Literature DB >> 10840267

Differences in the quality of care for women with an abnormal mammogram or breast complaint.

J S Haas1, E F Cook, A L Puopolo, H R Burstin, T A Brennan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with variation in the quality of care for women with 2 common breast problems: an abnormal mammogram or a clinical breast complaint.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient survey and medical record review.
SETTING: Ten general internal medicine practices in the Greater Boston area. PARTICIPANTS: Women who had an abnormal radiographic result from a screening mammogram or underwent mammography for a clinical breast complaint (N = 579).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three measures of the quality of care were used: (1) whether or not a woman received an evaluation in compliance with a clinical guideline; (2) the number of days until the appropriate resolution of this episode of breast care if any; and (3) a woman's overall satisfaction with her care. Sixty-nine percent of women received care consistent with the guideline. After adjustment, women over 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% [CI], 1.06 to 2.36) and those with an abnormal mammogram (compared with a clinical breast complaint: OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.64) were more likely to receive recommended care and had a shorter time to resolution of their breast problem. Women with a managed care plan were also more likely to receive care in compliance with the guideline (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.64) and have a more timely resolution. There were no differences in satisfaction by age or type of breast problem, but women with a managed care plan were less likely to rate their care as excellent (43% vs 53%, P <.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that a substantial proportion of women with a breast problem managed by generalists did not receive care consistent with a clinical guideline, particularly younger women with a clinical breast complaint and a normal or benign-appearing mammogram.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10840267      PMCID: PMC1495454          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.08030.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  15 in total

Review 1.  Breast cancer--biology and malpractice.

Authors:  D Plotkin; F Blankenberg
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 2.339

2.  Evaluation of common breast problems: guidance for primary care providers.

Authors:  B Cady; G D Steele; M Morrow; B Gardner; B L Smith; N C Lee; H W Lawson; D P Winchester
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1998 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Practice guidelines & medical malpractice litigation.

Authors:  J Y King
Journal:  Med Law       Date:  1997

4.  Determinants of late stage diagnosis of breast and cervical cancer: the impact of age, race, social class, and hospital type.

Authors:  J Mandelblatt; H Andrews; J Kerner; A Zauber; W Burnett
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 5.  A collaborative study of differences in the survival rates of black patients and white patients with cancer.

Authors:  J Howard; B F Hankey; R S Greenberg; D F Austin; P Correa; V W Chen; S Durako
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1992-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-07-03       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Racial differences in survival from breast cancer. Results of the National Cancer Institute Black/White Cancer Survival Study.

Authors:  J W Eley; H A Hill; V W Chen; D F Austin; M N Wesley; H B Muss; R S Greenberg; R J Coates; P Correa; C K Redmond
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-09-28       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  S W Chang; K Kerlikowske; A Nápoles-Springer; S F Posner; E A Sickles; E J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Legal issues in managing breast disease.

Authors:  M A Dewar; N Love
Journal:  Postgrad Med       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.840

View more
  16 in total

1.  Searching for the best of primary care.

Authors:  C M Clancy
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Psychosocial determinants of mammography follow-up after receipt of abnormal mammography results in medically underserved women.

Authors:  Alecia Malin Fair; Debra Wujcik; Jin-Mann Sally Lin; Wei Zheng; Kathleen M Egan; Ana M Grau; Victoria L Champion; Kenneth A Wallston
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2010-02

4.  What influences diagnostic delay in low-income women with breast cancer?

Authors:  Rose C Maly; Barbara Leake; Cynthia M Mojica; Yihang Liu; Allison L Diamant; Amardeep Thind
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Evaluation and outcomes of women with a breast lump and a normal mammogram result.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Celia P Kaplan; Phyllis Brawarsky; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Capitated Patient Navigation Program for Medicare Beneficiaries with Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Chun-Ru Chien; Rocio Moguel; Mike Hernandez; Richard A Hajek; Lovell A Jones
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Delay in diagnostic testing after abnormal mammography in low-income women.

Authors:  Debra Wujcik; Yu Shyr; Ming Li; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington; Usha Menon; Kathi Mooney
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Patient barriers to follow-up care for breast and cervical cancer abnormalities.

Authors:  Silvia Tejeda; Julie S Darnell; Young I Cho; Melinda R Stolley; Talar W Markossian; Elizabeth A Calhoun
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program.

Authors:  Talar W Markossian; Julie S Darnell; Elizabeth A Calhoun
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.