. While guidelines recommend against screening people with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are less likely to benefit, these patients are regularly referred for LCS. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand barriers PCPs face to incorporating life expectancy into LCS decision-making for patients who otherwise meet eligibility criteria, and how a hypothetical point-of-care tool could support patient selection. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on semi-structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one PCPs who refer patients for LCS, from six Veterans Health Administration facilities. APPROACH: We thematically analyzed interviews to understand how PCPs incorporated life expectancy into LCS decision-making and PCPs' receptivity to a point-of-care tool to support patient selection. Final themes were organized according to the Cabana et al. framework Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines, capturing the influence of clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on LCS appropriateness determinations. KEY RESULTS: PCP referrals to LCS for patients with LLE were influenced by limited knowledge of the life expectancy threshold at which patients are less likely to benefit from LCS, discomfort estimating life expectancy, fear of missing cancer at the point of early detection, and prioritization of factors such as quality of life, patient values, clinician-patient relationship, and family support. PCPs were receptive to a decision support tool to inform and communicate LCS appropriateness decisions if easy to use and integrated into clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests knowledge gaps and attitudes may drive decisions to offer screening despite LLE, a behavior counter to guideline recommendations. Integrating a LCS decision support tool that incorporates life expectancy within the electronic medical record and existing clinical workflows may be one acceptable solution to improve guideline concordance and increase confidence in selecting high benefit patients for LCS.

Towards a framework for patient-centred care coordination: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-centred care and care coordination are each key priority areas for delivering high quality healthcare. However, the intersection between these two concepts is poorly characterised. We theorise that greater advancements in healthcare quality could be realised when care is organised in a way that aligns with patients' preferences, needs and values across every level of the healthcare system. There is currently no published review that describes the intersection of patient-centred care and care coordination. We will undertake a scoping review that will be foundational to the development of a conceptual framework for patient-centred care coordination that integrates and synthesises the overlap between these two concepts and describe how it manifests across levels of the healthcare system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multidisciplinary team of reviewers will conduct a scoping review of published and grey literature to identify and synthesise key concepts at the intersection of patient-centred care and care coordination, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidance for scoping reviews. Databases we will use in our search include PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Social Sciences Abstracts, Nursing and Allied Health Premium, Health and Medical Collection, and PsycINFO. Articles will be included that are English-language; published during or after 2001; describe a theory, conceptual model, theoretical framework or definition that addresses both patient-centred care and care coordination. Articles will be excluded if they do not address the intersection of patient-centred care and care coordination; discuss a patient-centred medical home without discussion on patient-centred care concepts; or discuss a paediatric, inpatient or palliative care setting. A data extraction template will facilitate qualitative thematic analysis and findings will be synthesised into a conceptual framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This work does not require ethics approval. A preliminary framework will be presented to a group of patient stakeholders for refinement before dissemination through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.

Primary care provider perceptions and experiences of implementing hepatitis C virus birth cohort testing: a qualitative formative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopted a screening test policy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in all "Baby Boomers" - those born between 1945 and 1965. About 1 in 12 Veterans were estimated to be infected with HCV yet approximately 34% of the birth cohort remained untested. Early HCV diagnosis and successful antiviral treatment decrease the risk of onward transmission, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant, and death. Implementing evidence-based HCV screening in primary care has great potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. To inform design and implementation of a quality improvement intervention, we studied primary care provider (PCP) perceptions of and experiences with HCV birth cohort testing. METHODS: We conducted a formative evaluation using qualitative semi-structured interviews guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework. Twenty-two PCPs in six states across a large integrated US healthcare system were interviewed. Content analysis with a priori and emergent codes was performed on verbatim interview transcripts. RESULTS: We identified three themes related to primary care provider HCV testing and linkage practices, as mapped to i-PARIHS constructs: 1) evaluating cues to HCV testing (innovation/evidence), 2) framing HCV testing decisions (recipients), and 3) HCV testing and linkage to care in the new treatment era (context). The most frequently reported HCV testing cue was an electronic clinical reminder alert, followed by clinical markers and the presence of behavioral risk factors. Most PCPs saw testing as routine, but less urgent, leading to some reluctance. Providers largely saw themselves as performing guideline-concordant testing, yet no performance data were available to assess performance. Given the recent availability of new HCV medications, many PCPs were highly motivated to test and link patients to specialty care for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a multi-component intervention around awareness and education, feedback of performance data, clinical reminder updates, and leadership support, would address both a significant need, and be deemed acceptable and feasible to primary care providers.