Identifying factors and causal chains associated with optimal implementation of Lynch syndrome tumor screening: An application of coincidence analysis.

PURPOSE: This study compared Lynch syndrome universal tumor screening (UTS) across multiple health systems (some of which had two or more distinct UTS programs) to understand multi-level factors that may impact the successful implementation of complex programs. METHODS: Data from 66 stakeholder interviews were used to conduct multi-value coincidence analysis (mv-CNA) and identify key factors that consistently make a difference in whether UTS programs were implemented and optimized at the system level. RESULTS: The selected CNA model revealed combinations of conditions that distinguish 4 optimized UTS programs, 10 non-optimized programs, and 4 systems with no program. Fully optimized UTS programs had both a maintenance champion and a positive inner setting. Two independent paths were unique to non-optimized programs: 1) positive attitudes and a mixed inner setting, or 2) limited planning & engaging among stakeholders. Negative views about UTS evidence or lack of knowledge about UTS led to a lack of planning and engaging, which subsequently prevented program implementation. CONCLUSION: The model improved our understanding of program implementation in health care systems and informed the creation of a toolkit to guide UTS implementation, optimization, and changes. Our findings and toolkit may serve as a use case to increase the successful implementation of other complex precision health programs.

"Go ahead and screen" - advice to healthcare systems for routine lynch syndrome screening from interviews with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). Universal tumor screening (UTS) of newly diagnosed CRC cases is recommended to aid in diagnosis of LS and reduce cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, not all health systems have adopted UTS processes and implementation may be inconsistent due to system and patient-level complexities. METHODS: To identify barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improvements of the UTS process from the patient perspective, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with patients recently diagnosed with CRC, but not screened for or aware of LS. Patients were recruited from eight regionally diverse US health systems. Interviews were conducted by telephone, 60-minutes, audio-recorded, and transcribed. An inductive, constant comparative analysis approach was employed.  RESULTS: We completed 75 interviews across the eight systems. Most participants were white (79%), about half (52%) were men, and the mean age was 60 years. Most self-reported either no (60%) or minimal (40%) prior awareness of LS. Overall, 96% of patients stated UTS should be a routine standard of care for CRC tumors, consistently citing four primary motivations for wanting to know their LS status and engage in the process for LS identification: "knowledge is power"; "family knowledge"; "prevention and detection"; and "treatment and surveillance." Common concerns pertaining to the process of screening for and identifying LS included: creating anticipatory worry for patients, the potential cost and the accuracy of the genetic test, and possibly having one's health insurance coverage impacted by the LS diagnosis. Patients suggested health systems communicate LS results in-person or by phone from a trained expert in LS; offer proactive verbal and written education about LS, the screening steps, and any follow-up surveillance recommendations; and support patients in communicating their LS screening to any of their blood relatives. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings demonstrate patients with CRC have a strong desire for healthcare systems to regularly implement and offer UTS. Patients offer key insights for health systems to guide future implementation and optimization of UTS and other LS screening programs and maximize diagnosis of individuals with LS and improve cancer-related surveillance and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not available: not a clinical trial.

"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.

Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff.

PURPOSE: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program. METHODS: We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. RESULTS: We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors. CONCLUSIONS: Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.

Patient expectations of and experiences with a suicide risk identification algorithm in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Suicide risk prediction models derived from electronic health records (EHR) and insurance claims are a novel innovation in suicide prevention but patient perspectives on their use have been understudied. METHODS: In this qualitative study, between March and November 2020, 62 patients were interviewed from three health systems: one anticipating implementation of an EHR-derived suicide risk prediction model and two others piloting different implementation approaches. Site-tailored interview guides focused on patients' perceptions of this technology, concerns, and preferences for and experiences with suicide risk prediction model implementation in clinical practice. A constant comparative analytic approach was used to derive themes. RESULTS: Interview participants were generally supportive of suicide risk prediction models derived from EHR data. Concerns included apprehension about inducing anxiety and suicidal thoughts, or triggering coercive treatment, particularly among those who reported prior negative experiences seeking mental health care. Participants who were engaged in mental health care or case management expected to be asked about their suicide risk and largely appreciated suicide risk conversations, particularly by clinicians comfortable discussing suicidality. CONCLUSION: Most patients approved of suicide risk models that use EHR data to identify patients at-risk for suicide. As health systems proceed to implement such models, patient-centered care would involve dialogue initiated by clinicians experienced with assessing suicide risk during virtual or in person care encounters. Health systems should proactively monitor for negative consequences that result from risk model implementation to protect patient trust.

Barriers to family history knowledge and family communication among LGBTQ+ individuals in the context of hereditary cancer risk assessment.

Openness about identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+) may cause strain on relationships between family members, which could lead to limited knowledge of cancer family history and reduced communication with family members. As a result, members of the LGBTQ+ community may have more difficulty accessing genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk. We applied a mixed-methods approach to explore potential barriers to knowledge of cancer family history and family communication among participants of the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study who self-identified as LGBTQ+. We assessed perceptions of family functioning and communication of genetic test results to family members using survey tools and supplemented these data with 20 in-depth interviews to further assess participant perspectives and experiences. LGBTQ+ participants were more likely to report unhealthy family functioning on the survey tool, and some interviewees endorsed that openness about their LGBTQ+ identity led to strained family relationships and reduced communication about their family history of cancer. Overall, this study identified barriers that may be faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community which could limit their ability to access genetic counseling services for inherited cancer risk.

"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.

Factors associated with opioid-tapering success: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid tapering is recommended when risks of chronic opioid use outweigh benefits. Little is known about patient characteristics or factors related to tapering success. We sought to identify characteristics that predict a 50% reduction in opioid use and qualitatively characterize factors that impact tapering success. METHODS: We used multilevel hierarchical modeling to identify predictors of a 50% reduction in opioid use among Kaiser Permanente Northwest patients who underwent pharmacist-led tapering between 2012 and 2017. We conducted qualitative interviews among patients and pharmacists to identify factors influencing tapering success. RESULTS: We identified 1384 patients who, on average, were dispensed 207 milligram morphine equivalents per day at baseline. After 12 months, 56% of patients reduced their opioid use by 50%. Increased odds of 50% reduction were associated with younger age 21-49 years (Odds ratio [OR] 1.32, P = 0.004); previous surgery (OR 2.24, P < 0.001); increased number of Addiction Medicine encounters (OR 1.25, P = 0.011); substance use disorder (OR 1.62, P = 0.001); anxiety (OR 1.32, P = 0.003); non-narcotic analgesic (OR 1.22, P = 0.025) or antipsychotic medication use (OR 1.53, P = 0.006); and opioid days supplied in the previous year (OR 1.08, P < 0.001). Patients and pharmacists noted that success was influenced by patients' willingness or resistance to change opioid use, the level of patient engagement achieved through communication with their provider, aspects of the tapering process such as pace, and external factors including health issues or caregiving responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-half of patients who underwent tapering reduced their opioid use by 50%. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were predictive of tapering success; however, patients and pharmacists noted that patient willingness, motivation, and personal circumstances also influence tapering outcome. Opioid tapering requires an individualized approach. Both clinical factors and personal circumstances should be considered when opioid tapering is being discussed as a possible solution for a patient.

Validation of an Algorithm to Identify Patients at Risk for Colorectal Cancer Based on Laboratory Test and Demographic Data in Diverse, Community-Based Population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Approximately 30%-40% of screening-eligible adults in the United States are not up to date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to validate a predictive score, generated by a machine learning algorithm with common laboratory test data, to identify patients at high risk for CRC in a large, community-based, ethnically diverse cohort. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study using data from members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (1996-2015). Cases were cohort members who received a complete blood cell count at ages 50-75 y, did not have a prior or current diagnosis of CRC diagnosis at the time of the blood cell count, and were subsequently diagnosed with CRC. We used data from the cohort to validate the ability of an algorithm that uses laboratory and demographic information to identify patients at increased risk for CRC. Test performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI values to compare high (defined as 97% specificity or more) vs low scores. RESULTS: A high score from the algorithm identified patients with a CRC diagnosis within the next 6 months with 35.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 33.8-36.7) and an AUROC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77-0.78). Patients with a high score had an increased risk of diagnosis with early-stage CRC (OR, 13.1; 95% CI, 11.8-14.3) and advanced stage CRC (OR, 24.8; 95% CI, 22.4-27.3) within the next 6 months. In patients with high scores, the ORs for proximal and distal cancers were 34.7 (95% CI, 31.5-37.7) and 12.1 (95% CI, 10.1-13.9), respectively. The algorithm's accuracy decreased with the time interval between blood test result and CRC diagnosis; performance did not differ by sex or race. CONCLUSIONS: We validated a predictive model that uses complete blood cell count and demographic data to identify patients at high risk of CRC. The algorithm identified 3% of the population who require an investigation and identified 35% of patients who received a diagnosis of CRC within the next 6 months.

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.

First-year implementation of mailed FIT colorectal cancer screening programs in two Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans: qualitative learnings from health plan quality improvement staff and leaders.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening rates remain low, especially among certain racial and ethnic groups and the uninsured and Medicaid insured. Clinics and health care systems have adopted population-based mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs to increase screening, and now health insurance plans are beginning to implement mailed FIT programs. We report on challenges to and successes of mailed FIT programs during their first year of implementation in two health plans serving Medicaid and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study gathered data through in-depth interviews with staff and leaders at each health plan (n = 10). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, field notes from program planning meetings between the research team and the health plans, and internal research team debriefs informed interview guide development. Qualitative research staff used Atlas.ti to code the health plan interviews and develop summary themes through an iterative content analysis approach. RESULTS: We identified first-year implementation challenges in five thematic areas: 1) program design, 2) vendor experience, 3) engagement/communication, 4) reaction/satisfaction of stakeholders, and 5) processing/returning of mailed kits. Commonly experienced challenges by both health plans related to the time-consuming nature of the programs to set up, and complexities and delays in working with vendors. We found implementation successes in the same five thematic areas as well as four additional areas of: 1) leadership support, 2) compatibility with the health plan, 3) broader impacts, and 4) collaboration with researchers. Commonly experienced successes included the ability to adapt the mailed FIT program to the individual health plan culture and needs, and the synchronicity between the programs and their organizational missions and goals. CONCLUSIONS: Both health plans successfully adapted mailed FIT programs to their own culture and resources and used their strong quality management resources to maximize success in overcoming the time demands of setting up the program and working with their vendors. Mailed FIT programs administered by health plans, especially those serving Medicaid- and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare-insured populations, may be an important resource to support closing gaps in colorectal cancer screening among traditionally underserved populations.

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.

Diabetes in relation to Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus: A pooled study from the International Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is positively associated with various cancers, but its relationship with tumors of the esophagus/esophagogastric junction remains unclear. METHODS: Data were harmonized across 13 studies in the International Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium, comprising 2309 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) cases, 1938 esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJA) cases, 1728 Barrett's esophagus (BE) cases, and 16,354 controls. Logistic regression was used to estimate study-specific odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for self-reported diabetes in association with EA, EGJA, and BE. Adjusted ORs were then combined using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Diabetes was associated with a 34% increased risk of EA (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.00-1.80; I2  = 48.8% [where 0% indicates no heterogeneity, and larger values indicate increasing heterogeneity between studies]), 27% for EGJA (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.55; I2  = 0.0%), and 30% for EA/EGJA combined (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58; I2  = 34.9%). Regurgitation symptoms modified the diabetes-EA/EGJA association (P for interaction = .04) with a 63% increased risk among participants with regurgitation (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.19-2.22), but not among those without regurgitation (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43). No consistent association was found between diabetes and BE. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes was associated with increased EA and EGJA risk, which was confined to individuals with regurgitation symptoms. Lack of an association between diabetes and BE suggests that diabetes may influence progression of BE to cancer.

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.

Cancer incidence and mortality risks in a large US Barrett's oesophagus cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Barrett's oesophagus (BE) increases the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma by 10-55 times that of the general population, but no community-based cancer-specific incidence and cause-specific mortality risk estimates exist for large cohorts in the USA. DESIGN: Within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), we identified patients with BE diagnosed during 1995-2012. KPNC cancer registry and mortality files were used to estimate standardised incidence ratios (SIR), standardised mortality ratios (SMR) and excess absolute risks. RESULTS: There were 8929 patients with BE providing 50 147 person-years of follow-up. Compared with the greater KPNC population, patients with BE had increased risks of any cancer (SIR=1.40, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.49), which slightly decreased after excluding oesophageal cancer. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk was increased 24 times, which translated into an excess absolute risk of 24 cases per 10 000 person-years. Although oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk decreased with time since BE diagnosis, oesophageal cancer mortality did not, indicating that the true risk is stable and persistent with time. Relative risks of cardia and stomach cancers were increased, but excess absolute risks were modest. Risks of colorectal, lung and prostate cancers were unaltered. All-cause mortality was slightly increased after excluding oesophageal cancer (SMR=1.24, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.31), but time-stratified analyses indicated that this was likely attributable to diagnostic bias. Cause-specific SMRs were elevated for ischaemic heart disease (SMR=1.39, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.63), respiratory system diseases (SMR=1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.75) and digestive system diseases (SMR=2.20 95% CI 1.75 to 2.75). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BE had a persistent excess risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma over time, although their absolute excess risks for this cancer, any cancer and overall mortality were modest.

Proton Pump Inhibitor and Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonist Use and Iron Deficiency.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) suppress gastric acid production, which can inhibit iron absorption. However, few data exist regarding whether these medications increase the risk of clinical iron deficiency. METHODS: A community-based case-control study evaluated the association between acid-suppressing medication use and the subsequent risk of iron deficiency. It contrasted 77,046 patients with new iron deficiency diagnoses (January 1999-December 2013), with 389,314 controls. Medication exposures, outcomes, and potential confounders used electronic databases. We excluded patients with pre-existing risk factors for iron deficiency. Associations were estimated using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Among cases, 2343 (3.0%) received a prior ≥2-year supply of PPIs and 1063 (1.4%) received H2RAs (without PPI use). Among controls, 3354 (0.9%) received a prior ≥2-year supply of PPIs and 2247 (0.6%) H2RAs. Both ≥2 years of PPIs (adjusted odds ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 2.35-2.64) and ≥2 years of H2RAs (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46-1.71) were associated with an increased subsequent risk for iron deficiency. Among PPI users, the associations were stronger for higher daily doses (>1.5 vs <0.75 PPI pills/d; P value interaction = .004) and decreased after medication discontinuation (P-trend < .001). Some of the strongest associations were among persons taking >1.5 pills per day for at least 10 years (odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 2.53-7.21). No similar strong associations were found for other commonly used prescription medications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients without known risk factors for iron deficiency, gastric acid inhibitor use for ≥2 years was associated with an increased subsequent risk of iron deficiency. The risk increased with increasing potency of acid inhibition and decreased after medication discontinuation.

Patient perspectives on the use of categories of conditions for decision making about genomic carrier screening results.

As expanded genome-scale carrier screening becomes increasingly prevalent, patients will face decisions about whether to receive results about a vast number of genetic conditions. Understanding patient preferences is important to meaningfully demonstrate the ethical goal of respect and support patient autonomy. We explore one possible way to elicit preferences by sorting conditions into categories, which may support patient decision making, but the extent to which categories are helpful is unknown. In the context of a randomized trial of genome sequencing for preconception carrier screening compared to usual care (single disease carrier testing), we interviewed 41 participants who had genome sequencing about their experience using a taxonomy of conditions to select categories of results to receive. We then conducted interviews with an additional 10 participants who were not randomized to genome sequencing, asking them about the taxonomy, their reasons for selecting categories, and alternative ways of presenting information about potential results to receive. Participants in both groups found the categories helpful and valued having a meaningful opportunity to choose which results to receive, regardless of whether they opted to receive all or only certain categories of results. Additionally, participants who received usual care highlighted preparedness as a primary motivation for receiving results, and they indicated that being presented with possible reasons for receiving or declining results for each category could be helpful. Our findings can be used to develop approaches, including the use of categories, to support patient choices in expanded carrier screening. Further research should evaluate and optimize these approaches.

Time Costs for Genetic Counseling in Preconception Carrier Screening with Genome Sequencing.

Advances in technology and the promise of personalized health care are driving greater use of genome sequencing (GS) for a variety of clinical scenarios. As health systems consider adopting GS, they need to understand the impact of GS on the organization and cost of care. While research has documented a dramatic decrease in the cost of sequencing and interpreting GS, few studies have examined how GS impacts genetic counseling workloads. This study examined the time needed to provide genetic counseling for GS in the context of preconception carrier screening. Genetic counselors prospectively reported on the time spent in the results disclosure process with 107 study participants who were part of the NextGen study. We found that the median time for results disclosure was 64 min (ranged from 5 to 229 min). Preparation work was the most time-consuming activity. Qualitative data from journal entries, debrief interviews with genetic counselors, and detailed case conference notes provided information on factors influencing time for results disclosure and implications for practice. Results suggest that expanded carrier screening could require significant increases in genetic counseling time, unless we are able to generate new resources to reduce preparation work or develop other strategies such as the creation of new models to deliver this type of service.

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.

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics.

BACKGROUND: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research. METHODS: STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC. RESULTS: Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools. CONCLUSION: Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.