"I was screaming hallelujah": Patient and provider perceptions of blood-based testing for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Blood-based tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can offer many advantages over stool-based tests such as FIT. Yet, we know little about patients' and providers' perceptions of this type of test. We report findings from a qualitative study comparing patient and provider perceptions of blood-based testing for CRC screening. METHODS: Patient participants were aged 45-75 years and members of a large, integrated health system. Participants were mailed, but did not complete, a FIT through an organized FIT-screening program and were scheduled for a health-care encounter at any of nine clinical sites. Participants were consented to complete a blood draw. We used purposive sampling to select and recruit patients (who did and did not complete the blood test) and providers/specialists who would be involved in offering the blood test to patients or explaining results. We administered telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide and recorded and transcribed all interviews, then coded and analyzed content. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 patients (11 completed and 4 did not complete the blood test) and 5 providers (3 primary care providers, one gastroenterologist (GI), and one GI medical assistant). Patients were enthusiastic about completing a blood test, citing the simplicity, ease, convenience, and high perceived accuracy of the test. Providers were also receptive to a blood-based option, if adequate test performance could be achieved and if they have information that informs patients about the pros and cons of blood-based screening versus other screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers were willing and enthusiastic about blood-based CRC screening tests. Future research focusing on performance and communication is needed.

Comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of remote (telehealth and online) cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatments for high-impact chronic pain relative to usual care: study protocol for the RESOLVE multisite randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an effective but underused treatment for high-impact chronic pain. Increased access to CBT-CP services for pain is of critical public health importance, particularly for rural and medically underserved populations who have limited access due to these services being concentrated in urban and high income areas. Making CBT-CP widely available and more affordable could reduce barriers to CBT-CP use. METHODS: As part of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term® (NIH HEAL) initiative, we designed and implemented a comparative effectiveness, 3-arm randomized control trial comparing remotely delivered telephonic/video and online CBT-CP-based services to usual care for patients with high-impact chronic pain. The RESOLVE trial is being conducted in 4 large integrated healthcare systems located in Minnesota, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington state and includes demographically diverse populations residing in urban and rural areas. The trial compares (1) an 8-session, one-on-one, professionally delivered telephonic/video CBT-CP program; and (2) a previously developed and tested 8-session online CBT-CP-based program (painTRAINER) to (3) usual care augmented by a written guide for chronic pain management. Participants are followed for 1 year post-allocation and are assessed at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-allocation. The primary outcome is minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥ 30% reduction) in pain severity (composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) assessed by a modified 11-item version of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include pain severity, pain intensity, and pain-related interference scores, quality of life measures, and patient global impression of change at 3, 6, and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness is assessed by incremental cost per additional patient with MCID in primary outcome and by cost per quality-adjusted life year achieved. Outcome assessment is blinded to group assignment. DISCUSSION: This large-scale trial provides a unique opportunity to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 2 relatively low-cost and scalable modalities for providing CBT-CP-based treatments to persons with high-impact chronic pain, including those residing in rural and other medically underserved areas with limited access to these services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04523714. This trial was registered on 24 August 2020.

"I really had somebody in my corner." Patient experiences with a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program.

BACKGROUND: Opioid tapering has been identified as an effective strategy to prevent the dangers associated with long-term opioid therapy for patients with chronic pain. However, many patients are resistant to tapering, and conversations about tapering can be challenging for health care providers. Pharmacists can play a role in supporting both providers and patients with the process of opioid tapering. OBJECTIVE: Qualitatively describe patient experiences with a unique phone-based and pharmacy-led opioid tapering program implemented within an integrated health care system. METHODS: In-depth telephone interviews with patients who completed the program were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Themes were identified through a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: We completed 25 interviews; 80% of patients were women (20), with a mean age of 58 years, and 72% (18) had been using opioids for pain management for 10 or more years. Most (60%) described a positive and satisfying experience with the tapering program. Strengths of the program reported by patients included a patient-centered and compassionate taper approach, flexible taper pace, easy access to knowledgeable pharmacist advocates, and resultant improvements in quality of life (e.g., increased energy). Challenges reported included: unhelpful or difficult-to-access nonpharmacological pain management options, negative quality of life impacts (e.g., inability to exercise), and lack of choice in the taper process. At the end of tapering, most patients (72%) described their pain as reduced or manageable rather than worse and expressed willingness to use the program in the future if a need should arise. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in a pharmacist-led opioid tapering program appreciated the program's individualized approach to care and access to pharmacist' expertise. Most interviewed patients successfully reduced their opioid use and recommended that the program should continue as an offered service. To improve the program, patients suggested increased personalization of the taper process and additional support for withdrawal symptoms and nonpharmacological pain management.

Bridge to Health/Puente a la Salud: a pilot randomized trial to address diabetes self-management and social needs among high-risk patients.

Social needs contribute to persistent diabetes disparities; thus, it is imperative to address social needs to optimize diabetes management. The purpose of this study was to determine determine the feasibility and acceptability of health system-based social care versus social care + behavioral intervention to address social needs and improve diabetes self-management among patients with type 2 diabetes. Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and low-income White patients with recent hemoglobin A1C (A1C) ≥ 8%, and ≥1 social need were recruited from an integrated health system. Patients were randomized to one-of-two 6-month interventions: (a) navigation to resources (NAV) facilitated by a Patient Navigator; or (b) NAV + evidence-based nine-session diabetes self-management support (DSMS) program facilitated by a community health worker (CHW). A1C was extracted from the electronic health record. We successfully recruited 110 eligible patients (54 NAV; 56 NAV + DSMS). During the trial, 78% NAV and 80% NAV + DSMS participants successfully connected to a navigator; 84% NAV + DSMS connected to a CHW. At 6-month follow-up, 33% of NAV and 34% of NAV + DSMS participants had an A1C < 8%. Mean reduction in A1C was clinically significant in NAV (-0.65%) and NAV + DSMS (-0.72%). By follow-up, 89% of NAV and 87% of NAV + DSMS were successfully connected to resources to address at least one need. Findings suggest that it is feasible to implement a health system-based social care intervention, separately or in combination, with a behavioral intervention to improve diabetes management among a high-risk, socially complex patient population. A larger, pragmatic trial is needed to test the comparative effectiveness of each approach on diabetes-related outcomes.

The Cancer Financial Experience (CAFÉ) study: randomized controlled trial of a financial navigation intervention to address cancer-related financial hardship.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for evidence on how interventions can prevent or mitigate cancer-related financial hardship. Our objectives are to compare self-reported financial hardship, quality of life, and health services use between patients receiving a financial navigation intervention versus a comparison group at 12 months follow-up, and to assess patient-level factors associated with dose received of a financial navigation intervention. METHODS: The Cancer Financial Experience (CAFÉ) study is a multi-site randomized controlled trial (RCT) with individual-level randomization. Participants will be offered either brief (one financial navigation cycle, Arm 2) or extended (three financial navigation cycles, Arm 3) financial navigation. The intervention period for both Arms 2 and 3 is 6 months. The comparison group (Arm 1) will receive enhanced usual care. The setting for the CAFÉ study is the medical oncology and radiation oncology clinics at two integrated health systems in the Pacific Northwest. Inclusion criteria includes age 18 or older with a recent cancer diagnosis and visit to a study clinic as identified through administrative data. Outcomes will be assessed at 12-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are self-reported financial distress and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes are delayed or foregone care; receipt of medical financial assistance; and account delinquency. A mixed methods exploratory analysis will investigate factors associated with total intervention dose received. DISCUSSION: The CAFÉ study will provide much-needed early trial evidence on the impact of financial navigation in reducing cancer-related financial hardship. It is theory-informed, clinic-based, aligned with patient preferences, and has been developed following preliminary qualitative studies and stakeholder input. By design, it will provide prospective evidence on the potential benefits of financial navigation on patient-relevant cancer outcomes. The CAFÉ trial's strengths include its broad inclusion criteria, its equity-focused sampling plan, its novel intervention developed in partnership with clinical and operations stakeholders, and mixed methods secondary analyses related to intervention dose offered and dose received. The resulting analytic dataset will allow for rich mixed methods analysis and provide critical information related to implementation of the intervention should it prove effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018000 . August 23, 2021.

"We Need to Taper." Interviews with Clinicians and Pharmacists About Use of a Pharmacy-Led Opioid Tapering Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence or interfere with referrals by primary care providers (PCPs) to a pharmacist-led telephone-based program to assist patients undergoing opioid tapering. The Support Team Onsite Resource for Management of Pain (STORM) program provides individualized patient care and supports PCPs in managing opioid tapers. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with referring PCPs and STORM staff. Interview guides addressed concepts from the RE-AIM framework, focusing on issues affecting referral to the STORM program. SETTING: An integrated healthcare system (HCS) in the Northwest United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-five interviews were conducted with 20 PCPs and 15 STORM staff. METHODS: Constant comparative analysis was used to identify key themes from interviews. A codebook was developed based on interview data and a qualitative software program was used for coding, iterative review, and content analysis. Representative quotes illustrate identified themes. RESULTS: Use of the STORM opioid tapering program was influenced by PCP, patient, and HCS considerations. Factors motivating use of STORM included lack of PCP time to support chronic pain patients requiring opioid tapering and the perception that STORM is a valued partner in patient care. Impediments to referral included PCP confidence in managing opioid tapering, patient resistance to tapering, forgetting about program availability, and PCP resistance to evolving guidelines regarding opioid tapering goals. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs recognized that STORM supported patient safety and reduced clinician burden. Utilization of the program could be improved through ongoing PCP education about the service and consistent co-location of STORM pharmacists within primary care clinics.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Risk of Gastric, Colorectal, Liver, and Pancreatic Cancers in a Community-Based Population.

INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used for gastrointestinal disorders; given they increase the systemic levels of gastrin, a trophic hormone, there is a concern about their carcinogenicity. This study evaluated the association between PPI use and gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study in a large, community-based integrated healthcare setting. Cases were adults with gastric (n = 1,233), colorectal (n = 18,595), liver (n = 2,329), or pancreatic cancers (n = 567). Each case was matched with up to 10 controls by age, sex, race/ethnicity, medical facility, and enrollment duration. The primary exposure was defined as ≥2-year cumulative PPI supply. Data were obtained from pharmacy, cancer registry, and electronic medical record databases. Associations were evaluated using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for multiple confounders. We also evaluated the cancer risks separately by PPI dose, duration of use, and dose and duration. RESULTS: PPI use of ≥2-years was not associated with the risks of gastric (odds ratio [OR]: 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.42), colorectal (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99-1.12), liver (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.91-1.43), or pancreatic cancers (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.89-1.67), compared to non-users. In exploratory analyses, elevated cancer risks were primarily restricted to those with ≥10 years of PPI use, but no consistent associations were found for increasing PPI dose and/or duration of use. DISCUSSION: PPI use of ≥2 years was not associated with increased risks of gastrointestinal cancers. The cancer risks associated with PPI use of ≥10 years requires further study.

Workflow Requirements for Cost-of-Care Conversations in Outpatient Settings Providing Oncology or Primary Care: A Qualitative, Human-Centered Design Study.

Background: Patients prefer to discuss costs in the clinical setting, but physicians and teams may be unprepared to incorporate cost discussions into existing workflows. Objective: To understand and improve clinical workflows related to cost-of-care conversations. Design: Qualitative human-centered design study. Setting: 2 integrated health systems in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: a system-wide oncology service line and a system-wide primary care service line. Participants: Clinicians, clinical team members, operations staff, and patients. Measurements: Ethnographic observations were made at the integrated health systems, assessing barriers to and facilitators of discussing costs with patients. Three unique patient experiences of having financial concerns addressed in the clinic were designed. These experiences were refined after in-person interviews with patients (n = 20). Data were synthesized into a set of clinical workflow requirements. Results: Most patient cost concerns take 1 of 3 pathways: informing clinical care decision making, planning and budgeting concerns, and addressing immediate financial hardship. Workflow requirements include organizational recognition of the need for clinic-based cost-of-care conversations; access to cost and health plan benefit data to support each conversation pathway; clear team member roles and responsibilities for addressing cost-of-care concerns; a patient experience where cost questions are normal and each patient's preferences and privacy are respected; patients know who to go to with cost questions; patients' concerns are documented to minimize repetition to multiple team members; and patients learn their expected out-of-pocket costs before treatment begins. Limitation: Results may have limited generalizability to other health care settings, and the study did not test the effectiveness of the workflows developed. Conclusion: Clinic-based workflows for cost-of-care conversations that optimize patients' care experience require organizational commitment to addressing cost concerns, clear roles and responsibilities, appropriate and complete data access, and a team-based approach. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Implementation of a Systematic Tumor Screening Program for Lynch Syndrome in an Integrated Health Care Setting.

A subset of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are attributable to Lynch syndrome (LS), a hereditary form of CRC. Effective evaluation for LS can be done on CRC tumors to guide diagnostic testing. Increased diagnosis of LS allows for surveillance and risk reduction, which can mitigate CRC-related burden and prevent cancer-related deaths. We evaluated participation in LS screening among newly diagnosed adult CRC patients. Some cases were referred for genetics evaluation prior to study recruitment (selective screening). Those not referred directly were randomized to the intervention or control (usual care) arms. Control cases were observed for one year, then given information about LS screening. Patients who declined participation were followed through the medical record. Of 601 cases of CRC, 194 (32%) enrolled in our study and were offered LS screening, 43 (7%) were followed as a control group, 148 (25%) declined participation and 216 (36%) were ineligible [63 (10%) of which received prior selective screening]. Six and nine cases of LS were identified through the intervention and selective screening groups, respectively. Overall, a higher proportion of PMS2 variants were identified in the intervention (3/6, 50%) versus selective screening groups (2/9, 22%) (not statistically significant). Eighty-eight percent and 23% of intervention and control patients, respectively, received LS screening. No control patients were found to have LS. Systems-based approaches are needed to ensure we fully identify LS cases. The proportion of LS cases from this program was 4% of newly diagnosed cases of CRC, similar to other programs.

Recommended care and care adherence following a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome. This study assesses trends in diagnosis of LS and adherence to recommended LS-related care in a large integrated healthcare organization (~ 575,000 members). METHODS: Electronic medical record (EMR) data (1999-2015) were examined to identify patients with a diagnosis of LS. We examined their LS-associated care recommendations and adherence to these recommendations. Qualitative patient and provider interviews were conducted with the aim of identifying opportunities for improved care delivery. RESULTS: We identified 74 patients with a diagnosis of LS; 64% were diagnosed with a LS-related malignancy prior to their diagnosis of LS. The time to LS diagnosis following development of a LS-related cancer decreased over time: before 2009 11% of individuals received a diagnosis of LS within 1 year of developing a LS-related cancer compared to 83% after 2009 (p < 0.0001). Colonoscopy recommendations were documented in the EMR for almost all patients with LS (96%). Documentation of other recommendations for cancer surveillance was less commonly found. Overall, patient adherence to colonoscopy was high (M = 81.5%; SD = 32.7%), and adherence to other recommendations varied. To improve care coordination, patients and providers suggested providing automated reminder prompts for LS-related surveillance, adding a LS-specific diagnosis code, and providing guidelines for LS-related surveillance in the EMR. CONCLUSIONS: We identified fewer than expected patients with LS in our large care system, indicating that there is still a diagnostic care gap. However, patients with LS were likely to receive and follow CRC surveillance recommendations. Recommendations for and adherence to extracolonic surveillance were variable. Improved care coordination and clearer documentation of the LS diagnosis is needed.

Patient and provider perspectives on adherence to and care coordination of lynch syndrome surveillance recommendations: findings from qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a genetic variant associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) are recommended to undergo frequent and repeated cancer surveillance activities to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how patients and primary care providers (PCPs) track and manage these recommendations. We conducted a small exploratory study of patient and PCP experiences with recommended LS surveillance activities and communication with family members in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We used in-depth interviews with patients and providers to understand how surveillance is coordinated and monitored following confirmation of LS. We recruited patients with a range of ages/gender, and providers with at least at least one patient with a molecular diagnosis of LS. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed by a trained qualitative methodologist. RESULTS: Twenty-two interviews were completed with 12 patients and 10 providers. Most patients (10) had detailed knowledge of surveillance recommendations, but were less sure of time intervals. While all patients reported receiving initial education about their surveillance recommendations from a genetic counselor, seven did not follow-up with a genetic counselor in subsequent years. A third of patients described taking sole responsibility for managing their LS surveillance care. Lack of routine communication from the health system (e.g., prompts for surveillance activities), and provider engagement were surveillance barriers. PCPs were generally aware of LS, but had limited familiarity with surveillance recommendations. Most PCPs (7) viewed LS as rare and relied on patient and specialist expertise and support. Providers typically had 1 patient with LS in a panel of 1800 patients overall. Providers felt strongly that management of LS should be coordinated by a dedicated team of specialists. Most patients (92%) had at least one family member that sought LS testing, and common barriers for family members included lack of insurance, affordability, and fear of result. CONCLUSION: The maximal benefits of screening for confirmation of LS will only be realized with adherence to recommended preventive care. Important factors to ensure patients receive recommended LS care include a comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program that includes reminder prompts, and increased PCP education of LS and associated surveillance recommendations.

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing a universal Lynch syndrome screening program: a qualitative study of early barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed colon cancer be screened for Lynch syndrome (LS), but best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have not been extensively studied. We interviewed a range of stakeholders in an integrated health-care system to identify initial factors that might promote or hinder the successful implementation of a universal LS screening program. METHODS: We conducted interviews with health-plan leaders, managers, and staff. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis began with a grounded approach and was also guided by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). RESULTS: We completed 14 interviews with leaders/managers and staff representing involved clinical and health-plan departments. Although stakeholders supported the concept of universal screening, they identified several internal (organizational) and external (environment) factors that promote or hinder implementation. Facilitating factors included perceived benefits of screening for patients and organization, collaboration between departments, and availability of organizational resources. Barriers were also identified, including: lack of awareness of guidelines, lack of guideline clarity, staffing and program "ownership" concerns, and cost uncertainties. Analysis also revealed nine important infrastructure-type considerations for successful implementation. CONCLUSION: We found that clinical, laboratory, and administrative departments supported universal tumor screening for LS. Requirements for successful implementation may include interdepartmental collaboration and communication, patient and provider/staff education, and significant infrastructure and resource support related to laboratory processing and systems for electronic ordering and tracking.

Population-representative incidence of drug-induced acute liver failure based on an analysis of an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Medications are a major cause of acute liver failure (ALF) in the United States, but no population-based studies have evaluated the incidence of ALF from drug-induced liver injury. We aimed to determine the incidence and outcomes of drug-induced ALF in an integrated health care system that approximates a population-based cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) health care system between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2010. We included all KPNC members age 18 years and older with 6 months or more of membership and hospitalization for potential ALF. The primary outcome was drug-induced ALF (defined as coagulopathy and hepatic encephalopathy without underlying chronic liver disease), determined by hepatologists who reviewed medical records of all KPNC members with inpatient diagnostic and laboratory criteria suggesting potential ALF. RESULTS: Among 5,484,224 KPNC members between 2004 and 2010, 669 had inpatient diagnostic and laboratory criteria indicating potential ALF. After medical record review, 62 (9.3%) were categorized as having definite or possible ALF, and 32 (51.6%) had a drug-induced etiology (27 definite, 5 possible). Acetaminophen was implicated in 18 events (56.3%), dietary/herbal supplements in 6 events (18.8%), antimicrobials in 2 events (6.3%), and miscellaneous medications in 6 events (18.8%). One patient with acetaminophen-induced ALF died (5.6%; 0.06 events/1,000,000 person-years) compared with 3 patients with non-acetaminophen-induced ALF (21.4%; 0.18/1,000,000 person-years). Overall, 6 patients (18.8%) underwent liver transplantation, and 22 patients (68.8%) were discharged without transplantation. The incidence rates of any definite drug-induced ALF and acetaminophen-induced ALF were 1.61 events/1,000,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.35) and 1.02 events/1,000,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.63), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-induced ALF is uncommon, but over-the-counter products and dietary/herbal supplements are its most common causes.

Automated telephone calls to enhance colorectal cancer screening: economic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of an automated telephone intervention for colorectal cancer screening from a managed care perspective, using data from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Intervention patients received calls for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) screening. We searched patients' electronic medical records for any screening (defined as FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, or colonoscopy) during follow-up. Intervention costs included project implementation and management, telephone calls, patient identification, and tracking. Screening costs included FOBT (kits, mailing, and processing) and any completed screening tests during follow-up. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the cost per additional screen. RESULTS: At 6 months, average costs for intervention and control patients were $37 (25% screened) and $34 (19% screened), respectively. The ICER at 6 months was $42 per additional screen, less than half what other studies have reported. Cost-effectiveness probability was 0.49, 0.84, and 0.99 for willingness-to-pay thresholds of $40, $100, and $200, respectively. Similar results were seen at 9 months. A greater increase in FOBT testing was seen for patients aged >70 years (45/100 intervention, 33/100 control) compared with younger patients (25/100 intervention, 21/100 control). The intervention was dominant for patients aged >70 years and was $73 per additional screen for younger patients. It increased screening rates by about 6% and costs by $3 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: At willingness to pay of $100 or more per additional screening test, an automated telephone reminder intervention can be an optimal use of resources.