Literature DB >> 18725839

Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization.

Diana L Miglioretti1, Carolyn M Rutter, Susan Carol Bradford, Ann G Zauber, Larry G Kessler, Eric J Feuer, David C Grossman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening for fecal occult blood can be effective in reducing colorectal cancer mortality only if positive tests are appropriately followed up with complete diagnostic evaluation (ie, colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy with double contrast barium enema) and treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether rates of complete diagnostic evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) have improved over time after the implementation of tracking systems and physician guidelines within a large integrated health care organization. RESEARCH
DESIGN: From 1993 to 2005, 8513 positive FOBTs were identified on 8291 enrollees aged 50-79 of a large health care system. Automated records were used to identify repeat FOBTs, colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema within 1 year after the positive FOBT. National rates of complete diagnostic evaluation were estimated from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey.
RESULTS: In this integrated health care organization, the percentage of positive FOBTs followed by complete diagnostic evaluation within 1 year increased from 57-64% in 1993-1996 to 82-86% from 2000-2005. Use of repeat FOBT after a positive FOBT decreased from 28-31% in 1993-1996 to 6-11% in 2000-2005. Based on the National Health Interview Survey, only 52% of positive FOBTs in 2000-2005 were followed by complete diagnostic evaluation nationally.
CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to recommendations for complete diagnostic evaluation after a positive FOBT has greatly improved over time in an integrated group medical practice. Through the use of tracking systems and screening guidelines, it may be possible to reach levels of follow-up that are comparable to those observed in randomized trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18725839      PMCID: PMC4227983          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817946c8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  26 in total

Review 1.  Does the chronic care model serve also as a template for improving prevention?

Authors:  R E Glasgow; C T Orleans; E H Wagner
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 2.  Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult.

Authors:  P Hewitson; P Glasziou; L Irwig; B Towler; E Watson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

3.  Improving the fecal occult-blood test.

Authors:  J E Allison; I S Tekawa; L J Ransom; A L Adrain
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-06-13       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Screening for colorectal cancer. A comparison of 3 fecal occult blood tests.

Authors:  B Levin; K Hess; C Johnson
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1997-05-12

5.  Factors that influence the decision to do an adequate evaluation of a patient with a positive stool for occult blood.

Authors:  H M Shields; M S Weiner; D R Henry; J A Lloyd; B J Ransil; D A Lamphier; D W Gallagher; D A Antonioli; B A Rosner
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2003, featuring cancer among U.S. Hispanic/Latino populations.

Authors:  Holly L Howe; Xiaocheng Wu; Lynn A G Ries; Vilma Cokkinides; Faruque Ahmed; Ahmedin Jemal; Barry Miller; Melanie Williams; Elizabeth Ward; Phyllis A Wingo; Amelie Ramirez; Brenda K Edwards
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2006-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Physician-reported reasons for limited follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test screening result.

Authors:  Nadeem Baig; Ronald E Myers; Barbara J Turner; James Grana; Todd Rothermel; Neil Schlackman; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  A randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer using faecal occult blood testing: results after 13 years and seven biennial screening rounds.

Authors:  O D Jørgensen; O Kronborg; C Fenger
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  A critical analysis of the largest reported mass fecal occult blood screening program in the United States.

Authors:  J B Morris; T A Stellato; B B Guy; N H Gordon; N A Berger
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ronald E Myers; Barbara Turner; David Weinberg; Terry Hyslop; Walter W Hauck; Timothy Brigham; Todd Rothermel; James Grana; Neil Schlackman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.018

View more
  34 in total

1.  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

2.  A centrally generated primary care physician audit report does not improve colonoscopy uptake after a positive result on a fecal occult blood test in Ontario's ColonCancerCheck program.

Authors:  D Stock; L Rabeneck; N N Baxter; L F Paszat; R Sutradhar; L Yun; J Tinmouth
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up rates (SOS): design, challenges, and baseline characteristics of trial participants.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; C Y Wang; Kathryn Horner; Sheryl Catz; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; David Carrell; Jessica Chubak; Cynthia Ko; Sharon Laing; Andy Bogart
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 4.  Bringing an organizational perspective to the optimal number of colorectal cancer screening options debate.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Adam A Powell; Diana J Burgess; Timothy J Wilt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Amy A Gravely; James F Burgess; David A Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; David B Nelson; Sean M Nugent; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Louise C Walter; Diana J Burgess
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening - an overview.

Authors:  Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.043

7.  "BeneFITs" to increase colorectal cancer screening in priority populations.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Gloria D Coronado
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Jane J Kim; Elisabeth F Beaber; Yingye Zheng; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Jessica Chubak; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale McLerran; Nancy Breen; Emily F Conant; Berta M Geller; Beverly B Green; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Inrig; Celette Sugg Skinner; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Mitchell Schnall; Carolyn M Rutter; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Improving hepatocellular carcinoma screening: applying lessons from colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Jasmin A Tiro; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  The cumulative risk of false-positive fecal occult blood test after 10 years of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Eric Johnson; Raymond Hsia; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.