Delivering colonoscopy screening for low-income populations in Suffolk County: strategies, outcomes, and benchmarks.

BACKGROUND: Current and pending legislation provides colorectal cancer screening reimbursement for previously uninsured populations. Colonoscopy is currently the screening method most frequently recommended by physicians for insured patients. The experience of the SCOPE (Suffolk County Preventive Endoscopy) demonstration project (Project SCOPE) at Stony Brook University Medical Center provides a model for delivering colonoscopy screening to low-income populations to meet anticipated increasing demands. METHODS: Project SCOPE, based in the Department of Preventive Medicine, featured internal collaboration with the academic medical center's large gastroenterology practice and external collaboration with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services' network of community health centers. Colonoscopies were performed by faculty gastroenterologists or supervised fellows. Measures of colonoscopy performance were compared with quality indicators and differences between faculty and supervised fellows were identified. RESULTS: During a 40-month screening period, 800 initial colonoscopies were performed. Approximately 21% of women screened were found to have adenomatous polyps compared with 36% of men. Five cancers were detected. The majority of the population screened (70%) were members of minority populations. African American individuals had a higher percentage of proximally located adenomas (78%) compared with white individuals (65%) and Hispanics (49%), based on the location of the most advanced lesion. Hispanic individuals had a 36% lower risk of adenomas compared with white individuals. Performance measures including the percentage of procedures with adequate bowel preparation, cecum reached, scope withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate met quality benchmarks when performed by either faculty or supervised fellows. CONCLUSIONS: Project SCOPE's operational strategies demonstrated a feasible method for an academic medical center to provide high-quality screening colonoscopy for low-income populations.

Clinical case management and navigation for colonoscopy screening in an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: One of 5 nationally funded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Demonstration Programs, Project SCOPE, was conducted at an academic medical center and provided colonoscopy screening at no cost to underserved minority patients from local community health centers. METHODS: Established barriers to CRC screening (eg, financial, language, transportation) among the target population were addressed through clinical coordination of care by key project staff. The use of a clinician with a patient navigator allowed for the performance of precolonoscopy "telephone visits" instead of office visits to the gastroenterologist in virtually all patients. The clinician elicited information relevant to making screening decisions (eg, past medical and surgical history, focused review of systems, medication/supplement use, CRC screening history). The patient navigator reduced barriers, including, but not limited to, scheduling, transportation, and physical navigation of the medical center on the day of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Preprogram preparation was vital in laying groundwork for the project, yet enhancements to the program were ongoing throughout the screening period. Detailed referral forms from primary care physicians, coupled with information obtained during telephone interviews, facilitated high colonoscopy completion rates and excellent patient satisfaction. Similarly valuable was the employment of a bilingual patient navigator, who provided practical and emotional patient support. CONCLUSIONS: Academic medical centers can be efficient models for providing CRC screening to disadvantaged populations. Coordination of care by a preventive medicine department, directing the recruitment, scheduling, prescreening education, and the evaluation and preparation of target populations had an overall positive effect on CRC screening with colonoscopy among patients from a community health center.

An academic medical center model for community colorectal cancer screening: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstration program experience.

During 2005-2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded five colorectal cancer (CRC) screening demonstration projects around the United States; only one was based in an academic medical center (AMC) rather than a health department. The Suffolk County Preventive Endoscopy Project (Project SCOPE) was a collaborative effort between Stony Brook University Medical Center (SBUMC) and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Project SCOPE's objective was to increase CRC screening among Suffolk County residents at least 50 years old who had inadequate or no insurance coverage for CRC screening. The demonstration application drew on the screening, diagnostic, and treatment resources of the AMC and the indigent populations using its outpatient clinics. Patients at 10 county health centers were a primary target for (previously inaccessible) colonoscopy screening. The project's organizational center was SBUMC's preventive medicine department, which was linked to SBUMC's large gastroenterology practice. The specific staffing, financial, and training issues faced by this project provide insights for others who are similarly interested in community engagement. During 40 months of screening, 800 indigent, culturally diverse patients were recruited, and they underwent colonoscopy. Challenges encountered included unreachable referred patients (425 patients; 28% of referrals) and medical ineligibility (e.g., symptomatic comorbid conditions). Pending legislation providing federal funding for a national program offers other AMCs the opportunity to adopt a model such as that proven feasible during Project SCOPE. The lessons learned may have broader application for fostering collaborative AMC partnerships and for enhancing recruitment and retention of participants through outreach.

Migraine history and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women.

PURPOSE Both migraine and breast cancer are hormonally mediated. Two recent reports indicate that women with a migraine history may have a lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer than those who never suffered migraines. This finding requires confirmation; in particular, an assessment of the influence of use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) is needed, because many studies indicate that NSAID use also may confer a reduction in breast cancer risk. METHODS We assessed the relationship between self-reported history of migraine and incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer in 91,116 women enrolled on the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study prospective cohort from 1993 to 1998 at ages 50 to 79 years. Through September 15, 2005, there were 4,006 eligible patients with breast cancer diagnosed. Results Women with a history of migraine had a lower risk of breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 98) than women without a migraine history. This risk did not vary by recent NSAID use. The lower risk was somewhat more pronounced for invasive estrogen-receptor-positive and progesterone-receptor-positive tumors (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97), as no reduction in risk was observed for invasive ER-negative/PR-negative tumors (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.57), and this difference in risk estimates was borderline statistically significant (P = .06). CONCLUSION This study supports the hypothesis that a history of migraine is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer and that this relationship is independent of recent NSAID use.

A provider intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening in county health centers.

BACKGROUND: Publicly-funded health centers serve disadvantaged populations who underuse colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Because physicians play a key role in patient adherence to screening, provider interventions within health center practices could improve the delivery/utilization of CRC screening. METHODS: A 2-group study design was used with 4 pairs of health centers randomized to the intervention or control condition. The provider intervention featured academic detailing of the small practice groups, followed by a strategic planning session with the entire health center staff using SWOT analysis. The outcome measure of provider endoscopy referral/fecal occult blood test dispensing and/or completion of CRC screening was determined by medical record audit (n = 2224). The intervention effect was evaluated using generalized estimating equations. Pre-post intervention patient surveys (n = 281) were conducted. RESULTS: Chart audits of the 1 year period before and after the intervention revealed a 16% increase from baseline in CRC screening referral/dispensing/completion among intervention centers, compared with a 4% increase among controls, odds ratio (OR) = 2.25 (1.67-3.04) P < 0.001. Intervention versus control health center patient self-reports of lack of physician recommendation as a reason for not having CRC screening declined from baseline to follow-up (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Provider referrals/dispensing/completion of CRC screening within health centers was significantly improved and barriers reduced through a provider intervention combining continuing medical education with a team building strategic planning exercise.