A "sludge audit" for health system colorectal cancer screening services.

OBJECTIVES: "Sludge," or the frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to attain what they want or need, is an unexplored health care delivery factor that may contribute to deficiencies in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We piloted a method to identify and quantify sludge in a southeastern US health system's delivery of CRC screening services. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods sludge audit. METHODS: We collected and analyzed quantitative (insurance claims, electronic health record, and administrative files) and qualitative (stakeholder interviews and process observations) data associated with CRC screening for instances of sludge. Because they contribute to sludge and reduce system capacity for high-value screening, we also evaluated low-value CRC screening processes. RESULTS: Although specific results were likely amplified by effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sludge audit revealed important areas for improvement. A 60.4% screening rate was observed. Approximately half of screening orders were not completed. The following categories of sludge were identified: communication, time, technology, administrative tasks, paperwork, and low-value care. For example, wait times for screening colonoscopy were substantial, duplicate orders were common, and some results were not accessible in the electronic health record. Of completed screenings, 32% were low-value and 38% were associated with low-value preoperative testing. There was evidence of a differential negative impact of sludge to vulnerable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our sludge audit method identified and quantified multiple instances of sludge in a health system's CRC screening processes. Sludge audits can help organizations to systematically evaluate and reduce sludge for more effective and equitable CRC screening.

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

Dietary and Biological Assessment of the Omega-3 Status of Collegiate Athletes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Omega-3 fatty acids (ω-3 FA) are associated with cardiovascular health, brain function, reduction of inflammation, and several other physiological roles of importance to competitive athletes. The ω-3 FA status of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletes has not been well-described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ω-3 FA status of NCAA Division I athletes using dietary and biological assessment methodology. Athletes from nine NCAA Division I institutions from throughout the U.S. (n = 1,528, 51% male, 34 sports represented, 19.9 ± 1.4 years of age) completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to assess ω-3 FA from diet and supplements. Omega-3 Index (O3i) was evaluated in a sub-set of these participants (n = 298, 55% male, 21 sports represented, 20.0 ± 1.3 years of age) using dried blood spot sampling. Only 6% (n = 93) of athletes achieved the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics' recommendation to consume 500 mg DHA+EPA per day. Use of ω-3 FA supplements was reported by 15% (n = 229) of participants. O3i was 4.33 ± 0.81%, with no participants meeting the O3i benchmark of 8% associated with the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease. Every additional weekly serving of fish or seafood was associated with an absolute O3i increase of 0.27%. Overall, sub-optimal ω-3 FA status was observed among a large, geographically diverse group of male and female NCAA Division I athletes. These findings may inform interventions aimed at improving ω-3 FA status of collegiate athletes. Further research on athlete-specific ω-3 FA requirements is needed.