RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used both as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based CRC screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with four key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI providers, comparing their outcomes to those of GI providers. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using p < 0.05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all p-values were two-sided. RESULTS: No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged form 98-100% for cecal intubation; 97.4-100% for bowel preparation; 57.4-88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7-62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10-0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (p < 0.001). In this analysis, non-GI providers can be expected to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI providers based on performance outcomes for the key quality metrics.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Given the higher rates of tobacco use along with increased mortality specific to lung cancer in rural settings, low-dose CT (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening could be particularly beneficial to such populations. However, limited radiology facilities and increased geographical distance, combined with lower income and education along with reduced patient engagement, present heightened barriers to screening initiation and adherence. METHODS: In collaboration with community leaders and stakeholders, we developed and implemented a community-based lung cancer screening program, including telephone-based navigation and tobacco cessation counseling support, serving 18 North Texas counties. Funding was available to support clinical services costs where needed. We collected data on LDCT referrals, orders, and completion. RESULTS: To raise awareness for lung cancer screening, we leveraged our established collaborative network of more than 700 community partners. In the first year of operation, 107 medical providers referred 570 patients for lung cancer screening, of whom 488 (86%) were eligible for LDCT. The most common reasons for ineligibility were age (43%) and insufficient tobacco history (20%). Of 381 ordered LDCTs, 334 (88%) were completed. Among screened patients, 61% were current smokers and 36% had insurance coverage for the procedure. The program cost per patient was $430. DISCUSSION: Implementation, uptake, and completion of LDCT-based lung cancer screening is feasible in rural settings. Community outreach, health promotion, and algorithm-based navigation may support such efforts. Given low lung cancer screening rates nationally and heightened lung cancer risk in rural populations, similar programs in other regions may be particularly impactful.
