H Batal1, S Biggerstaff, T Dunn, P S Mehler. 1. Urgent Care Clinic at Denver Health and Department of Medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver 80204, USA. hbatal@dhha.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of cervical cancer screening in an urgent care clinic. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: Public teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Women presenting to the urgent care clinic whose evaluation necessitated a pelvic examination were eligible for participation. Women who had a hysterectomy, had a documented Pap test at our institution in the past year, did not speak English or Spanish, or had significant vaginal bleeding were excluded. Women presenting to the gynecology clinic for a scheduled Pap test were used as a comparison group for rates of follow-up, Pap smear adequacy, and Pap smear abnormalities. INTERVENTIONS: Women randomized to the intervention group had a Pap test performed as part of their pelvic examination, while women in the usual care group were encouraged to schedule an appointment in the gynecology clinic at a later date. The women in the two groups completed identical questionnaires regarding cervical cancer risk factors and demographic information. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-four (84.7%) of 111 women in the intervention group received a Pap test, as compared with 25 (29%) of 86 in the usual care group (P <.01). However, only 5 (24%) of 21 women with abnormal Pap smears in the intervention group received follow-up compared with 6 (60%) of 10 women seen during the same time period in the gynecology clinic for self-referred, routine annual examinations (P =.11). Pap smears obtained in the urgent care clinic were similar to those in the gynecology clinic with regard to abnormality rate (22.3% vs 20%; P =.75, respectively) and specimen adequacy (67% vs 72%; P =.54, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Urgent care clinic visits can be used as opportunities to perform Pap test screening in women who are unlikely to adhere to cervical cancer screening recommendations. However, to accrue the full potential benefit from this intervention, an improved process to ensure patient follow-up must be developed.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of cervical cancer screening in an urgent care clinic. DESIGN: Prospective randomized trial. SETTING: Public teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Women presenting to the urgent care clinic whose evaluation necessitated a pelvic examination were eligible for participation. Women who had a hysterectomy, had a documented Pap test at our institution in the past year, did not speak English or Spanish, or had significant vaginal bleeding were excluded. Women presenting to the gynecology clinic for a scheduled Pap test were used as a comparison group for rates of follow-up, Pap smear adequacy, and Pap smear abnormalities. INTERVENTIONS:Women randomized to the intervention group had a Pap test performed as part of their pelvic examination, while women in the usual care group were encouraged to schedule an appointment in the gynecology clinic at a later date. The women in the two groups completed identical questionnaires regarding cervical cancer risk factors and demographic information. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-four (84.7%) of 111 women in the intervention group received a Pap test, as compared with 25 (29%) of 86 in the usual care group (P <.01). However, only 5 (24%) of 21 women with abnormal Pap smears in the intervention group received follow-up compared with 6 (60%) of 10 women seen during the same time period in the gynecology clinic for self-referred, routine annual examinations (P =.11). Pap smears obtained in the urgent care clinic were similar to those in the gynecology clinic with regard to abnormality rate (22.3% vs 20%; P =.75, respectively) and specimen adequacy (67% vs 72%; P =.54, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Urgent care clinic visits can be used as opportunities to perform Pap test screening in women who are unlikely to adhere to cervical cancer screening recommendations. However, to accrue the full potential benefit from this intervention, an improved process to ensure patient follow-up must be developed.
Authors: J Mandelblatt; M Traxler; P Lakin; P Kanetsky; L Thomas; P Chauhan; S Matseoane; E Ramsey Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 1993 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Tracy A Battaglia; M Christina Santana; Sharon Bak; Manjusha Gokhale; Timothy L Lash; Arlene S Ash; Richard Kalish; Stephen Tringale; James O Taylor; Karen M Freund Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Georgia Robins Sadler; Sheila F Lahousse; John Riley; Ben Mercado; Anne C Trinh; Lee Ann C Cruz Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Rebecca V Liddicoat; Nicholas J Horton; Renata Urban; Elizabeth Maier; Demian Christiansen; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jonah Musa; Chad J Achenbach; Linda C O'Dwyer; Charlesnika T Evans; Megan McHugh; Lifang Hou; Melissa A Simon; Robert L Murphy; Neil Jordan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David R Scott; Holly A Batal; Sharon Majeres; Jill C Adams; Rita Dale; Philip S Mehler Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 2.655