The TELEhealth Shared decision-making Coaching and Navigation in Primary carE (TELESCOPE) intervention: a study protocol for delivering shared decision-making for lung cancer screening by patient navigators.

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality but has potential harms for patients. A shared decision-making (SDM) conversation about LCS is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for LCS reimbursement. To overcome barriers to SDM in primary care, this protocol describes a telehealth decision coaching intervention for LCS in primary care clinics delivered by patient navigators. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation potential, compared with an enhanced usual care (EUC) arm. Methods: Patients (n = 420) of primary care clinicians (n = 120) are being recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinicians are randomly assigned to 1) TELESCOPE intervention: prior to an upcoming non-acute clinic visit, patients participate in a telehealth decision coaching session about LCS delivered by trained patient navigators and nurse navigators place a low-dose CT scan (LDCT) order for each TELESCOPE patient wanting LCS, or 2) EUC: patients receive enhanced usual care from a clinician. Usual care is enhanced by providing clinicians in both arms with access to a Continuing Medical Education (CME) webinar about LCS and an LCS discussion guide. Patients complete surveys at baseline and 1-week after the scheduled clinic visit to assess quality of the SDM process. Re-navigation is attempted with TELESCOPE patients who have not completed the LDCT within 3 months. One month before being due for an annual screening, TELESCOPE patients whose initial LCS showed low-risk findings are randomly assigned to receive a telehealth decision coaching booster session with a navigator or no booster. Electronic health records are abstracted at 6, 12 and 18 months after the initial decision coaching session (TELESCOPE) or clinic visit (EUC) to assess initial and annual LCS uptake, imaging results, follow-up testing for abnormal findings, cancer diagnoses, treatment, and tobacco treatment referrals. This study will evaluate factors that facilitate or interfere with program implementation using mixed methods. Discussion: We will assess whether a decision coaching and patient navigation intervention can feasibly support high-quality SDM for LCS and guideline-concordant LCS uptake for patients in busy primary care practices serving diverse patient populations. Trial Registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05491213) on August 4, 2022.

Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care. METHODS: Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus. RESULTS: Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

Characteristics and Barriers of Emergency Department Patients Overdue for Cancer Screening.

Introduction: People without reliable access to healthcare are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage cancer that could have been treated more effectively if diagnosed earlier. Emergency departments (ED) may be a novel place for cancer screening education for underserved patients. In this study we sought to determine patient characteristics and barriers to cancer screening for those patients who presented to a large, academic safety-net ED and were overdue for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening since the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Adult ED patients eligible for at least one cancer screening based on US Preventive Serivces Task Force guidelines completed a web-based survey. We examined the association of demographic characteristics and having a personal physician with being overdue on screening using chi-square or the Fisher exact test for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. Results: Of 221 participants, 144 were eligible for colorectal, 96 for cervical, and 55 for breast cancer screening. Of eligible patients, 46% (25/55) were overdue for breast cancer screening, 43% (62/144) for colorectal, and 40% (38/96) for cervical cancer screening. There were no significant characteristics associated with breast cancer screening. Being overdue for cervical cancer screening was significantly more likely for patients who were of Asian race (P = 0.02), had less than a high school diploma (P = 0.01), and were without a routine checkup within the prior five years (P = 0.01). Overdue for colorectal cancer screening was associated with patients not having insurance (P = 0.04), being in their 40s (P = 0.03), being Hispanic (P = 0.01), and not having a primary care physician (P=0.01). Of 97 patients overdue for at least one screening, the most common barriers were cost (37%), lack of time (37%), and lack of knowledge of screening recommendations (34%). Only 8.3% reported that the COVID-19 pandemic delayed their screening. Conclusion: The ED may be a novel setting to target patients for cancer screening education. Future work that refers patients to free screening programs and primary care physicians may help improve disparities in cancer screening and cancer mortality rates for underserved populations.