Exploring Colorectal Cancer Screening Reach Among United States Veterans: Analyzing Clinical, Sociodemographic, and Social Determinants of Health-Based Patient Factors Across Screening Methods: Analyzing Clinical, Sociodemographic, and Social Determinants of Health-based Patient Factors Across Screening Methods.

INTRODUCTION: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (mFIT), in-clinic FIT (cFIT), and colonoscopy are believed to reach distinct patient populations. This study aims to evaluate this belief. METHODS: Sociodemographic, clinical, and social determinants of health (SDOH) characteristics of 201 patients completing mFIT, 203 patients completing cFIT, and 74 patients completing colonoscopy at a Northeastern United States Veterans Affairs center from August 2023 to January 2024 were compared using descriptive statistics, χ2, and ANOVA tests. RESULTS: Patients completing mFIT (P=0.003) and cFIT (P=0.001) were older than those completing colonoscopy. mFIT patients had more private health insurance as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. Patients completing colonoscopy had higher average disability ratings as compared with cFIT patients (P<0.0001). mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients had more time elapsed since their last primary care visit as compared with cFIT patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of mental health disorders as compared with colonoscopy (P<0.0001) and cFIT (P<0.0001) patients. cFIT patients had higher rates of past stool test use as compared with mFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. mFIT patients had lower rates of past colonoscopy completion as compared with cFIT (P<0.0001) and colonoscopy (P<0.0001) patients. There were no significant differences in SDOH domains among patients completing each of the screening methods. CONCLUSION: While each of the screening methods reaches a different patient population, mFIT does not reach a substantially more vulnerable population compared with cFIT and colonoscopy, highlighting the need for improvements in mFIT outreach.

Colorectal Neoplasia in Asian Americans Undergoing First Time Asymptomatic Average-risk Screening Colonoscopies.

GOALS: We identified the prevalence and subtype of colorectal neoplasia removed during index screening colonoscopies in a large Asian American population. BACKGROUND: Asian Americans are the fastest growing demographic group in the United States yet there is a paucity of data on the characteristics of colorectal neoplasia found in this cohort. STUDY: Cross-sectional study of 2208 index colonoscopies performed on average-risk Asian and White patients at a large, tertiary academic center. Patients were identified via diagnostic or procedure codes between 2015 and 2020, with retrospective classification of polyp histopathology. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify risk factors associated with colorectal neoplasia. RESULTS: A total of 2208 patients were identified, of which 1085 were Asian. When adjusted for age and sex, Asians were as likely as Whites to have any type of colorectal neoplasia [44.2% vs. 43.5%, odds ratio (OR)=0.93, (CI: 0.78-1.11)]. On multivariate analysis, Asians were less likely to have sessile serrated polyps (5.5% vs. 9.9%, OR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.73) and more likely to have tubular adenomas in the left colon (22.6% vs. 18.0%, OR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.08-1.64) compared with Whites. CONCLUSIONS: Quality measures, such as sessile serrated polyp detection rates, may need to take into account demographic factors such as race. The prevalence of colorectal neoplasia among Asian Americans is substantial and warrants efforts to promote optimal uptake of colorectal cancer screening tests.

Increased access to urgent care centers decreases low acuity diagnoses in a nearby hospital emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: We studied the impact four new urgent care centers (UCCs) had on a hospital emergency department (ED) in terms of overall census and proportion of low acuity diagnoses from 2009 to 2016. We hypothesized that low acuity medical problems frequently seen in UCCs would decrease in the ED population. Since Medicaid was not accepted at these UCCs, we also studied the Medicaid vs non-Medicaid discharged populations to see if there were some differences related to access to urgent care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of computerized billing data. We included all patients from 2009 to 2016 who were seen in the ED. We used the Cochran-Armitage Trend Test to examine trends over time. RESULTS: As hypothesized, the proportion of ED patients with a diagnosis of pharyngitis decreased significantly over this time period from 1% to 0.6% (p < 0.0001). The rate of bronchitis in the total ED population also decreased significantly (0.5% to 0.13%, p < 0.0001).When we looked at the discharged patients with and without Medicaid, we found that significantly more Medicaid than non-Medicaid patients presented with pharyngitis to the ED with an increasing trend from 2009 to 2016: OR = 2.33, p < 0.0001. The overall census of the ED rose over the period 2009 to 2016 (80,478 to 85,278/year). Overall admission rates decreased significantly: 36.9% to 34.5% (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: With the introduction of four new urgent care centers (UCCs) within 5 miles of the hospital, the ED diagnoses of pharyngitis and bronchitis, two of the most common diagnoses seen in UCCs, decreased significantly. Significantly more Medicaid discharged patients presented to the ED with pharyngitis than in the non-Medicaid discharged group, likely because Medicaid patients had no access to UCCs.