What Goes into Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening? Factors Associated with Clinician Judgments of Suitability for Screening.

Rationale: Achieving the net benefit of lung cancer screening (LCS) depends on optimizing patient selection. Objective: To identify factors associated with clinician assessments that a patient was unlikely to benefit from LCS ("LCS-inappropriate") because of comorbidities or limited life expectancy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients assessed for LCS at 30 Veterans Health Administration facilities from January 1, 2015 to February 1, 2021. We conducted hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with clinicians' designations of LCS inappropriateness (primary outcome), accounting for 3-year predicted probability (i.e., competing risk) of non-lung cancer death. Measurements and Main Results: Among 38,487 LCS-eligible patients, 1,671 (4.3%) were deemed LCS-inappropriate by clinicians, whereas 4,383 (11.4%) had an estimated 3-year competing risk of non-lung cancer death greater than 20%. Patients with higher competing risks of non-lung cancer death were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate (odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.32-3.05). Older patients (ages 75-80; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.78) and those with interstitial lung disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.51-2.59) were more likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate than would be explained by competing risk of non-lung cancer death, whereas patients currently smoking (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73) were less likely to be deemed LCS-inappropriate, suggesting that clinicians over- or underweighted these factors. The probability of being deemed LCS-inappropriate varied from 0.4% to 74%, depending on the clinician making the assessment (median OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.89-3.25). Conclusion: Concerningly, the likelihood that a patient is deemed LCS-inappropriate is more strongly associated with the clinician making the assessment than with patient characteristics. Patient selection may be optimized by providing decision support to help clinicians assess net LCS benefit.

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.

"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.

Sustainability of an Opt-Out Electronic-Health Record-based Tobacco Treatment Consult Service at a large safety-net hospital: A 6-year Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Our safety-net hospital implemented a hospital-based tobacco treatment intervention in 2016. We previously showed the intervention, an "opt-out" Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based Best Practice Alert (BPA)+order-set that triggers consultation to an inpatient Tobacco Treatment Consult (TTC) service for all patients who smoke, improves smoking abstinence. We now report on sustainability, 6 years after inception. METHODS: We analyzed data collected between July 2016-June 2022 of patients documented as 'currently smoking' in the EHR. Across the 6 years, we used Pearson's correlation analysis to compare Adoption (clinician acceptance of the BPA+order-set, thus generating consultation to the TTC service); Reach (number of consultations completed by the TTC service); and Effectiveness (receipt of pharmacotherapy orders between patients receiving and not receiving consultations). RESULTS: Among 39,558 adult admissions (July 2016-June 2022) with "currently smoking" status in the EHR for whom the BPA triggered, clinicians accepted the TTC order-set on 50.4% (19,932/39,558), though acceptance varied across services [e.g., Cardiology (71%) and Obstetrics-Gynecology (12%)]. The TTC service consulted on 17% (6779/39,558) of patients due to staffing constraints. Consultations ordered (r=-0.28, p=0.59) and completed (r= 0.45, p=0.37) remained stable over six-years. Compared to patients not receiving consultations, patients receiving consultations were more likely to receive pharmacotherapy orders overall (inpatient: 50.8% vs 35.1%, p<.0001; at discharge: 27.1% vs 10%, p<.0001) and in each year. CONCLUSIONS: The "opt-out" EHR-based TTC service is sustainable, though many did not receive consultations due to resource constraints. Healthcare systems should elevate priority of hospital-based tobacco treatment programs to increase reach to underserved populations. IMPLICATIONS: Our study shows that opt-out approaches that utilize the EHR are a sustainable approach to provide evidence-based tobacco treatment to all hospitalized individuals who smoke, regardless of readiness to stop smoking and clinical condition.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Hemodynamic Response to Oral Vasodilator Therapy in Systemic Sclerosis-Related Pulmonary Hypertension.

PURPOSE: Although classified as group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), patients with systemic sclerosis-related pulmonary hypertension (SSc-PH) experience poorer clinical response to PAH therapy and increased mortality compared to those with idiopathic PAH. Due to heterogeneity in phenotypes, identifying patients likely to respond to therapy is challenging. The goal of this study was to determine clinical factors associated with hemodynamic response, defined by a > 20% reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance on repeat right heart catheterization. METHODS: We applied a time-to-event model using a retrospective cohort of 39 patients with precapillary SSc-PH, defined by a mean pulmonary artery pressure of ≥ 25 mmHg and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (PAWP) ≤ 15 mmHg on right heart catheterization. RESULTS: Patients with PAWP ≤ 8 mmHg were nearly fourfold more likely to achieve a hemodynamic response compared to those with PAWP > 8 mmHg (HR 3.88; 95% CI: 1.20, 12.57); each 1 mmHg increase in PAWP was associated with a decreased hazard for hemodynamic response (HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.00). CONCLUSION: In patients with precapillary SSc-PH, PAWP was associated with time to hemodynamic response, suggesting the importance of subclinical cardiac disease in determining hemodynamic response to oral vasodilator therapy.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement.

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Leveraging social media to increase lung cancer screening awareness, knowledge and uptake among high-risk populations (The INSPIRE-Lung Study): study protocol of design and methods of a community-based randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the United States. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening can reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals, but uptake of lung screening remains low. Social media platforms have the potential to reach a large number of people, including those who are at high risk for lung cancer but who may not be aware of or have access to lung screening. METHODS: This paper discusses the protocol for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that leverages FBTA to reach screening-eligible individuals in the community at large and intervene with a public-facing, tailored health communication intervention (LungTalk) to increase awareness of, and knowledge about, lung screening. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important information to inform the ability to refine implementation processes for national population efforts to scale a public-facing health communication focused intervention using social media to increase screening uptake of appropriate, high-risk individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05824273).

Proactively tailoring implementation: the case of shared decision-making for lung cancer screening across the VA New England Healthcare Network.

BACKGROUND: Shared Decision-Making to discuss how the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening align with patient values is required by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and recommended by multiple organizations. Barriers at organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels prevent SDM from meeting quality standards in routine practice. We developed an implementation plan, using the socio-ecological model, for Shared Decision-Making for lung cancer screening for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. Because understanding the local context is critical to implementation success, we sought to proactively tailor our original implementation plan, to address barriers to achieving guideline-concordant lung cancer screening. METHODS: We conducted a formative evaluation using an ethnographic approach to proactively identify barriers to Shared Decision-Making and tailor our implementation plan. Data consisted of qualitative interviews with leadership and clinicians from seven VA New England medical centers, regional meeting notes, and Shared Decision-Making scripts and documents used by providers. Tailoring was guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS). RESULTS: We tailored the original implementation plan to address barriers we identified at the organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels. Overall, we removed two implementation strategies, added five strategies, and modified the content of two strategies. For example, at the clinician level, we learned that past personal and clinical experiences predisposed clinicians to focus on the benefits of lung cancer screening. To address this barrier, we modified the content of our original implementation strategy Make Training Dynamic to prompt providers to self-reflect about their screening beliefs and values, encouraging them to discuss both the benefits and potential harms of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Formative evaluations can be used to proactively tailor implementation strategies to fit local contexts. We tailored our implementation plan to address unique barriers we identified, with the goal of improving implementation success. The FRAME-IS aided our team in thoughtfully addressing and modifying our original implementation plan. Others seeking to maximize the effectiveness of complex interventions may consider using a similar approach.

Hospitalization as an opportunity to engage underserved individuals in shared decision-making for lung cancer screening: results from two randomized pilot trials.

PURPOSE: Medicare requires tobacco dependence counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement. We hypothesized that initiating SDM during inpatient tobacco treatment visits would increase LCS among patients with barriers to proactively seeking outpatient preventive care. METHODS: We collected baseline assessments and performed two pilot randomized trials at our safety-net hospital. Pilot 1 tested feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a nurse practitioner initiating SDM for LCS during hospitalization (Inpatient SDM). We collected qualitative data on barriers encountered during Pilot 1. Pilot 2 added a community health worker (CHW) to address barriers to LCS completion (Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation). For both studies, preliminary efficacy was an intention-to-treat analysis of LCS completion at 3 months between intervention and comparator (furnishing of LCS decision aid only) groups. RESULTS: Baseline assessments showed that patients preferred in-person LCS discussions versus self-reviewing materials; overall 20% had difficulty understanding written information. In Pilot 1, 4% (2/52) in Inpatient SDM versus 2% (1/48, comparator) completed LCS (p = 0.6), despite 89% (89/100) desiring LCS. Primary care providers noted that competing priorities and patient factors (e.g., social barriers to keeping appointments) prevented the intervention from working as intended. In Pilot 2, 50% (5/10) in Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation versus 9% (1/11, comparator) completed LCS (p < 0.05). Many patients were ineligible due to recent diagnostic chest CT (Pilot 1: 255/659; Pilot 2: 239/527). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient SDM + CHW-navigation shows promise to improve LCS rates among underserved patients who smoke, but feasibility is limited by recent diagnostic chest CT among inpatients. Implementing CHW-navigation in other clinical settings may facilitate LCS for underserved patients. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03276806 (8 September 2017); NCT03793894 (4 January 2019).

A mixed methods study to inform and evaluate a longitudinal nurse practitioner/community health worker intervention to address social determinants of health and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease self-management.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with low socioeconomic status experience higher prevalence and worse outcomes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We undertook a quality improvement initiative at our safety net hospital in which a nurse practitioner (NP)/community health worker (CHW) team followed patients with COPD, frequent admissions, and unmet SDOH needs from hospitalization through one month post-discharge. We report our mixed methods approach to inform development and preliminary evaluation of this intervention. METHODS: We first assessed characteristics of patients admitted with COPD in 2018 (n = 1811), performing multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with ≥ 2 admissions per year. We then tested a standardized tool to screen for unmet SDOH needs in a convenience sample of 51 frequently hospitalized patients with COPD. From January-July 2019, we pilot tested the NP/CHW intervention with 57 patients, reviewed NP/CHW logs, and conducted qualitative interviews with 16 patient participants to explore impressions of the intervention. RESULTS: Patients with Medicaid insurance, mental health disorders, cardiac disease, and substance use disorder had increased odds of having ≥ 2 admissions. COPD severity, comorbidities, and unmet SDOH needs made COPD self-management challenging. Seventy-four percent of frequently admitted patients with COPD completing SDOH screening had unmet SDOH needs. Patients perceived that the NP/CHW intervention addressed these barriers by connecting them to resources and providing emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with COPD admitted at our safety-net hospital experience unmet SDOH needs that impede COPD self-management. A longitudinal NP/CHW intervention to address unmet SDOH needs following discharge appears feasible and acceptable.

Predictors to forgo resuscitative effort during Covid-19 critical illness at the height of the pandemic : A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, there was uncertainty regarding critical illness prognosis and challenges to traditional face-to-face family meetings. Ethnic minority populations have suffered disproportionately worse outcomes during the pandemic, which may in part relate to differences in end-of-life decision-making. AIM: Characterize patterns of and factors associated with decisions to forgo resuscitative efforts, as measured by do-not-resuscitate orders, during critical illness with Covid-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort with medical record abstraction. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients diagnosed with SARS-Cov-2 virus via polymerase chain reaction and admitted to the intensive care unit at an academic hospital, which cares for the city's underserved communities, between March 1 and June 7, 2020 who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. RESULTS: In this cohort (n = 155), 45% were black people, and 51% spoke English as their primary language. Median time to first goals-of-care conversation was 3.9 days (IQR 1.9-7.6) after intensive care unit admission. Overall 61/155 patients (39%) transitioned to do-not-resuscitate status, and 50/62 (82%) patients who died had do-not-resuscitate orders. Multivariate analysis shows age and palliative care involvement as the strongest predictors of decision to instate do-not-resuscitate order. There was no association between race, ethnicity, or language and decisions to forego resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: During this time of crisis and uncertainty with limited resources and strained communication, time to first goals of care conversation was shorter than in pre-pandemic studies, but rates of foregoing resuscitation remained similar, with no differences observed by race, ethnicity, or language. This study suggests that early palliative care involvement and non-traditional communications, including videoconferencing, to facilitate goals of care conversations could have mitigated potential disparities in end-of-life decision making patterns during the pandemic.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement.

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

De-implementing Inhaled Corticosteroids to Improve Care and Safety in COPD Treatment: Primary Care Providers' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is among the most common medical diagnoses among Veterans. More than 50% of Veterans diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COPD are prescribed inhaled corticosteroids despite recommendations for use restricted to patients with frequent exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: We explored primary care providers' experiences prescribing inhaled corticosteroids among patients with mild-to-moderate COPD as part of a quality improvement initiative. DESIGN: We used a sequential mixed-methods evaluation approach to understand factors influencing primary care providers' inhaled corticosteroid prescribing for patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Participants were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews and structured surveys. PARTICIPANTS: We used a purposive sample of primary care providers from 13 primary care clinics affiliated with two urban Veteran Health Administration healthcare systems. MAIN MEASURES: Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. Qualitative findings informed a subsequent survey. Surveys were administered through REDCap and analyzed descriptively. Key qualitative and quantitative findings were compared. KEY RESULTS: Participants reported they were unaware of current evidence and recommendations for prescribing inhaled corticosteroids; for example, 46% of providers reported they were unaware of risks of pneumonia. Providers reported they are generally unable to keep up with the current literature due to the broad scope of primary care practice. We also found primary care providers may be reluctant to change inherited prescriptions, even if they thought inhaled corticosteroid therapy might not be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled corticosteroid prescribing in this patient population is partly due to primary care providers' lack of knowledge about the potential harms and availability of alternative therapies. Our findings suggest that efforts to expand access by increasing the number of prescribing providers a patient potentially sees could make it more difficult to de-implement harmful prescriptions. Our findings also corroborate prior findings that awareness of current evidence-based guidelines is likely an important part of medical overuse.

Patient-Physician Discussions on Lung Cancer Screening: A Missed Teachable Moment to Promote Smoking Cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about whether patients and physicians perceive lung cancer screening (LCS) as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation or the degree to which physicians in "real world" settings link LCS discussions with smoking cessation counseling. We sought to characterize patient and physician perspectives of discussions about smoking cessation during LCS. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study (interviews and focus groups) with 21 physicians and 28 smokers screened in four diverse hospitals. Transcripts were analyzed for characteristics of communication about smoking cessation and LCS, the perceived effect on motivation to quit smoking, the degree to which physicians leverage LCS as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, and suggestions to improve patient-physician communication about smoking cessation in the context of LCS. RESULTS: Patients reported that LCS made them more cognizant of the health consequences of smoking, priming them for a teachable moment. While physicians and patients both acknowledged that smoking cessation counseling was frequent, they described little connection between their discussions regarding LCS and smoking cessation counseling. Physicians identified several barriers to integrating discussions on smoking cessation and LCS. They volunteered communication strategies by which LCS could be leveraged to promote smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: LCS highlights the harms of smoking to patients who are chronic, heavy smokers and thus may serve as a teachable moment for promoting smoking cessation. However, this opportunity is typically missed in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS: LCS highlights the harms of smoking to heavily addicted smokers. Yet both physicians and patients reported little connection between LCS and tobacco treatment discussions due to multiple barriers. On-site tobacco treatment programs and post-screening messaging tailored to the LCS results are needed to maximize the health outcomes of LCS, including smoking quit rates and longer-term smoking-related morbidity and mortality.

VA Provider Perspectives on Coordinating COPD Care Across Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: More and more Veterans are receiving care from community providers, increasing the need for effective coordination across health systems. For Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), this need is intensified by complex comorbidity patterns that often include multiple providers co-managing patient care. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand how VA providers perceive coordination with community providers for Veterans with COPD. DESIGN: Qualitative study of VA providers. METHODS: We selected six geographically diverse VA sites and conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with providers practicing in inpatient and/or outpatient settings who care for Veterans with COPD. MAIN MEASURES: Interviews focused on communication with community providers about discharge information and clinic management. We analyzed responses according to the principles of conventional content analysis, allowing inductive themes to emerge. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 25 providers during the period of June to October 2017. Qualitative data analysis yielded five themes: (1) VA providers perceive communication challenges between VA and community providers, including difficult, inadequate, and delayed communication; (2) communication is facilitated by personal relationships across health systems; (3) the lack of electronic health record (EHR) interoperability impairs communication, resulting in transmission of unstructured data; (4) poor communication leads to duplicative efforts and wasted resources; and (5) providers frequently rely on patients to communicate about care taking place in the community. CONCLUSIONS: VA providers described major challenges in coordinating with community providers, leading to perceptions of delayed, missed, or duplicative care and jeopardizing the overall quality, safety, and efficiency of Veteran care. Our study highlights the need for system-level solutions to support coordination across health systems for Veterans with COPD and may have implications for other conditions that lead to recurrent hospitalization and/or care in the community.

Combining smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening: A systematic review.

Providing smoking cessation treatment with annual low dose CT (LDCT) screening offers an opportunity to reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality. However, the optimal approach for delivering cessation interventions in the LDCT screening context is unknown. We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a control group testing a smoking cessation intervention among adults undergoing LDCT screening through May 1, 2018 using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers independently reviewed each study to assess eligibility and extracted information using pre-specified protocols for included studies. Given significant differences in the interventions in each study, meta-analyses for the included studies could not be performed. Of 2513 identified studies, 9 met inclusion criteria. Five of the included studies were randomized controlled trials while 4 were observational studies with a control group. Studies were of varying quality, but overall were of poor to fair quality with significant potential for bias and limited generalizability. Based on the available studies, there was insufficient data to suggest a particular approach to smoking cessation counseling in the LDCT screening setting. While no studies compared combined pharmacotherapy and counseling to counseling alone or compared the various pharmacologic agents, we identified several studies underway investigating new approaches during LDCT screening. The optimal strategy for smoking cessation in patients undergoing LDCT screening remains unclear. Future studies should focus on evaluating effectiveness and implementation of combined counseling and pharmacotherapy to optimize smoking cessation during LDCT screening.

Incorporating Coexisting Chronic Illness into Decisions about Patient Selection for Lung Cancer Screening. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce the risk of lung cancer death in healthy individuals, but the impact of coexisting chronic illnesses on LCS outcomes has not been well defined. Consideration of the complex relationship between baseline risk of lung cancer, treatment-related harms, and risk of death from competing causes is crucial in determining the balance of benefits and harms of LCS. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify knowledge and research gaps, prioritize topics, and propose methods for future research on how best to incorporate comorbidities in making decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international clinicians and researchers reviewed available data on the effects of comorbidities on LCS outcomes, focusing on the juxtaposition of lung cancer risk and competing risks of death, consideration of benefits and risks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, communication of risk, and treatment of screen-detected lung cancer. RESULTS: This statement identifies gaps in knowledge regarding how comorbidities and competing causes of death impact outcomes in LCS, and we have developed questions to help guide future research efforts to better inform patient selection, education, and implementation of LCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for further research that can help guide clinical decision-making with patients who may not benefit from LCS owing to coexisting chronic illness. This statement establishes a research framework to address essential questions regarding how to incorporate and communicate risks of comorbidities into patient selection and decisions regarding LCS.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH: Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.