BACKGROUND: Computerized reminder systems (CRS) show promise for increasing preventive services such as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, prior research has not evaluated a generalizable CRS across diverse, community primary care practices. We evaluated whether a generalizable CRS, ClinfoTracker, could improve screening rates for CRC in diverse primary care practices. METHODS: The study was a prospective trial to evaluate ClinfoTracker using historical control data in 12 Great Lakes Research In Practice Network community-based, primary care practices distributed from Southeast to Upper Peninsula Michigan. Our outcome measures were pre- and post-study practice-level CRC screening rates among patients seen during the 9-month study period. Ability to maintain the CRS was measured by days of reminder printing. Field notes were used to examine each practice's cohesion and technology capabilities. RESULTS: All but one practice increased their CRC screening rates, ranging from 3.3% to 16.8% improvement. t tests adjusted for within practice correlation showed improvement in screening rates across all 12 practices, from 41.7% to 50.9%, P = 0.002. Technology capabilities impacted printing days (74% for high technology vs. 45% for low technology practices, P = 0.01), and cohesion demonstrated an impact trend for screening (15.3% rate change for high cohesion vs. 7.9% for low cohesion practices). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a generalizable CRS in diverse primary care practices yielded significant improvements in CRC screening rates. Technology capabilities are important in maintaining the system, but practice cohesion may have a greater influence on screening rates. This work has important implications for practices implementing reminder systems.
BACKGROUND: Computerized reminder systems (CRS) show promise for increasing preventive services such as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, prior research has not evaluated a generalizable CRS across diverse, community primary care practices. We evaluated whether a generalizable CRS, ClinfoTracker, could improve screening rates for CRC in diverse primary care practices. METHODS: The study was a prospective trial to evaluate ClinfoTracker using historical control data in 12 Great Lakes Research In Practice Network community-based, primary care practices distributed from Southeast to Upper Peninsula Michigan. Our outcome measures were pre- and post-study practice-level CRC screening rates among patients seen during the 9-month study period. Ability to maintain the CRS was measured by days of reminder printing. Field notes were used to examine each practice's cohesion and technology capabilities. RESULTS: All but one practice increased their CRC screening rates, ranging from 3.3% to 16.8% improvement. t tests adjusted for within practice correlation showed improvement in screening rates across all 12 practices, from 41.7% to 50.9%, P = 0.002. Technology capabilities impacted printing days (74% for high technology vs. 45% for low technology practices, P = 0.01), and cohesion demonstrated an impact trend for screening (15.3% rate change for high cohesion vs. 7.9% for low cohesion practices). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a generalizable CRS in diverse primary care practices yielded significant improvements in CRC screening rates. Technology capabilities are important in maintaining the system, but practice cohesion may have a greater influence on screening rates. This work has important implications for practices implementing reminder systems.
Authors: Jesse C Crosson; Christine Stroebel; John G Scott; Brian Stello; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Marion R Nadel; Carrie N Klabunde; Trevor Thompson; Jean A Shapiro; Sally W Vernon; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C J McDonald; S L Hui; D M Smith; W M Tierney; S J Cohen; M Weinberger; G P McCabe Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1984-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jesse C Crosson; Pamela A Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Barbara DiCicco-Bloom; Eric Shaw; A John Orzano; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Cameron G Shultz; Jean M Malouin; Lee A Green; Melissa Plegue; Grant M Greenberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anna M Nápoles; Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Anita L Stewart; Jill Olmstead; Steven E Gregorich; Georgianna Farren; Ruben Cabral; Andrew Freudman; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Emily C Williams; Anna D Rubinsky; Laura J Chavez; Gwen T Lapham; Stacey E Rittmueller; Carol E Achtmeyer; Katharine A Bradley Journal: Addiction Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Usha Menon; Laura A Szalacha; Jennifer Kue; Patricia M Herman; Julie Bucho-Gonzalez; Peter Lance; Linda Larkey Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2020-04-20
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 7.327