Primary care outreach and decision counseling for lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening rates are very low despite a level B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013 and clear evidence that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening reimbursement. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an SDM intervention on lung cancer screening in primary care. METHODS: The study design was a single-arm clinical trial design. The intervention included phone contact outside of a primary care visit and the use of the Decision Counseling Program ®, an online interactive decision aid focused on determining the factors which influence patients to screen or not screen, prioritizing those factors, and determining a decision preference score. The primary outcome was the completion of low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) 1 year after the SDM session compared in participants versus nonparticipants. RESULTS: From six practices, there were 1359 potentially eligible patients in electronic medical record data, and 336 were reached to assess eligibility criteria. A total of 80 patients consented to be in the study, 64 completed a decision counseling session and 16 did not complete a session. Among the 64 people who agreed to have decision counseling, 45% had LDCT, higher than typically seen in routine clinical practice. Although not a comparable group, among the 16 people who declined decision counseling, none had LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: Decision counseling is a promising intervention that might support SDM in the context of improving uptake of lung cancer screening in primary care. However, further, larger studies are needed.

Tailored navigation in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Effective methods to increase screening use are needed. This study sought to determine the impact of tailored navigation on CRC screening in primary care. METHODS: The study included 154 primary care practice patients who were 50 or more years of age, were eligible for CRC screening, and had an office visit within 2 years before study initiation. Baseline telephone survey data were collected on participant sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, and screening test [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or colonoscopy] decision stage. By comparing decision stage data, we identified that test with the highest decision stage (ie, preferred screening test). Participants who preferred FOBT were sent an FOBT kit and a reminder. Those preferring colonoscopy were sent colonoscopy instructions. After this mailing, a study patient navigator made a telephone call to guide participants towards screening. Six-month end point survey and medical records data were obtained. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of screening and of change in preferred screening test decision stage. RESULTS: At end point, 63 (41%) study participants had screened. From baseline to end point, overall screening preference increased for 75 (63%) participants. Age and perceived salience and coherence (ie, screening is important and sensible) were positive, significant predictors of screening use (P = 0.02 and P = 0.05, respectively); while only age predicted change in overall screening preference (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Study participant screening use and preference increased. Age and attitudes predicted outcomes. Randomized trials are needed to determine intervention impact at the population level.

The Accuracy of Trigger Tools to Detect Preventable Adverse Events in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To understand the ability of trigger tools to detect preventable adverse events (pAEs) in the primary care outpatient setting using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) Outpatient Adverse Event Trigger Tool (IHI Tool). METHODS: The OVID MEDLINE and OVID MEDLINE In-process and non-Indexed citations databases were queried using controlled vocabulary and Medical Subject Headings related to the concepts "primary care" and "adverse events." Included articles were conducted in the outpatient setting, used at least 1 of the triggers identified in the IHI Tool, and identified pAEs of any type. Articles were selected for inclusion based first on assessment of titles then abstracts by 2 trained reviewers independently, followed by full text review by 2 authors. RESULTS: Our search identified 6435 unique articles, and we included 15 in our review. The most common studied trigger was laboratory abnormalities. The most common pAEs were medication errors followed by unplanned hospitalizations. The effectiveness of triggers in identifying AEs varied widely. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient data on the IHI Tool and its use to identify pAEs in the general real-world outpatient setting. Health care providers of the primary care setting may benefit from better trigger tools and other methods to help them detect pAEs. More research is needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of trigger tools to reduce barriers of cost and time and improve patient safety.

Improving Patient Safety: Common Outpatient Medical Errors.

Medical errors are common and can lead to patient harm and death. Most research on errors has focused on inpatient care, yet errors are at least as common in the outpatient setting and likely are underreported. Common types of errors in the outpatient setting are diagnostic, drug, and testing errors. The most effective specific interventions for reducing errors in the outpatient setting remain unknown. Considering the current lack of data, the authors recommend a quality improvement approach to understanding local factors in patient safety. Appropriate education and training of all staff members in their roles in patient safety is an important aspect of any program to reduce errors, though these measures rarely are sufficient on their own. Creation of a culture of safety, use of adequate systems and policies for reporting and identifying errors, and use of technologies to prevent errors also are important.

Improving Patient Safety: Improving Communication.

Communication among physicians, staff, and patients is a critical element in patient safety. Effective communication skills can be taught and improved through training and awareness. The practice of family medicine allows for long-term relationships with patients, which affords opportunities for ongoing, high-quality communication. There are many barriers to effective communication, including patient factors, clinician factors, and system factors, but tools and strategies exist to address these barriers, improve communication, and engage patients in their care. Use of universal precautions for health literacy, appropriate medical interpreters, and shared decision-making are evidence-based tools that improve communication and increase patient safety.

Improving Patient Safety: Prevention of Hospital Readmission.

Identifying and preventing avoidable hospital admissions have become cornerstone quality metrics that influence reimbursement and provision of quality care. Many initiatives focus on improving communication with other clinicians and patients, coordinating care after discharge, and improving care quality during the initial admission to prevent future readmissions. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services define a readmission as an admission to any acute care hospital for any reason within 30 days of discharge from an acute care hospital. Certain risk factors can indicate the need for targeted intervention to prevent readmission. Several risk stratification screening tools have been developed to assist clinicians in identifying at-risk patients for early intervention. However, the evidence supporting the accuracy and reliability of these tools remains limited.

Improving Patient Safety: Care Transitions.

Care transitions are times of high risk of harm to patients. The transition from hospital care to outpatient care is perhaps the most well-studied transition and is encountered commonly in the family medicine setting. For discharge transitions, several hospital-based interventions for patients with major diagnoses have resulted in improvements in readmission rates, costs, and patient satisfaction. Prompt scheduling of a follow-up appointment with patients after discharge is crucial. Key issues to consider in the first post-discharge appointment include drug reconciliation and follow-up of any pending tests and results. In the outpatient setting, establishing working relationships with hospital physicians and consultants, educating patients to notify physicians of admissions to hospitals or other care facilities, and educating patients to bring current drug lists to appointments can improve care transitions. Physicians now can receive greater reimbursement for transitional care management services using new CPT codes.

A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS). METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care CONTROL GROUP (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%, CONTROL GROUP: 12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and CONTROL GROUP: +23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS. IMPACT: Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.

Weight status and perception of colorectal cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Obesity increases the risk of many cancers including colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: This is secondary data analysis of the 2010 National Health Interview Survey data. A total of 9360 obese and overweight participants, aged 50 to 80 years, were analyzed according to their perception of their personal cancer risk. RESULTS: Having a perception of increased risk for cancer was associated with higher CRC screening rates. However, when compared with their normal-weight counterparts, overweight and obese individuals did not perceive themselves as being at an increased risk for cancer in general or for CRC specifically. Subgroup analysis revealed one notable exception. Obese black women appeared to recognize themselves as being at higher risk for CRC. CONCLUSIONS: Most obese and overweight individuals fail to recognize their increased cancer risk. Individuals who perceive themselves as being at increased risk for cancer, especially CRC, are more likely to have undergone CRC screening. Unfortunately, obese and overweight individuals do not seem to recognize the increased cancer risk conferred by their body weight. Education is needed so that obese and overweight individuals are aware that their excess body weight is a risk factor for cancer.

Perception, intention, and action in adolescent obesity.

BACKGROUND: Insight into adolescents' weight-loss behavior is needed. METHODS: Survey data were obtained from overweight and obese adolescents in the Youth Risk Behavioral Survey (YRBS) in Delaware. Cross tabulations were used to determine the frequency of accurate perception, recent action, and current intention regarding weight loss. Multivariable analysis identified factors associated with recent action to lose weight. RESULTS: From 2,728 records, 482 overweight adolescents and 398 obese adolescents were identified. Most obese (83%) and overweight (79%) adolescents reported recent action to lose weight. Most obese (75%) and overweight (65%) adolescents intended to lose weight. Obese and overweight adolescents who reported a current intention to lose weight were more likely to have taken recent action to lose weight (odds ratio [OR], 11.6 and 6.6, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of obese and overweight adolescents who have an accurate perception of weight, intend to lose weight, and have taken recent action to lose weight suggests that this group is highly engaged in weight-related behavior change. Compared with their obese peers, overweight adolescents seem less engaged in weight change behavior. There is a strong association in both groups between intention and recent action, and this association indicates that obese and overweight adolescents are highly motivated to change their weight.