Strategies to increase colorectal cancer screening

Patient perspectives on colorectal cancer screening and the role of general practice

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cause of cancer death in Australia. Early detection can reduce incidence and mortality. General practice-based initiatives have been proposed to improve CRC screening rates but to date have had modest impact. As there is limited research into the patient experience of CRC screening decision making, this study explored patient perspectives on CRC screening and the potential role for general practice.

Methods

Ten participants, aged between 50 and 74, from a general practice in South Australia were recruited by practice staff. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Concurrent data collection and analysis were performed, guided by interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Results

Two key themes were evident: attitudes toward screening and potential roles for general practice. Participants structured the experience of screening in terms of being proactive, ambivalent or avoidant. Roles for general practice centred on tasks as educators, trusted advisors, monitors and screeners. Mixed views on whether general practice involvement was necessary prompted consideration of additional sources of health information and motivation around screening.

Conclusions

Exploration of the patient experience provides insight into how participants make sense of screening and perceived roles for general practice (or other agents) in screening. There is satisfaction with current Government-driven processes but perceived value in general practice playing a complementary part in increasing screening rates. A multifaceted strategy, accounting for attitudes, is required to improve screening and population health outcomes.

An occult finding in heparin drip order set

BACKGROUND

In 1998, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) noted that the American healthcare system had many problems. A major concern was the pervasiveness of medical errors. Electronic medical records (EMR) were introduced for myriad of reasons, one being to reduce these errors. Within the EMR, order sets have been shown to reduce variation in clinical practice and improve the quality of care. However, the lack of standardization in these sets enables peculiar orders, such as fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in the heparin drip order set at our hospital, to be surprisingly included. Our study was conducted to evaluate the consequences associated with having FOBT in this order set.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 898 adult hospitalized patients over a 6-month period, who had a heparin drip ordered at a single academic center, was conducted. The main focus of our study was the 130 patients for whom the FOBT was sent.

RESULTS

Fifteen percent (n=130) of patients started on IV heparin had FOBT sent, of which 33 (25%) came back positive. Approximately one-third (36%) of the positive results were documented by a provider, either in a progress note or discharge summary. In eight instances of a positive FOBT (24%), the heparin drip was stopped. For 10 patients with a positive test (30%), gastroenterology was consulted, and 4 (12%) patients had inpatient endoscopy. Five patients with positive FOBT died while in the hospital (15%) as compared to seven patients (7%) in the negative FOBT group, p<0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients started on heparin did not have FOBT tested, and the results changed management infrequently, even when positive. The regular review of all order sets is imperative to ensure that they remain evidenced-based and sensible.

The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening.

RESULTS

Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches.

IMPACT

Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.

The role of primary care physicians in early diagnosis and treatment of chronic gastrointestinal diseases

Chronic gastrointestinal disorders are a source of substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost. They are common in general practice, and the primary care physician (PCP) has a central role in the early detection and management of these problems. The need to make cost-effective diagnostic and treatment decisions, avoid unnecessary investigation and referral, provide long-term effective control of symptoms, and minimize the risk of complications constitute the main challenges that PCPs face. The literature review shows that, although best practice standards are available, a considerable number of PCPs do not routinely follow them. Low rates of colorectal cancer screening, suboptimal testing and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors, and the fact that most PCPs are still approaching the irritable bowel disease as a diagnosis of exclusion represent the main gaps between evidence-based guidelines and clinical practice. This manuscript points out that updating of knowledge and skills of PCPs via continuing medical education is the only way for better adherence with standards and improving quality of care for patients with gastrointestinal diseases.