Cervical Cancer Screening: Patient Perspectives on Transitioning to Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone.

INTRODUCTION: In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated cervical cancer screening recommendations to allow for screening every 5 years with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) or every 5 years with primary HPV screening alone. Despite these changes, the uptake of primary HPV screening has been lower than expected. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient perspective of an integrated health system transition from cotesting to primary HPV testing among a 30- to 65-year-old cohort. METHODS: Semistructured phone interviews were conducted from July to December 2023 at Kaiser Permanente Colorado with 16 members aged 30-65 years. Interviews asked about reactions to the forthcoming change in cervical cancer screening, personal concern about cervical cancer risk, feedback on patient-facing education materials, and preference on communication timing and modality. RESULTS: Participants reported concerns about cervical cancer screening intervals, primarily the reduction in frequency leading to underdiagnosis of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Participants recommended defining the rationale for the change to primary HPV testing in the patient education materials. Participants preferred communication about the change in-clinic between practitioner and patient. DISCUSSION: The interviews identified key themes, including the differentiation between cervical cancer and STI screening methodologies, potential underdiagnosis of STI and cervical cancer, and the rationale supporting primary HPV testing and associated screening intervals. CONCLUSION: These qualitative findings can inform health systems of potential patient concerns to address when considering the transition from cotesting every 3 years to primary HPV testing every 5 years for cervical cancer screening.

Primary Human Papillomavirus Screening: Women's Perceptions of New Cervical Cancer Screening Recommendations.

Background: Current clinical guidelines recommended primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for cervical cancer testing. Previous studies reported patient-level barriers (e.g., limited knowledge and attachment to Pap test) that may hinder wide adoption of primary HPV screening. We assessed these women-level factors following the implementation of primary HPV screening (July 2020) at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC). Methods: We administered a patient survey (mail and on-line) to female KPSC members aged 30-65 years who received primary HPV screening between October and December 2020. Those who preferred English vs. Spanish language were sampled separately. The survey included domains on knowledge about HPV and HPV screening, awareness of screening guidelines, and attitudes about HPV testing. Demographic data were collected using electronic health records. We used weighted multivariable logistic and modified Poisson regressions for associations between language preference and survey responses. Results: In total, 3,009 surveys were returned (38.0% response rate). Few women (7.0%) found HPV testing as an acceptable screening method. The majority of women (92.2%) remained unaware that HPV testing can replace Pap test for screening. The Pap test was the most preferred screening approach for 33.2% Spanish-speaking women vs. 19.9% English-speaking women. Only 20.6% knew that women aged 30-65 years can be screened every 5 years with cotest or primary HPV screening. Most women (96.4%) did not perceive stigma about taking the HPV test. Conclusion: Proactive patient education will help improve women's knowledge about primary HPV screening, which may facilitate its implementation in additional health care settings.

Advancing rapid cycle research in cancer care delivery: a National Cancer Institute workshop report.

Generating actionable research findings quickly and efficiently is critical for improving the delivery of cancer-related care and outcomes. To address this issue, the National Cancer Institute convened subject matter experts, researchers, clinicians, and patients for a 2-day virtual meeting in February 2022. The purpose of this meeting was to identify how rapid cycle interventional research methods can be used to generate findings useful in improving routine clinical practice. The meeting yielded an initial conceptualization of rapid cycle interventional research as being comprised of 6 key elements: use of iterative study designs; reliance on proximal primary outcomes; early and continued engagement with community and clinical partners; use of existing data sources to measure primary outcomes; facilitative features of the study setting and context; and consideration of appropriate rigor relative to intended use of findings. The meeting also identified the types of study designs that can be leveraged to conduct rapid cycle interventional research and provided examples of these; considered this approach from the perspective of key partners; described the clinical and data infrastructure, research resources, and key collaborations needed to support this work; identified research topics best addressed using this approach; and considered needed methodological advances. The National Cancer Institute is committed to exploring opportunities to encourage further development and application of this research approach as a means for better promoting improvements in the delivery of cancer-related care.

A study protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial for comparing strategies for implementing primary HPV testing for routine cervical cancer screening in a large health care system.

BACKGROUND: Limited guidance exists regarding implementation strategies that best facilitate cancer screening practice substitution and achieve optimal stakeholder-centered outcomes. Here we describe the protocol for a randomized pragmatic trial comparing two implementation strategies to facilitate substitution of primary HPV screening for Pap and HPV co-testing to perform routine cervical cancer screening of women aged 30-65 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC). METHODS: Twelve service areas within KPSC will be randomized to a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation + local-tailored implementation" strategy or a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation only" strategy. The centrally-administered strategy comprises clinician and staff educational activities. Sites in the local-tailored arm will then conduct a structured local needs assessment followed by site-specific selection and deployment of implementation interventions. Surveys and interviews will be conducted among women and providers from the primary care and ob/gyn departments prior to the system-wide transition, shortly after the transition, and after the completion of local-tailored interventions. A stakeholder advisory committee will assist with study design, defining stakeholder-centered outcomes, and developing data collection tools. RESULTS: The primary outcome of interest is uptake of primary HPV screening. Secondary provider-centered outcomes include provider knowledge, delivery of patient education, satisfaction with the practice substitution process, and resistance to primary HPV screening. Secondary patient-centered outcomes include patient knowledge, stigma, and satisfaction with the screening process. Intervention fidelity will also be measured via surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help inform future use of a local-tailored implementation strategy for adopting primary HPV screening at large health care systems. Findings may also be applicable to other types of practice substitution.

Trends in HPV vaccine administration and HPV vaccine coverage in children by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status during the COVID-19 pandemic in an integrated health care system in California.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the trends of HPV vaccination between 03/2019-09/2021 and whether the impact of the COVID pandemic on HPV vaccination varied by race/ethnicity and neighborhood deprivation index (NDI). METHODS: Electronic medical records at Kaiser Permanente Southern California were used to assess monthly volume of HPV vaccine doses administered among children aged 9-12.9yrs, and up-to-date coverage (% vaccinated) by age 13 between 03/2019-09/2021. Modified Poisson models were used to evaluate the interactions between race/ethnicity, NDI and the pandemic periods on HPV vaccine coverage. RESULTS: HPV vaccine doses administered in 2020/2021 have returned to the 2019 level after the initial drop. The average up-to-date coverage in 05/2021-09/2021 (54.8%) remained lower than the pre-pandemic level (58.5%). The associations between race/ethnicity, NDI and HPV vaccine coverage did not vary due to the pandemic. CONCLUSION: HPV vaccine promotion efforts are needed to address COVID-19 pandemic's lasting impact on HPV vaccination coverage.

Laboratory monitoring to reduce adverse drug-related events: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Therapy with angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) requires laboratory monitoring to avoid hyperkalemia and acute kidney failure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of recommended annual serum potassium and creatinine monitoring and determine potential factors associated with care gaps among adults dispensed an ACEI or ARB. METHODS: This mixed-methods study integrated findings from a retrospective cohort study and individual patient interviews. Adults aged 21 years and over within Kaiser Permanente Southern California with at least 180 treatment days of an ACEI and/or ARB in 2015 were included. Patients invited for qualitative interviews included those who did and did not complete the recommended laboratory tests. We assessed the proportion of patients completing both recommended laboratory tests, factors associated with not receiving laboratory monitoring, and patients' insights into barriers and facilitators of recommended monitoring. RESULTS: Of 437,544 patients who received an ACEI or ARB, 9.0% did not receive both a serum potassium and creatinine laboratory test during treatment (defined as a care gap). Lower risk of a care gap was observed for patients with increasing age (rate ratio [RR] per 10-year increase = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.77-0.79); diabetes mellitus (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.60-0.64); hypertension (RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.71-0.74); Charlson Comorbidity Index score of at least 2 (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.60-0.64); those who changed medication classes (RR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.51-0.56); and patients with a cardiologist (RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73-0.90) or nephrologist (RR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.52-0.69) as their prescribing provider. Twenty-five patients completed the qualitative interviews. Patients often lacked knowledge about the need for laboratory monitoring, cited logistical barriers to accessing the laboratory, and deemed the reminders they received through an outpatient safety program as a facilitator to completing tests. CONCLUSIONS: Given the large patient population on ACEI and ARB medications, monitoring and support strategies such as electronic clinical surveillance could be important in addressing care gaps and potentially reducing adverse drug effects. DISCLOSURES: This project was supported by grant number R01HS024437 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The funder had no role in the design of the study; collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data, or decision to submit this manuscript for publication. Harrison, Reynolds, Hahn, Munoz-Plaza, Yi, Fischer, Luong, Sim, Brettler, Handler, and Mittman are employees of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group. Danworth was employed by the Southern California Permanente Medical Group at the time of this study. Singh was partially supported by the Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN13-413). Reynolds reports grants from Novartis, Amgen Inc., and Vital Strategies, Resolve to Save Lives, unrelated to this work. Yi reports grants from Novartis unrelated to this work. Kanter has nothing to disclose.

Performance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Large Pragmatic Trial of Home-Based Palliative Care (HomePal): Methodological and Practical Considerations for Embedded Patient-Centered Design.

Background: The research enterprise has embraced patient centeredness in embedded efficient pragmatic trials, but limited data exist on using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected as part of usual clinical care for research. Objectives: We sought to assess the performance of different assessment methods for obtaining PROs in a pragmatic cluster randomized trial (HomePal study) designed to compare two models of home-based palliative care (HBPC). Design: Descriptive analytics, comparative trends, and psychometric performance of PROs collected in the HomePal study; measures included Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), PROMIS-10, and others administered at baseline, 1, and 6 months. Setting/Subjects: HomePal was conducted in the Southern California and Northwest Kaiser Permanente regions in the United States; subjects were patients receiving HBPC and their caregivers. Measurements: We specifically compared ESAS obtained by research staff with those obtained by clinical HBPC nurses at the time of HBPC enrollment. We also compared ESAS completed by patients versus if done or assisted by a caregiver (proxy). Results: We enrolled 3533 patients and had 2205 ESAS measurements that met the criteria for analysis at baseline and 1447 at the one-month follow-up assessment. Research staff-obtained ESAS at admission to HBPC was higher overall (indicating more symptoms) than the clinically collected measure whether symptoms were reported by patients (31.7 ± 15.4 vs. 26.0 ± 13.4) or by proxies (36.9 ± 15.6 vs. 26.5 ± 13.5). These differences persisted with follow-up ESAS measures. Conclusions: We identified significant variability in PRO responses between different surveyors and whether proxy interaction was needed suggesting complex issues around PRO measure performance for pragmatic embedded trials. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03694431.

De-implementation and substitution of clinical care processes: stakeholder perspectives on the transition to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: New cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women age 30-65 years. Healthcare organizations are preparing to de-implement the previous recommended strategies of Pap testing or co-testing (Pap plus HPV test) and substitute primary HPV testing. However, there may be significant challenges to the replacement of this entrenched clinical practice, even with an evidence-based substitution. We sought to identify stakeholder-perceived barriers and facilitators to this substitution within a large healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with clinician, administrative, and patient stakeholders regarding (a) acceptability and feasibility of the planned substitution; (b) perceptions of barriers and facilitators, with an emphasis on those related to the de-implementation/implementation cycle of substitution; and (c) perceived readiness to change. Our interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; the data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR. RESULTS: We conducted 23 interviews: 5 patient and 18 clinical/administrative. Clinicians perceived that patients feel more tests equals better care, and clinicians and patients expressed fear of missed cancers ("…it'll be more challenging convincing the patient that only one test is…good enough to detect cancer."). Patients perceived practice changes resulting in "less care" are driven by the desire to cut costs. In contrast, clinicians/administrators viewed changing from two tests to one as acceptable and a workflow efficiency ("…It's very easy and half the work."). Stakeholder-recommended strategies included focusing on the increased efficacy of primary HPV testing and developing clinician talking points incorporating national guidelines to assuage "cost-cutting" fears. CONCLUSIONS: Substitution to replace an entrenched clinical practice is complex. Leveraging available facilitators is key to ease the process for clinical and administrative stakeholders-e.g., emphasizing the efficiency of going from two tests to one. Identifying and addressing clinician and patient fears regarding cost-cutting and perceived poorer quality of care is critical for substitution. Multicomponent and multilevel strategies for engagement and education will be required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, # NCT04371887.

Effect of a Coordinated Community and Chronic Care Model Team Intervention vs Usual Care on Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients With Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: The SUCCEED Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few stroke survivors meet recommended cardiovascular goals, particularly among racial/ethnic minority populations, such as Black or Hispanic individuals, or socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Objective: To determine if a chronic care model-based, community health worker (CHW), advanced practice clinician (APC; including nurse practitioners or physician assistants), and physician team intervention improves risk factor control after stroke in a safety-net setting (ie, health care setting where all individuals receive care, regardless of health insurance status or ability to pay). Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included participants recruited from 5 hospitals serving low-income populations in Los Angeles County, California, as part of the Secondary Stroke Prevention by Uniting Community and Chronic Care Model Teams Early to End Disparities (SUCCEED) clinical trial. Inclusion criteria were age 40 years or older; experience of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) no more than 90 days prior; systolic blood pressure (BP) of 130 mm Hg or greater or 120 to 130 mm Hg with history of hypertension or using hypertensive medications; and English or Spanish language proficiency. The exclusion criterion was inability to consent. Among 887 individuals screened for eligibility, 542 individuals were eligible, and 487 individuals were enrolled and randomized, stratified by stroke type (ischemic or TIA vs hemorrhagic), language (English vs Spanish), and site to usual care vs intervention in a 1:1 fashion. The study was conducted from February 2014 to September 2018, and data were analyzed from October 2018 to November 2020. Interventions: Participants randomized to intervention were offered a multimodal coordinated care intervention, including hypothesized core components (ie, ≥3 APC clinic visits, ≥3 CHW home visits, and Chronic Disease Self-Management Program workshops), and additional telephone visits, protocol-driven risk factor management, culturally and linguistically tailored education materials, and self-management tools. Participants randomized to the control group received usual care, which varied by site but frequently included a free BP monitor, self-management tools, and linguistically tailored information materials. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in systolic BP at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c, and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, body mass index, antithrombotic adherence, physical activity level, diet, and smoking status at 12 months. Potential mediators assessed included access to care, health and stroke literacy, self-efficacy, perceptions of care, and BP monitor use. Results: Among 487 participants included, the mean (SD) age was 57.1 (8.9) years; 317 (65.1%) were men, and 347 participants (71.3%) were Hispanic, 87 participants (18.3%) were Black, and 30 participants (6.3%) were Asian. A total of 246 participants were randomized to usual care, and 241 participants were randomized to the intervention. Mean (SD) systolic BP improved from 143 (17) mm Hg at baseline to 133 (20) mm Hg at 12 months in the intervention group and from 146 (19) mm Hg at baseline to 137 (22) mm Hg at 12 months in the usual care group, with no significant differences in the change between groups. Compared with the control group, participants in the intervention group had greater improvements in self-reported salt intake (difference, 15.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 26.0]; P = .004) and serum CRP level (difference in log CRP, -0.4 [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.1] mg/dL; P = .003); there were no differences in other secondary outcomes. Although 216 participants (89.6%) in the intervention group received some of the 3 core components, only 35 participants (14.5%) received the intended full dose. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial of a complex multilevel, multimodal intervention did not find vascular risk factor improvements beyond that of usual care; however, further studies may consider testing the SUCCEED intervention with modifications to enhance implementation and participant engagement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01763203.

Impact of COVID-19 on Cervical Cancer Screening Rates Among Women Aged 21-65 Years in a Large Integrated Health Care System - Southern California, January 1-September 30, 2019, and January 1-September 30, 2020.

On March 19, 2020, the governor of California issued a statewide stay-at-home order to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).* The order reduced accessibility to and patient attendance at outpatient medical visits,† including preventive services such as cervical cancer screening. In-person clinic visits increased when California reopened essential businesses on June 12, 2020.§ Electronic medical records of approximately 1.5 million women served by Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large integrated health care system, were examined to assess cervical cancer screening rates before, during, and after the stay-at-home order. KPSC policy is to screen women aged 21-29 years every 3 years with cervical cytology alone (Papanicolaou [Pap] test); those aged 30-65 years were screened every 5 years with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology (cotesting) through July 15, 2020, and after July 15, 2020, with HPV testing alone, consistent with the latest recommendations from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.¶ Compared with the 2019 baseline, cervical cancer screening rates decreased substantially during the stay-at-home order. Among women aged 21-29 years, cervical cytology screening rates per 100 person-months declined 78%. Among women aged 30-65 years, HPV test screening rates per 100 person-months decreased 82%. After the stay-at-home order was lifted, screening rates returned to near baseline, which might have been aided by aspects of KPSC's integrated, organized screening program (e.g., reminder systems and tracking persons lost to follow-up). As the pandemic continues, groups at higher risk for developing cervical cancers and precancers should be evaluated first. Ensuring that women receive preventive services, including cancer screening and appropriate follow-up in a safe and timely manner, remains important.

Results of a Pilot Trial of a Lifestyle Intervention for Stroke Survivors: Healthy Eating and Lifestyle after Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: Although healthy lifestyle practices mitigate recurrent stroke risk and mortality, few stroke survivors adhere to them, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. We developed and pilot tested a occupational therapy-based lifestyle management intervention, Healthy Eating And Lifestyle after Stroke (HEALS), to improve stroke survivors' self-management skills relating to diet and physical activity and evaluated it in a diverse safety-net population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred English- or Spanish-speaking participants with stroke or transient ischemic attack were randomized to a 6-week occupational therapist-led group lifestyle intervention vs. usual care. Each of the six 2-h group sessions included didactic presentations on diet and physical activity, peer exchange, personal exploration with goal setting, and direct experience through participation in a relevant activity. Primary outcomes at 6 months were change in body mass index, fruit/vegetable intake, and physical activity. Secondary outcomes included change in waist circumference, smoking, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, triglyceride, total cholesterol, glycosylated hemoglobin levels, quality of care, and perceptions of care. Effect sizes were determined in preparation for a larger randomized controlled trial powered to detect a difference in primary outcomes. A nested formative evaluation assessed facilitators and barriers to implementation, acceptance, and intervention adherence. RESULTS: There were no significant changes in primary or secondary outcomes at 6 months. Effect sizes for all outcomes were small (< 0.2). Focus group participants recommended extending the intervention program duration with more sessions, additional information on stroke and vascular risk factors, an interdisciplinary approach, additional family involvement, and incentives. Providers recommended longer program duration, more training, fidelity checks to ensure standardized program delivery, and additional incentives for participants. CONCLUSIONS: The HEALS intervention was feasible in a safety-net setting, but effect sizes were small. A longer-duration intervention, with intervener fidelity checks may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01550822.

Follow-up of Abnormal Estimated GFR Results Within a Large Integrated Health Care Delivery System: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Timely follow-up of abnormal laboratory results is important for high-quality care. We sought to identify risk factors, facilitators, and barriers to timely follow-up of an abnormal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed-methods study: retrospective electronic health record (EHR) analyses, physician interviews. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Large integrated health care delivery system. Quantitative analyses included 244,540 patients 21 years or older with incident abnormal eGFRs from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015, ordered by 7,164 providers. Qualitative analyses included 15 physician interviews. EXPOSURES: Patient-, physician-, and system-level factors. OUTCOME: Timely follow-up of incident abnormal eGFRs, defined as repeat eGFR obtained within 60 to 150 days, follow-up testing before 60 days that indicated normal kidney function, or diagnosis before 60 days of chronic kidney disease or kidney cancer. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Multivariable robust Poisson regression models accounting for clustering within provider were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for lack of timely follow-up. Team coding was used to identify themes from physician interviews. RESULTS: 58% of patients lacked timely follow-up of their incident abnormal eGFRs (ie, had a care gap). An abnormal creatinine result flag in the EHR was associated with better follow-up (RR for care gap, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.64-0.66). Patient online portal use and physician panel size were weakly associated with follow-up. Patients seen by providers behind on managing their EHR message box were at higher risk for care gaps. Physician interviews identified system-level (eg, panel size and assistance in managing laboratory results) and provider-level (eg, proficiency using EHR tools) factors that influence laboratory result management. LIMITATIONS: Unable to capture intentional delays in follow-up testing. CONCLUSIONS: Timely follow-up of abnormal results remains challenging in an EHR-based integrated health care delivery system. Strategies improving provider EHR message box management and leveraging health information technology (eg, flagging abnormal eGFR results), making organizational/staffing changes (eg, increasing the role of nurses in managing laboratory results), and boosting patient engagement through better patient portals may improve test follow-up.

Injury-specific variables improve risk adjustment and hospital quality assessment in severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Hospital benchmarking is essential to quality improvement, but its usefulness depends on the ability of statistical models to adequately control for inter-hospital differences in patient mix. We explored whether the addition of injury-specific clinical variables to the current American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) algorithm would improve model fit. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective registry containing all adult patients who presented to a regional consortium of 14 trauma centers between 2010 and 2011 with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We used hierarchical logistic regression and stepwise forward selection to develop two novel risk-adjustment models. We then tested our novel models against the current TQIP model and ranked hospitals by their risk-adjusted mortality rates under each model to determine how model selection affects quality benchmarking. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-four patients met inclusion criteria. Stepwise selection resulted in two distinct models: one that added three TBI-specific variables (pupil reactivity, cerebral edema, loss of basal cisterns) to the model specification currently used by TQIP and another that combined two TBI-specific variables (pupil reactivity, cerebral edema) with a three-variable subset of TQIP (age, Abbreviated Injury Scale score for the head region, Glasgow Coma Scale motor score). Both novel models outperformed TQIP. Although rankings remained largely unchanged across model configurations, several hospitals moved across quality terciles. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of injury-specific variables improves risk adjustment for patients with severe TBI. Trauma Quality Improvement Program should consider replacing several of its general patient characteristics with injury-specific clinical predictors to increase efficiency, reduce the risk of overfitting, and improve the accuracy of hospital benchmarking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level II.

Randomized controlled trial of a coordinated care intervention to improve risk factor control after stroke or transient ischemic attack in the safety net: Secondary stroke prevention by Uniting Community and Chronic care model teams Early to End Disparities (SUCCEED).

BACKGROUND: Recurrent strokes are preventable through awareness and control of risk factors such as hypertension, and through lifestyle changes such as healthier diets, greater physical activity, and smoking cessation. However, vascular risk factor control is frequently poor among stroke survivors, particularly among socio-economically disadvantaged blacks, Latinos and other people of color. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an effective framework for multi-component interventions aimed at improving care processes and outcomes for individuals with chronic disease. In addition, community health workers (CHWs) have played an integral role in reducing health disparities; however, their effectiveness in reducing vascular risk among stroke survivors remains unknown. Our objectives are to develop, test, and assess the economic value of a CCM-based intervention using an Advanced Practice Clinician (APC)-CHW team to improve risk factor control after stroke in an under-resourced, racially/ethnically diverse population. METHODS/DESIGN: In this single-blind randomized controlled trial, 516 adults (≥40 years) with an ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack or intracerebral hemorrhage within the prior 90 days are being enrolled at five sites within the Los Angeles County safety-net setting and randomized 1:1 to intervention vs usual care. Participants are excluded if they do not speak English, Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Korean or if they are unable to consent. The intervention includes a minimum of three clinic visits in the healthcare setting, three home visits, and Chronic Disease Self-Management Program group workshops in community venues. The primary outcome is blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP <130 mmHg) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes include: (1) mean change in systolic BP; (2) control of other vascular risk factors including lipids and hemoglobin A1c, (3) inflammation (C reactive protein [CRP]), (4) medication adherence, (5) lifestyle factors (smoking, diet, and physical activity), (6) estimated relative reduction in risk for recurrent stroke or myocardial infarction (MI), and (7) cost-effectiveness of the intervention versus usual care. DISCUSSION: If this multi-component interdisciplinary intervention is shown to be effective in improving risk factor control after stroke, it may serve as a model that can be used internationally to reduce race/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in stroke in resource-constrained settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01763203 .

Anxiety, Culture, and Expectations: Oncologist-Perceived Factors Associated With Use of Nonrecommended Serum Tumor Marker Tests for Surveillance of Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer offers several opportunities for reducing use of ineffective practices based on American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. We assessed oncologist-perceived factors associated with use of one such practice-serum tumor markers for post-treatment breast cancer surveillance-focusing on medical oncologists with high, medium, or low test use. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods design, we identified patients who had been treated for early-stage breast cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012, within Kaiser Permanente Southern California and calculated the number of tests ordered from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. We identified oncologists with high, medium, or low use and subsequently performed semistructured interviews. We used patient satisfaction data to assess association between pattern of use and satisfaction score. RESULTS: We identified 7,363 patients, with 40,114 tests ordered. High-use oncologists were defined as those ordering at least one test annually for 35% of patients or more, low-use oncologists as those ordering at least one test for 5% of patients or less; 42% of oncologists were high, 27% low, and 31% medium users. We interviewed 17 oncologists: six high, eight low, and three medium users. Factors associated with high use included: perceived patient anxiety, oncologist anxiety, belief that there was nothing else to offer, concern about satisfaction, patient competition, peer use, and system barriers. Factors associated with low use included: beliefs about consequences (eg, causes harms) and medical center culture (eg, collective decision to follow guidelines). We found no association between satisfaction score and pattern of use. CONCLUSION: Barriers to deimplementation are numerous and complex. Traditional strategies of practice change alone are unlikely to be effective. Multifaceted, multilevel strategies deployed to address patient-, clinician-, and system-related barriers may be required.

A cancer genetics toolkit improves access to genetic services through documentation and use of the family history by primary-care clinicians.

PURPOSE: We developed, implemented, and evaluated a multicomponent cancer genetics toolkit designed to improve recognition and appropriate referral of individuals at risk for hereditary cancer syndromes. METHODS: We evaluated toolkit implementation in the women's clinics at a large Veterans Administration medical center using mixed methods, including pre-post semistructured interviews, clinician surveys, and chart reviews, and during implementation, monthly tracking of genetic consultation requests and use of a reminder in the electronic health record. We randomly sampled 10% of progress notes 6 months before (n = 139) and 18 months during implementation (n = 677). RESULTS: The toolkit increased cancer family history documentation by almost 10% (26.6% pre- and 36.3% postimplementation). The reminder was a key component of the toolkit; when used, it was associated with a twofold increase in cancer family history documentation (odds ratio = 2.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.15), and the history was more complete. Patients whose clinicians completed the reminder were twice as likely to be referred for genetic consultation (4.1-9.6%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A multicomponent approach to the systematic collection and use of family history by primary-care clinicians increased access to genetic services.

Implementation and spread of interventions into the multilevel context of routine practice and policy: implications for the cancer care continuum.

The promise of widespread implementation of efficacious interventions across the cancer continuum into routine practice and policy has yet to be realized. Multilevel influences, such as communities and families surrounding patients or health-care policies and organizations surrounding provider teams, may determine whether effective interventions are successfully implemented. Greater recognition of the importance of these influences in advancing (or hindering) the impact of single-level interventions has motivated the design and testing of multilevel interventions designed to address them. However, implementing research evidence from single- or multilevel interventions into sustainable routine practice and policy presents substantive challenges. Furthermore, relatively few multilevel interventions have been conducted along the cancer care continuum, and fewer still have been implemented, disseminated, or sustained in practice. The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, to illustrate and examine the concepts underlying the implementation and spread of multilevel interventions into routine practice and policy. We accomplish this goal by using a series of cancer and noncancer examples that have been successfully implemented and, in some cases, spread widely. Key concepts across these examples include the importance of phased implementation, recognizing the need for pilot testing, explicit engagement of key stakeholders within and between each intervention level; visible and consistent leadership and organizational support, including financial and human resources; better understanding of the policy context, fiscal climate, and incentives underlying implementation; explication of handoffs from researchers to accountable individuals within and across levels; ample integration of multilevel theories guiding implementation and evaluation; and strategies for long-term monitoring and sustainability.

Targeting primary care referrals to smoking cessation clinics does not improve quit rates: implementing evidence-based interventions into practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a locally adapted evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) approach to implementation of smoking cessation guidelines into routine practice. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We used patient questionnaires, practice surveys, and administrative data in Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care practices across five southwestern states. STUDY DESIGN: In a group-randomized trial of 18 VA facilities, matched on size and academic affiliation, we evaluated intervention practices' abilities to implement evidence-based smoking cessation care following structured evidence review, local priority setting, quality improvement plan development, practice facilitation, expert feedback, and monitoring. Control practices received mailed guidelines and VA audit-feedback reports as usual care. DATA COLLECTION: To represent the population of primary care-based smokers, we randomly sampled and screened 36,445 patients to identify and enroll eligible smokers at baseline (n=1,941) and follow-up at 12 months (n=1,080). We used computer-assisted telephone interviewing to collect smoking behavior, nicotine dependence, readiness to change, health status, and patient sociodemographics. We used practice surveys to measure structure and process changes, and administrative data to assess population utilization patterns. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Intervention practices adopted multifaceted EBQI plans, but had difficulty implementing them, ultimately focusing on smoking cessation clinic referral strategies. While attendance rates increased (p<.0001), we found no intervention effect on smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: EBQI stimulated practices to increase smoking cessation clinic referrals and try other less evidence-based interventions that did not translate into improved quit rates at a population level.

Assessing the structure of smoking cessation care in the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: National smoking cessation practice guidelines offer recommendations regarding the processes and structure of care. Facilities routinely measure the processes of care but not the structure of care. This pilot study assessed the structure of smoking cessation care at Veterans Health Administration facilities. METHODS: Key informants at 18 sites completed a brief checklist survey adapted from national smoking cessation guidelines. Responses were compared with detailed site surveys. RESULTS: Guideline adherence was seen in identifying smokers and treating inpatient smokers. Areas of low adherence include offering incentives and defining staff responsibilities. The checklist survey showed poor correspondence with the detailed survey, with low agreement on systematic screening (kappa = .21) and higher agreement on primary care prescribing authority (kappa = .53). DISCUSSION: This pilot survey provides a potential rapid method for assessing adherence to systems recommendations from the national smoking cessation guidelines. The relatively low agreement with a more detailed survey suggests that the two surveys may have been measuring different aspects of smoking cessation care.

Assessing the institutional approach to implementing smoking cessation practice guidelines in veterans health administration facilities.

National smoking cessation guidelines include recommended strategies for providers and health care organizations, but they offer little guidance on how to structure care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey at 40 Veterans Health Administration facilities, to describe the structure of smoking cessation care, to assess adherence to national guidelines, and to assess facilities' preferred approach to providing smoking cessation treatment. We categorized sites as those using a primary care approach (most smokers treated by the primary care provider) versus a specialty approach (medication restricted to smoking cessation clinics, to which most patients were referred). Nearly all sites reported systematic screening for smoking and counseling of smokers, usually by both nursing staff members and the primary care provider. Most sites used a specialty approach, restricting medication access to smokers attending a cessation program. Future research should evaluate whether this approach provides adequate access and responsiveness to patient preferences for the full population of smokers in primary care.