Performance of a fail-safe system to follow up abnormal mammograms in primary care

Delayed or failure to follow-up abnormal breast cancer screening mammograms in primary care: a systematic review

Background

Successful breast cancer screening relies on timely follow-up of abnormal mammograms. Delayed or failure to follow-up abnormal mammograms undermines the potential benefits of screening and is associated with poorer outcomes. However, a comprehensive review of inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms in primary care has not previously been reported in the literature. This review could identify modifiable factors that influence follow-up, which if addressed, may lead to improved follow-up and patient outcomes.

Methods

A systematic literature review to determine the extent of inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms in primary care and identify factors impacting on follow-up was conducted. Relevant studies published between 1 January, 1990 and 29 October, 2020 were identified by searching MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL® and Cochrane Library, including reference and citation checking. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias of included studies according to study design.

Results

Eighteen publications reporting on 17 studies met inclusion criteria; 16 quantitative and two qualitative studies. All studies were conducted in the United States, except one study from the Netherlands. Failure to follow-up abnormal screening mammograms within 3 and at 6 months ranged from 7.2–33% and 27.3–71.6%, respectively. Women of ethnic minority and lower education attainment were more likely to have inadequate follow-up. Factors influencing follow-up included physician-patient miscommunication, information overload created by automated alerts, the absence of adequate retrieval systems to access patient’s results and a lack of coordination of patient records. Logistical barriers to follow-up included inconvenient clinic hours and inconsistent primary care providers. Patient navigation and case management with increased patient education and counselling by physicians was demonstrated to improve follow-up.

Conclusions

Follow-up of abnormal mammograms in primary care is suboptimal. However, interventions addressing amendable factors that negatively impact on follow-up have the potential to improve follow-up, especially for populations of women at risk of inadequate follow-up.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08100-3.

Delayed Workup of Rectal Bleeding in Adult Primary Care: Examining Process-of-Care Failures

BACKGROUND

Although delayed colorectal cancer diagnoses figure prominently in medical malpractice claims, little is known about the quality of primary care clinicians' workup of rectal bleeding.

METHODS

In this study, 438 patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for rectal bleeding, hemorrhoids, and blood in the stool at 10 Boston adult primary care practices. Following nurse chart abstraction, physician reviewers assessed the overall quality of care and key care processes. Subjects' characteristics and physician reviewers' processes-of-care assessments were tabulated, and logistic regression models were used to examine the association of process failures with overall quality and guideline concordance.

RESULTS

Although reviewers judged the overall quality of care to be good or excellent in 337 (77%) of 438 cases, 312 (71%) patients experienced at least one process-of-care failure in the workup of rectal bleeding. Clinicians failed to obtain an adequate family history in 38% of cases, complete a pertinent physical exam in 23%, and order laboratory tests in 16%. Failure to order or perform tests, or to make follow-up plans were associated with increased odds of poor or fair care. Guideline concordance bore little relationship with quality judgments. Reviewers judged that 128 delays could have been reduced or prevented.

CONCLUSION

Process-of-care failures among adult primary care patients with rectal bleeding were frequent and associated with fair or poor quality. Educating practitioners and creating systems to ensure adequate history taking, physical examination, and processes for ordering, performing, and interpreting diagnostic tests may improve performance.

Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice

Background

The number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase and the timely and appropriate communication of results remains essential. However, the testing and result communication process includes a number of participants in a variety of settings and is both complicated to manage and vulnerable to human error. In the UK, guidelines for the process are absent and research in this area is surprisingly scarce; so before we can begin to address potential areas of weakness there is a need to more precisely understand the strengths and weaknesses of current systems used by general practices and testing facilities.

Methods

We conducted a telephone survey of practices across England to determine the methods of managing the testing and result communication process. In order to gain insight into the perspectives from staff at a large hospital laboratory we conducted paired interviews with senior managers, which we used to inform a service blueprint demonstrating the interaction between practices and laboratories and identifying potential sources of delay and failure.

Results

Staff at 80% of practices reported that the default method for communicating normal results required patients to telephone the practice and 40% of practices required that patients also call for abnormal results. Over 80% had no fail-safe system for ensuring that results had been returned to the practice from laboratories; practices would otherwise only be aware that results were missing or delayed when patients requested results. Persistent sources of missing results were identified by laboratory staff and included sample handling, misidentification of samples and the inefficient system for collating and resending misdirected results.

Conclusions

The success of the current system relies on patients both to retrieve results and in so doing alert staff to missing and delayed results. Practices appear slow to adopt available technological solutions despite their potential for reducing the impact of recurring errors in the handling of samples and the reporting of results. Our findings will inform our continuing work with patients and staff to develop, implement and evaluate improvements to existing systems of managing the testing and result communication process.