Literature DB >> 16673056

Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: the importance of follow-up.

David A Etzioni1, Elizabeth M Yano, Lisa V Rubenstein, Martin L Lee, Clifford Y Ko, Robert H Brook, Patricia H Parkerton, Steven M Asch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: As evidence mounts for effectiveness, an increasing proportion of the United States population undergoes colorectal cancer screening. However, relatively little is known about rates of follow-up after abnormal results from initial screening tests. This study examines patterns of colorectal cancer screening and follow-up within the nation's largest integrated health care system: the Veterans Health Administration.
METHODS: We obtained information about patients who received colorectal cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration from an existing quality improvement program and from the Veterans Health Administration's electronic medical record. Linking these data, we analyzed receipt of screening and follow-up testing after a positive fecal occult blood test.
RESULTS: A total of 39,870 patients met criteria for colorectal cancer screening; of these 61 percent were screened. Screening was more likely in patients aged 70 to 80 years than in those younger or older. Female gender (relative risk, 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9-0.95), Black race (relative risk, 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.89-0.96), lower income, and infrequent primary care visits were associated with lower likelihood of screening. Of those patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (n = 313), 59 percent received a follow-up barium enema or colonoscopy. Patient-level factors did not predict receipt of a follow-up test.
CONCLUSIONS: The Veterans Health Administration rates for colorectal cancer screening are significantly higher than the national average. However, 41 percent of patients with positive fecal occult blood tests failed to receive follow-up testing. Efforts to measure the quality of colorectal cancer screening programs should focus on the entire diagnostic process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16673056     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-006-0533-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  46 in total

1.  Is patient-perceived severity of a geriatric condition related to better quality of care?

Authors:  Lillian C Min; David B Reuben; Emmett Keeler; David A Ganz; Constance H Fung; Paul Shekelle; Carol P Roth; Neil S Wenger
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Primary care, economic barriers to health care, and use of colorectal cancer screening tests among Medicare enrollees over time.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Angela C Young; Carrie N Klabunde; George Reed; Terry S Field; Robert H Fletcher
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Timeliness of Colonoscopy After Abnormal Fecal Test Results in a Safety Net Practice.

Authors:  Ann Oluloro; Amanda F Petrik; Ann Turner; Tanya Kapka; Jennifer Rivelli; Patricia A Carney; Somnath Saha; Gloria D Coronado
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2016-08

4.  Teams and teamwork during a cancer diagnosis: interdependency within and between teams.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Sallie Weaver; Veronica Chollette; Lawrence B Marks; Andrew Jacobs; Gordon Schiff; Carrie T Stricker; Suanna S Bruinooge; Eduardo Salas
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Effectiveness of a provider reminder on fecal occult blood test follow-up.

Authors:  Meaghan F Larson; Cynthia W Ko; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jasmin Tiro; Jane Kim; Anne Marie McCarthy; Virginia P Quinn; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cosette M Wheeler; William E Barlow; Mackenzie Bronson; Michael Garcia; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Aruna Kamineni; Carolyn M Rutter; Tor D Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Electronic medical records and improving the quality of the screening process.

Authors:  Deborah A Fisher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Thomas D Sequist; Alan M Zaslavsky; Richard Marshall; Robert H Fletcher; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-23

9.  Using a multifaceted approach to improve the follow-up of positive fecal occult blood test results.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Himabindu Kadiyala; Gayathri Bhagwath; Anila Shethia; Hashem El-Serag; Annette Walder; Maria E Velez; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Improving follow-up of abnormal cancer screens using electronic health records: trust but verify test result communication.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Lindsey Wilson; Laura A Petersen; Mona K Sawhney; Brian Reis; Donna Espadas; Dean F Sittig
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.