Timely Colonoscopy After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Assessment of Current Practice and Perceived Barriers

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy for cancer detection: patient and practitioner perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To further understand the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy examination following a positive routinely offered stool test result, from the perspective of patients and Specialist Screening Practitioners (SSPs).

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants (N = 32) were patients (n = 20) who, as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England, were invited to attend a colonoscopy examination, and SSPs (n = 12), who worked for the BCSP in England. Framework analysis included inductive and deductive coding.

RESULTS

Anxiety was as a key barrier cited by patients and SSPs, arising from the moment the patient received the invitation letter. Notably, procedural-related anxieties centred upon the fear of pain and discomfort and test invasiveness. The role of family, friends and the SSP were recognised by patients and SSPs to facilitate participation. Many patients, yet not SSPs, emphasised an obligation to attend all medical test invitations.

CONCLUSION

Practically orientated strategies suggested by patients and SSPs address the patient barriers identified. These include earlier information to patients on the option of sedation for pain relief, earlier notification of potential financial support for patients unable to fund their own travel costs, and fewer uses of the term cancer within written materials.

Blood Test Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening in Persons Who Declined Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The septin 9 blood test is indicated for colorectal cancer screening in individuals who decline first-line tests, but participation in this context is unclear. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare reoffering colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) alone versus also offering the blood test among individuals who declined colonoscopy and FIT.

METHODS

Screen-eligible Veterans aged 50-75 years who declined colonoscopy and FIT within the previous 6 months were randomized to letter and telephone outreach to reoffer screening with colonoscopy/FIT only (control), or additionally offering the blood test as a second-line option (intervention). The primary outcome was completion of any screening test within 6 months. The secondary outcome was completion of a full screening strategy within 6 months, including colonoscopy for those with a positive noninvasive test.

RESULTS

Of 359 participants who completed follow-up, 9.6% in the control group and 17.1% in the intervention group completed any screening (7.5% difference; P = .035). Uptake of colonoscopy and FIT was similar in the 2 groups. The full screening strategy was completed in 9.0% and 14.9% in the control and intervention groups, respectively (5.9% difference; P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

Among individuals who previously declined colonoscopy and FIT, offering a blood test as a secondary option increased screening by 7.5% without decreasing uptake of first-line screening options. However, completion of a full screening strategy did not increase. These findings indicate that a blood test is a promising method to improve colorectal cancer screening, but obtaining a timely colonoscopy after a positive noninvasive test remains a challenge (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03598166).

Developing electronic clinical quality measures to assess the cancer diagnostic process

OBJECTIVE

Measures of diagnostic performance in cancer are underdeveloped. Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) to assess quality of cancer diagnosis could help quantify and improve diagnostic performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed 2 eCQMs to assess diagnostic evaluation of red-flag clinical findings for colorectal (CRC; based on abnormal stool-based cancer screening tests or labs suggestive of iron deficiency anemia) and lung (abnormal chest imaging) cancer. The 2 eCQMs quantified rates of red-flag follow-up in CRC and lung cancer using electronic health record data repositories at 2 large healthcare systems. Each measure used clinical data to identify abnormal results, evidence of appropriate follow-up, and exclusions that signified follow-up was unnecessary. Clinicians reviewed 100 positive and 20 negative randomly selected records for each eCQM at each site to validate accuracy and categorized missed opportunities related to system, provider, or patient factors.

RESULTS

We implemented the CRC eCQM at both sites, while the lung cancer eCQM was only implemented at the VA due to lack of structured data indicating level of cancer suspicion on most chest imaging results at Geisinger. For the CRC eCQM, the rate of appropriate follow-up was 36.0% (26 746/74 314 patients) in the VA after removing clinical exclusions and 41.1% at Geisinger (1009/2461 patients; P < .001). Similarly, the rate of appropriate evaluation for lung cancer in the VA was 61.5% (25 166/40 924 patients). Reviewers most frequently attributed missed opportunities at both sites to provider factors (84 of 157).

CONCLUSIONS

We implemented 2 eCQMs to evaluate the diagnostic process in cancer at 2 large health systems. Health care organizations can use these eCQMs to monitor diagnostic performance related to cancer.

A "sludge audit" for health system colorectal cancer screening services

OBJECTIVES

"Sludge," or the frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to attain what they want or need, is an unexplored health care delivery factor that may contribute to deficiencies in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We piloted a method to identify and quantify sludge in a southeastern US health system's delivery of CRC screening services.

STUDY DESIGN

Mixed methods sludge audit.

METHODS

We collected and analyzed quantitative (insurance claims, electronic health record, and administrative files) and qualitative (stakeholder interviews and process observations) data associated with CRC screening for instances of sludge. Because they contribute to sludge and reduce system capacity for high-value screening, we also evaluated low-value CRC screening processes.

RESULTS

Although specific results were likely amplified by effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sludge audit revealed important areas for improvement. A 60.4% screening rate was observed. Approximately half of screening orders were not completed. The following categories of sludge were identified: communication, time, technology, administrative tasks, paperwork, and low-value care. For example, wait times for screening colonoscopy were substantial, duplicate orders were common, and some results were not accessible in the electronic health record. Of completed screenings, 32% were low-value and 38% were associated with low-value preoperative testing. There was evidence of a differential negative impact of sludge to vulnerable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our sludge audit method identified and quantified multiple instances of sludge in a health system's CRC screening processes. Sludge audits can help organizations to systematically evaluate and reduce sludge for more effective and equitable CRC screening.