Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice.

Introduction: The effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic-community practice. Methods: Data from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence. Results: The Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy. Conclusions: Real-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.

Leveraging human-centered design and causal pathway diagramming toward enhanced specification and development of innovative implementation strategies: a case example of an outreach tool to address racial inequities in breast cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Implementation strategies are strategies to improve uptake of evidence-based practices or interventions and are essential to implementation science. Developing or tailoring implementation strategies may benefit from integrating approaches from other disciplines; yet current guidance on how to effectively incorporate methods from other disciplines to develop and refine innovative implementation strategies is limited. We describe an approach that combines community-engaged methods, human-centered design (HCD) methods, and causal pathway diagramming (CPD)-an implementation science tool to map an implementation strategy as it is intended to work-to develop innovative implementation strategies. METHODS: We use a case example of developing a conversational agent or chatbot to address racial inequities in breast cancer screening via mammography. With an interdisciplinary team including community members and operational leaders, we conducted a rapid evidence review and elicited qualitative data through interviews and focus groups using HCD methods to identify and prioritize key determinants (facilitators and barriers) of the evidence-based intervention (breast cancer screening) and the implementation strategy (chatbot). We developed a CPD using key determinants and proposed strategy mechanisms and proximal outcomes based in conceptual frameworks. RESULTS: We identified key determinants for breast cancer screening and for the chatbot implementation strategy. Mistrust was a key barrier to both completing breast cancer screening and using the chatbot. We focused design for the initial chatbot interaction to engender trust and developed a CPD to guide chatbot development. We used the persuasive health message framework and conceptual frameworks about trust from marketing and artificial intelligence disciplines. We developed a CPD for the initial interaction with the chatbot with engagement as a mechanism to use and trust as a proximal outcome leading to further engagement with the chatbot. CONCLUSIONS: The use of interdisciplinary methods is core to implementation science. HCD is a particularly synergistic discipline with multiple existing applications of HCD to implementation research. We present an extension of this work and an example of the potential value in an integrated community-engaged approach of HCD and implementation science researchers and methods to combine strengths of both disciplines and develop human-centered implementation strategies rooted in causal perspective and healthcare equity.

Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with the minimum necessary information to determine an individual's eligibility for lung cancer screening (ie, sufficient risk factor documentation) and to characterize clinic-level variability in documentation. Study Design: Cross-sectional observational study using electronic health record data from an academic health system in 2019. Methods: We calculated the relative risk of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation by patient-, provider-, and system-level variables using Poisson regression models, clustering by clinic. We compared unadjusted, risk-adjusted, and reliability-adjusted proportions of patients with sufficient smoking documentation across 31 clinics using logistic regression models and 2-level hierarchical logit models to estimate reliability-adjusted proportions across clinics. Results: Among 20,632 individuals, 60% had sufficient risk factor documentation to determine screening eligibility. Patient-level factors inversely associated with risk factor documentation included Black race (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81), non-English preferred language (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.74), Medicaid insurance (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71), and nonactivated patient portal (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.90). Documentation varied across clinics. The reliability-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 11.0% (95% CI, 6.9%-17.1%) to 5.3% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.6%), adjusting for covariates. Conclusions: We found a low rate of sufficient lung cancer risk factor documentation and associations of risk factor documentation based on patient-level factors such as race, insurance status, language, and patient portal activation. Risk factor documentation rates varied across clinics, and only approximately half the variation was explained by factors in our analysis.

Improving smoking history documentation in the electronic health record for lung cancer risk assessment and screening in primary care: A case study.

Improving risk factor documentation in the electronic health record (EHR) is important in order to determine patient eligibility for lung cancer screening. System-level prioritization combined with a clinic-level initiative can improve risk factor documentation rates. Multi-faceted interventions that include training, process improvement, data management, and continuous performance feedback are effective and can be integrated into existing workflows.

Effectiveness of a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach: a Medicare Advantage pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach effectively increases colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but is underutilized. This pilot aimed to determine the use of FIT for CRC screening among Medicare Advantage enrollees when offered via mailed outreach and the factors associated with FIT return. METHODS: Our pilot study included Medicare Advantage enrollees who were 50-75-years old, not up to date with CRC screening, and had a billable primary care encounter in the prior 3 years. Eligible patients received a letter containing information about CRC screening and a FIT kit, screening status by FIT was then assessed using the electronic health record. RESULTS: Of the 1142 patients identified, 945 were eligible for outreach. On 12-month follow up, 29% of patients (n = 276) completed CRC screening via FIT, with a median return time of 140 days [interquartile range (IQR) 52-257]; 6% (n = 17) of the completed tests were positive, and 53% (n = 9) of patients have completed a diagnostic colonoscopy. Patients with primary encounter <12 months prior to mailed outreach were most likely to complete a FIT. Over the 12-month study period, CRC screening rates increased by 5% (63-68%). CONCLUSIONS: Mailed FIT outreach in a Medicare Advantage population was feasible and led to a 5% increase in CRC screening completion. Our pilot revealed rare incorrect patient addresses and high lab discard rate; both important factors that were addressed prior to larger-scale implementation of a mailed FIT program. Further research is needed to understand the potential impact of multilevel interventions on CRC screening in this healthcare system.