OBJECTIVE: To identify primary care practice characteristics associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening performance, controlling for patient-level factors. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary care director survey (1999-2000) of 155 VA primary care clinics linked with 38,818 eligible patients' sociodemographics, utilization, and CRC screening experience using centralized administrative and chart-review data (2001). STUDY DESIGN: Practices were characterized by degrees of centralization (e.g., authority over operations, staffing, outside-practice influence); resources (e.g., sufficiency of nonphysician staffing, space, clinical support arrangements); and complexity (e.g., facility size, academic status, managed care penetration), adjusting for patient-level covariates and contextual factors. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Chart-based evidence of CRC screening through direct colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or consecutive fecal occult blood tests, eliminating cases with documented histories of CRC, polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and health care utilization, patients were significantly more likely to be screened for CRC if their primary care practices had greater autonomy over the internal structure of care delivery (p<.04), more clinical support arrangements (p<.03), and smaller size (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in primary care clinical support arrangements and local autonomy over operational management and referral procedures are associated with significantly lower CRC screening performance. Competition with hospital resource demands may impinge on the degree of internal organization of their affiliated primary care practices.
OBJECTIVE: To identify primary care practice characteristics associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening performance, controlling for patient-level factors. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Primary care director survey (1999-2000) of 155 VA primary care clinics linked with 38,818 eligible patients' sociodemographics, utilization, and CRC screening experience using centralized administrative and chart-review data (2001). STUDY DESIGN: Practices were characterized by degrees of centralization (e.g., authority over operations, staffing, outside-practice influence); resources (e.g., sufficiency of nonphysician staffing, space, clinical support arrangements); and complexity (e.g., facility size, academic status, managed care penetration), adjusting for patient-level covariates and contextual factors. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Chart-based evidence of CRC screening through direct colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or consecutive fecal occult blood tests, eliminating cases with documented histories of CRC, polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and health care utilization, patients were significantly more likely to be screened for CRC if their primary care practices had greater autonomy over the internal structure of care delivery (p<.04), more clinical support arrangements (p<.03), and smaller size (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in primary care clinical support arrangements and local autonomy over operational management and referral procedures are associated with significantly lower CRC screening performance. Competition with hospital resource demands may impinge on the degree of internal organization of their affiliated primary care practices.
Authors: Caroline Lubick Goldzweig; Patricia H Parkerton; Donna L Washington; Andrew B Lanto; Elizabeth M Yano Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Gareth S Dulai; Melissa M Farmer; Patricia A Ganz; Coen A Bernaards; Karen Qi; Allen J Dietrich; Roshan Bastani; Michael J Belman; Katherine L Kahn Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: William H Rogers; Lewis E Kazis; Donald R Miller; Katherine M Skinner; Jack A Clark; Avron Spiro; R Graeme Fincke Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2004 Jul-Sep
Authors: Martin P Charns; Mary K Foster; Elaine C Alligood; Justin K Benzer; James F Burgess; Donna Li; Nathalie M McIntosh; Allison Burness; Melissa R Partin; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2012-05
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Shivan J Mehta; Yingye Zheng; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale F McLerran; Jessica Chubak; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Douglas A Corley; John M Inadomi; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Adam A Powell; Ann Bangerter; Krysten Halek; James F Burgess; Deborah A Fisher; David B Nelson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Timothy Jay Carney; Geoffrey P Morgan; Josette Jones; Anna M McDaniel; Michael Weaver; Bryan Weiner; David A Haggstrom Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Erinn M Hade; David M Murray; Michael L Pennell; Dale Rhoda; Electra D Paskett; Victoria L Champion; Benjamin F Crabtree; Allen Dietrich; Mark B Dignan; Melissa Farmer; Joshua J Fenton; Susan Flocke; Robert A Hiatt; Shawna V Hudson; Michael Mitchell; Patrick Monahan; Salma Shariff-Marco; Stacey L Slone; Kurt Stange; Susan L Stewart; Pamela A Ohman Strickland Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2010
Authors: Mark W Friedberg; Hector P Rodriguez; Grant R Martsolf; Maria O Edelen; Arturo Vargas Bustamante Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David R Lairson; Melissa Dicarlo; Ashish A Deshmuk; Heather B Fagan; Randa Sifri; Nora Katurakes; James Cocroft; Jocelyn Sendecki; Heidi Swan; Sally W Vernon; Ronald E Myers Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tracy Onega; Tor D Tosteson; Julie Weiss; Jennifer S Haas; Martha Goodrich; Roberta DiFlorio; Charles Brackett; Cheryl Clark; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128