Engaging with Rural Communities for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Using Modified Boot Camp Translation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are disproportionately high among rural residents and Medicaid enrollees. OBJECTIVES: To address disparities, we used a modified community engagement approach, Boot Camp Translation (BCT). Research partners, an advisory board, and the rural community informed messaging about CRC outreach and a mailed fecal immunochemical test program. METHODS: Eligible rural patients (English-speaking and ages 50-74) and clinic staff involved in patient outreach participated in a BCT conducted virtually over two months. We applied qualitative analysis to BCT transcripts and field notes. RESULTS: Key themes included: the importance of directly communicating about the seriousness of cancer, leveraging close clinic-patient relationships, and communicating the test safety, ease, and low cost. CONCLUSIONS: Using a modified version of BCT delivered in a virtual format, we were able to successfully capture community input to adapt a CRC outreach program for use in rural settings. Program materials will be tested during a pragmatic trial to address rural CRC screening disparities.

Primary Care Providers Experiences Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Describe primary care providers' (PCPs) barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening programs in rural settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with PCPs practicing in rural Oregon from November 2019 to September 2020. The interview questions and analytic framework were informed by the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used inductive and deductive approaches for analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 key participants from 12 distinct health care systems. We identified several Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research factors affecting lung cancer screening implementation. 1) Most PCPs did not have workflows to assist in discussing screening and relied on their memory and knowledge of the patient's history to prompt discussions. PCPs supported screening and managed the patient throughout the process. 2) PCPs reported several patient-level barriers, including geographic access to lung cancer screening scans and out-of-pocket cost concerns. 3) PCPs reported that champions are necessary to create opportunities for local practices to adopt lung cancer screening programs. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-practicing PCPs were supportive of lung cancer screening, however workflow processes, time challenges, and patient-reported barriers remain impediments to improved screening in their clinics. We identified several areas for improvement in lung cancer screening implementation in rural primary care practices, ranging from designing clinic workflows and processes to designating clinic staff to support referral, screening, and follow-up care for patients.

"It's Like Finding Your Way Through the Labyrinth": a Qualitative Study of Veterans' Experiences Accessing Healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Veterans Choice Act and subsequent 2018 Veteran's Affairs (VA) Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (MISSION Act) are legislation which clarified Veteran access to healthcare provided by non-VA clinicians (community care). These policies are of particular importance to Veterans living in rural areas, who tend to live farther from VA medical facilities than urban Veterans. OBJECTIVE: To understand Veterans' experiences of the MISSION Act and how it impacted their access to primary care to inform future interventions with a focus on reaching rural Veterans. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design. PARTICIPANTS: United States (US) Veterans in Northwestern states engaged in VA and/or community care. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of Veterans between August 2020 and September 2021. Interview domains focused on barriers and facilitators of healthcare access. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 28 Veterans; 52% utilized community care as their primary source of care and 36% were from rural or frontier areas. Three main themes emerged: (1) Veterans described their healthcare experiences as positive but also frustrating (billing and prior authorization were noted as top frustrations); (2) Veterans with medical complexities, living far from healthcare services, and/or seeking women's healthcare services experienced additional frustration due to increased touch points with VA systems and processes; and (3) financial resources and/or knowledge of the VA system insulated Veterans from frustration with healthcare navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite provisions in the MISSION Act, Veteran participants described persistent barriers to healthcare access. Patient characteristics that required increased interaction with VA processes exacerbated these barriers, while financial resources and VA system knowledge mitigated them. Interventions to improve care coordination or address access barriers across VA and community care settings could improve access and reduce health inequities for Veterans-especially those with medical complexities, those living far from healthcare services, or those seeking women's healthcare.

Jumping Through Hoops: Community Care Clinician and Staff Experiences Providing Primary Care to Rural Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 VA Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act, or MISSION Act, aimed to improve rural veteran access to care by expanding coverage for services in the community. Increased access to clinicians outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could benefit rural veterans, who often face obstacles obtaining VA care. This solution, however, relies on clinics willing to navigate VA administrative processes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences rural, non-VA clinicians and staff have while providing care to rural veterans and inform challenges and opportunities for high-quality, equitable care access and delivery. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Non-VA-affiliated primary care clinicians and staff in the Pacific Northwest. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of eligible clinicians and staff between May and August 2020; data analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 13 clinicians and staff and identified four themes and multiple challenges related to providing care for rural veterans: (1) Confusion, variability and delays for VA administrative processes, (2) clarifying responsibility for dual-user veteran care, (3) accessing and sharing medical records outside the VA, and (4) negotiating communication pathways between systems and clinicians. Informants reported using workarounds to combat challenges, including using trial and error to gain expertise in VA system navigation, relying on veterans to act as intermediaries to coordinate their care, and depending on individual VA employees to support provider-to-provider communication and share system knowledge. Informants expressed concerns that dual-user veterans were more likely to have duplication or gaps in services. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need to reduce the bureaucratic burden of interacting with the VA. Further work is needed to tailor structures to address challenges rural community providers experience and to identify strategies to reduce care fragmentation across VA and non-VA providers and encourage long-term commitment to care for veterans.

Improving colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care: Preliminary effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative mailed fecal immunochemical test pilot.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. We piloted a collaborative mailed FIT program with health plans and rural clinics to evaluate preliminary effectiveness and refine implementation strategies. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm study using a convergent, parallel mixed-methods design to evaluate the implementation of a collaborative mailed FIT program. Enrollees were identified using health plan claims and confirmed via clinic scrub. The intervention included a vendor-delivered automated phone call (auto-call) prompt, FIT mailing, and reminder auto-call; clinics were encouraged to make live reminder calls. Practice facilitation was the primary implementation strategy. At 12 months post mailing, we assessed the rates of: (1) mailed FIT return and (2) completion of any CRC screening. We took fieldnotes and conducted postintervention key informant interviews to assess implementation outcomes (eg, feasibility, acceptability, and adaptations). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-nine Medicaid or Medicare enrollees were mailed a FIT. Over the 12-month intervention, 62 participants (37%) completed screening of which 21% completed the mailed FIT (most were returned within 3 months), and 15% screened by other methods (FITs distributed in-clinic, colonoscopy). Enrollee demographics and the reminder call may encourage mailed FIT completion. Program feasibility and acceptability was high and supported by perceived positive benefit, alignment with existing workflows, adequate staffing, and practice facilitation. CONCLUSION: Collaborative health plan-clinic mailed FIT programs are feasible and acceptable for implementation in rural clinics and support CRC screening completion. Studies that pragmatically test collaborative approaches to mailed FIT and patient navigation follow-up after abnormal FIT and support broad scale-up in rural settings are needed.

Long drives and red tape: mapping rural veteran access to primary care using causal-loop diagramming.

BACKGROUND: Rural veterans experience more challenges than their urban peers in accessing primary care services, which can negatively impact their health and wellbeing. The factors driving this disparity are complex and involve patient, clinic, health system, community and policy influences. Federal policies over the last decade have relaxed requirements for some veterans to receive primary care services from community providers through their VA benefits, known as community care. METHODS: We used a participatory systems mapping approach involving causal-loop diagramming to identify interrelationships between variables underlying challenges to veteran access to primary care and potential opportunities for change-known as leverage points in systems science. Our methods involved a secondary analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews with rural veterans, VA staff, non-VA clinic staff and providers who serve rural veterans, and veteran service officers (VSOs) in the Northwest region of the US, followed by a two-part participatory modeling session with a study advisory board. We then applied Meadows's leverage point framework to identify and categorize potential interventions to improve rural veteran access to primary care. RESULTS: The final model illustrated challenges at the veteran, clinic, and system levels as experienced by stakeholders. Main components of the diagram pertained to the choice of VA or non-VA primary care, veteran satisfaction with the VA, enrollment in VA benefits and other insurance, community care authorization, reimbursement of non-VA care, referrals to specialty care, record sharing and communication between VA and non-VA providers, institutional stability of the VA, and staffing challenges. Fourteen interventions, including administrative and communications changes, were identified by analyzing the model using the leverage points framework. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate how challenges rural veterans face accessing health care are interconnected and persist despite recent changes to federal law pertaining to the VA health care system in recent years. Systems mapping and modeling approaches such as causal-loop diagramming have potential for engaging stakeholders and supporting intervention and implementation planning.

Mailed fecal testing and patient navigation versus usual care to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening and follow-up colonoscopy in rural Medicaid enrollees: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening reduces incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), yet US screening rates are low, particularly among Medicaid enrollees in rural communities. We describe a two-phase project, SMARTER CRC, designed to achieve the National Cancer Institute Cancer MoonshotSM objectives by reducing the burden of CRC on the US population. Specifically, SMARTER CRC aims to test the implementation, effectiveness, and maintenance of a mailed fecal test and patient navigation program to improve rates of CRC screening, follow-up colonoscopy, and referral to care in clinics serving rural Medicaid enrollees. METHODS: Phase I activities in SMARTER CRC include a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed fecal test and patient navigation program involving three Medicaid health plans and 30 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho; the implementation of the program is supported by training and practice facilitation. Participating clinic units were randomized 1:1 into the intervention or usual care. The intervention combines (1) mailed fecal testing outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and (2) patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal test result. We will evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance of the intervention and track adaptations to the intervention and to implementation strategies, using quantitative and qualitative methods. Our primary effectiveness outcome is receipt of any CRC screening within 6 months of enrollee identification. Our primary implementation outcome is health plan- and clinic-level rates of program delivery, by component (mailed FIT and patient navigation). Trial results will inform phase II activities to scale up the program through partnerships with health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations that serve rural primary care clinics; scale-up will include webinars, train-the-trainer workshops, and collaborative learning activities. DISCUSSION: This study will test the implementation, effectiveness, and scale-up of a multi-component mailed fecal testing and patient navigation program to improve CRC screening rates in rural Medicaid enrollees. Our findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at clinicaltrial.gov ( NCT04890054 ) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP #: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Mapping Rural and Urban Veterans' Spatial Access to Primary Care Following the MISSION Act.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 MISSION Act sought to improve Veterans' access to primary care by allowing Veterans living more than 30 min from VA care to utilize non-VA clinics. The impact of this legislation may vary for rural compared to urban Veterans. OBJECTIVE: Assess the extent to which the 2018 MISSION Act facilitates spatial access to primary care for Veterans living in rural versus urban Oregon. DESIGN: We identified locations of all VA and non-VA primary care clinics in Oregon then calculated 30-min drive-time catchment areas from census tract centroids to the nearest clinics. We compared measures of spatial access to primary care for Veterans in rural, micropolitan, and urban areas. PARTICIPANTS: American Community Survey data representing Oregon adults. MAIN MEASURES: Two measures of spatial access focusing on the number of clinics (supply), and an access index based on the two-step floating catchment area method (2SFCA) which accounts for number of clinics (supply) and population size (demand). KEY RESULTS: Compared to only 13.0% of rural Veterans, 83.6% of urban Veterans lived within 30 min' drive time of VA primary care. Given the MISSION Act's eligibility criteria, 81.6% of rural Veterans and ~ 97% of urban and micropolitan Veterans had spatial access to primary care. When accounting for both supply and demand, rural areas had significantly higher access scores (p < 0.05) compared to urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Using MISSION Act guidelines for Veteran access to primary care, rural compared to urban Veterans had less spatial access based on clinic number (supply), but more access when considering clinic number and population size (supply and demand). Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial techniques may help to assess changes in access to care. However, these methods do not incorporate all dimensions of access and work is needed to understand whether utilization and quality of care is improved.