Practice adaptive reserve and colorectal cancer screening best practices at community health center clinics in 7 states.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing the capability of community health centers to implement best practices (BPs) may mitigate health disparities. This study investigated the association of practice adaptive reserve (PAR) with the implementation of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening BPs at community health center clinics in 7 states. METHODS: A convenience sample of clinic staff participated in a self-administered, online survey. Eight PCMH CRC screening BPs were scored as a composite ranging from 0 to 32. The PAR composite score was scaled from 0 to 1 and then categorized into 3 levels. Multilevel analyses examined the relation between PAR and self-reported implementation of PCMH BPs. RESULTS: There were 296 respondents, and 59% reported 6 or more PCMH BPs at their clinics. The mean PAR score was 0.66 (standard deviation, 0.18), and the PCMH BP mean scores were significantly higher for respondents who reported higher clinic PAR categories. In comparison with the lowest PAR level, adjusted PCMH BP means were 25.0% higher at the middle PAR level (difference, 3.2; standard error, 1.3; t = 2.44; P = .015) and 63.2% higher at the highest PAR level (difference, 8.0; standard error, 1.9; t = 4.86; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher adaptive reserve, as measured by the PAR score, was positively associated with self-reported implementation of PCMH CRC screening BPs by clinic staff. Future research is needed to determine the PAR levels most conducive to implementing CRC screening and to develop interventions that enhance PAR in primary care settings.

Barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening in Vietnamese Americans: a qualitative analysis.

Vietnamese Americans are the fourth largest Asian ethnic group in the USA. Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks as one of the most common cancers in Vietnamese Americans. However, CRC screening rates remain low among Vietnamese Americans, with 40 % of women and 60 % of men reporting never having a sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT). We partnered with a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in Seattle, WA, to conduct focus groups as part of a process evaluation. Using interpreters, we recruited and conducted three focus groups comprised of six women screened for CRC, six women not screened for CRC, and seven men screened for CRC, which made up a total of 19 FQHC patients of Vietnamese descent between 50 and 79 years old. Three team members analyzed transcripts using open coding and axial coding. Major themes were categorized into barriers and facilitators to CRC screening. Barriers include lack of health problems, having comorbidities, challenges with medical terminology, and concerns with the colonoscopy. Participants singled out the risk of perforation as a fear they have toward colonoscopy procedures. Facilitators include knowledge about CRC and CRC screening, access to sources of information and social networks, and physician recommendation. Our focus groups elicited information that adds to the literature and has not been previously captured through published surveys. Findings from this study can be used to develop more culturally appropriate CRC screening interventions and improve upon existing CRC screening programs for the Vietnamese American population.

Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test Completion in an Integrated Academic-Community Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is an effective strategy to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of this study was to determine the patient-level, clinic-level, and geographic-level factors associated with CRC screening completion in a mailed FIT outreach program. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the integrated healthcare system of University of Washington Medicine and included patients aged 50-75 years, who were due for CRC screening, and had a primary care encounter in the past 3 years. Eligible patients received mailed outreach that included a letter with information about CRC screening, FIT kit, and a prepaid return envelope. CRC screening and factors associated with completion were obtained from electronic health records and the CRC screening program database. RESULTS: Of the 9,719 patients who received mailed outreach, 29.6% completed FIT mailed outreach. The median FIT return time was 27 days (interquartile range 14-54). On multivariate analysis, patients with a higher area deprivation index, insured through Medicaid, living without a partner, and whose last primary care visit was >12 months ago were less likely to complete a FIT compared with their counterparts. Over a 12-month period, overall CRC screening across the health system increased by 2 percentage points (68%-70%). DISCUSSION: Mailed FIT outreach in an integrated academic-community practice was feasible, with 32% of invited patients completing CRC screening by FIT or colonoscopy, on par with published literature. Patient and geographic-level factors were associated with CRC screening completion. These data will inform additional interventions aimed to increase CRC screening participation in this population.

Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice.

Introduction: The effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic-community practice. Methods: Data from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence. Results: The Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy. Conclusions: Real-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.

Observations of drinking water access in school food service areas before implementation of federal and state school water policy, California, 2011.

INTRODUCTION: Recent legislation requires schools to provide free drinking water in food service areas (FSAs). Our objective was to describe access to water at baseline and student water intake in school FSAs and to examine barriers to and strategies for implementation of drinking water requirements. METHODS: We randomly sampled 24 California Bay Area public schools. We interviewed 1 administrator per school to assess knowledge of water legislation and barriers to and ideas for policy implementation. We observed water access and students' intake of free water in school FSAs. Wellness policies were examined for language about water in FSAs. RESULTS: Fourteen of 24 schools offered free water in FSAs; 10 offered water via fountains, and 4 provided water through a nonfountain source. Four percent of students drank free water at lunch; intake at elementary schools (11%) was higher than at middle or junior high schools (6%) and high schools (1%). In secondary schools when water was provided by a nonfountain source, the percentage of students who drank free water doubled. Barriers to implementation of water requirements included lack of knowledge of legislation, cost, and other pressing academic concerns. No wellness policies included language about water in FSAs. CONCLUSION: Approximately half of schools offered free water in FSAs before implementation of drinking water requirements, and most met requirements through a fountain. Only 1 in 25 students drank free water in FSAs. Although schools can meet regulations through installation of fountains, more appealing water delivery systems may be necessary to increase students' water intake at mealtimes.

Measuring forearm bone density instead of lumbar spine bone density improves the sensitivity of diagnosing osteoporosis in older adults with cardiovascular diseases: Data from SARCOS study.

INTRODUCTION: In older individuals with cardiovascular diseases, it has been challenging to diagnose osteoporosis due to aortic calcification and degenerative processes in the spine of older adults, especially in very old adults. AIM: To assess whether the distal forearm BMD with the proximal femur BMD has greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of osteoporosis than the lumbar spine BMD with the proximal femur BMD. METHODS: We evaluated 515 older adults with cardiovascular disease from the SARCOS study and stratified them into under and over 80-year-old age groups and according to gender. Two diagnostic criteria were used to assess osteoporosis, SPF (lumbar spine and proximal femur BMD) and DFF (distal forearm and proximal femur BMD), which were compared with the multiple bone sites (MS) criteria (lumbar spine, distal radius, femoral neck, and total femur BMD). RESULTS: 43.9% were aged ≥80 years. Osteoporosis by SPF was diagnosed in 34% (n = 175), by DFF in 42.2% (n = 216), and by MS in 46.8% (n = 241). The characteristics of the three groups were similar. For every 100 older individuals with osteoporosis based on MS, 27 were not diagnosed by the SPF, and nine were not diagnosed by DFF (p = 0.001). The SPF did not diagnose osteoporosis in 23/100 in older adults aged <80 years, while DFF did not diagnose 16/100 (p.ns). In adults aged ≥80 years, the SPF did not identify osteoporosis in 31/100 older adults, while the DFF failed to identify it in only 5/100 (p < 0.001). In men and women aged ≥80 years, DFF showed higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of osteoporosis compared to the SPF criterion. CONCLUSION: In the elderly population with cardiovascular disease evaluated in our study, the use of distal forearm BMD instead of lumbar spine BMD, associated with proximal femur BMD, showed higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, regardless of gender, and especially among the very older adults.

Facilitators and Hindrances of Implementing Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Among Vietnamese Americans.

BACKGROUND: Little is published about the factors that facilitate and hinder the intervention implementation process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine factors that facilitated and hindered the implementation of a culturally appropriate colorectal cancer screening intervention targeting Vietnamese Americans in a Federally Qualified Health Center located in the Puget Sound area of Washington. METHODS: Three focus group discussions (2 during the implementation phase and 1 during the maintenance phase) with the medical assistants (N = 13) who were the intervention implementation agents were conducted at the Federally Qualified Health Center. Three research team members independently analyzed the data using content analysis and then compared for agreement. We reread and recoded the transcripts until consensus was reached. The themes were clustered by similar codes and categorized into 4 groups, each including facilitators and hindrances of implementation: identification of implementation agents, implementation environment, intervention recipients, and the colorectal cancer screening intervention. RESULTS: Facilitators included medical assistants' high motivation with a positive attitude toward the intervention, team approach, and simplicity of the intervention, whereas hindrances included lack of time, forgetfulness, staff turnover, and language barriers. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasized the importance of supporting implementation agents to ensure effective intervention program implementation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology nurses need to particularly take into consideration the evidence-based findings when planning any intervention programs.