Literature DB >> 19293786

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

Hardeep Singh1, Himabindu Kadiyala, Gayathri Bhagwath, Anila Shethia, Hashem El-Serag, Annette Walder, Maria E Velez, Laura A Petersen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal fecal occult blood test (FOBT) results occurs in several types of practice settings. Our institution implemented multifaceted quality improvement (QI) activities in 2004-2005 to improve follow-up of FOBT-positive results. Activities addressed precolonoscopy referral processes and system-level factors such as electronic communication, provider education, and feedback. We evaluated their effects on timeliness and appropriateness of positive-FOBT follow-up and identified factors that affect colonoscopy performance.
METHODS: Retrospective electronic medical record review was used to determine outcomes before and after QI activities in a multispecialty ambulatory clinic of a tertiary care Veterans Affairs facility and its affiliated satellite clinics. From 1869 FOBT-positive cases, 800 were randomly selected from time periods before and after QI activities. Two reviewers used a pretested standardized data collection form to determine whether colonoscopy was appropriate or indicated based on predetermined criteria and if so, the timeliness of colonoscopy referral and performance before and after QI activities.
RESULTS: In cases where a colonoscopy was indicated, the proportion of patients who received a timely colonoscopy referral and performance were significantly higher post-implementation (60.5% vs. 31.7%, P<0.0001 and 11.4% vs. 3.4%, P=0.0005). A significant decrease also resulted in median times to referral and performance (6 vs. 19 days, P<0.0001 and 96.5 vs. 190 days, P<0.0001) and in the proportion of positive-FOBT test results that had received no follow-up by the time of chart review (24.3% vs. 35.9%, P=0.0045). Significant predictors of absence of the performance of an indicated colonoscopy included performance of a non-colonoscopy procedure such as barium enema or flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR=16.9; 95% CI, 1.9-145.1), patient non-adherence (OR=33.9; 95% CI, 17.3-66.6), not providing an appropriate provisional diagnosis on the consultation (OR=17.9; 95% CI, 11.3-28.1), and gastroenterology service not rescheduling colonoscopies after an initial cancellation (OR=11.0; 95% CI, 5.1-23.7).
CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted QI activities improved rates of timely colonoscopy referral and performance in an electronic medical record system. However, colonoscopy was not indicated in over one third of patients with positive FOBTs, raising concerns about current screening practices and the appropriate denominator used for performance measurement standards related to colon cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19293786      PMCID: PMC2921791          DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.55

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  60 in total

1.  Primary care clinician attitudes towards electronic clinical reminders and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Tejal K Gandhi; Thomas D Sequist; Eric G Poon; Andrew S Karson; Harvey Murff; David G Fairchild; Gilad J Kuperman; David W Bates
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2003

2.  Medical errors involving trainees: a study of closed malpractice claims from 5 insurers.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Eric J Thomas; Laura A Petersen; David M Studdert
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-22

3.  Diagnostic errors and abnormal diagnostic tests lost to follow-up: a source of needless waste and delay to treatment.

Authors:  Terry Wahls
Journal:  J Ambul Care Manage       Date:  2007 Oct-Dec

4.  Reducing diagnostic errors through effective communication: harnessing the power of information technology.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Aanand Dinkar Naik; Raghuram Rao; Laura Ann Petersen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Lagtimes in diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer: determinants and association with cancer stage and survival.

Authors:  J Wattacheril; J R Kramer; P Richardson; B D Havemann; L K Green; A Le; H B El-Serag
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2008-08-08       Impact factor: 8.171

6.  A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ronald E Myers; Randa Sifri; Terry Hyslop; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; James Cocroft; Thomas Wolf; Jocelyn Andrel; Richard Wender
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  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

Review 8.  Errors in cancer diagnosis: current understanding and future directions.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Saurabh Sethi; Martin Raber; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Colonoscopy completion in a large safety net health care system.

Authors:  Elina S Kazarian; Fernando S Carreira; Neil W Toribara; Thomas D Denberg
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.

Authors:  Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 508.702

View more
  38 in total

1.  Reducing referral delays in colorectal cancer diagnosis: is it about how you ask?

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Laura A Petersen; Kuang Daci; Clyde Collins; Myrna Khan; Hashem B El-Serag
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2010-06-27

2.  Inadequate Utilization of Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal FIT Results in an Integrated Safety-Net System.

Authors:  Rachel B Issaka; Maneesh H Singh; Sachiko M Oshima; Victoria J Laleau; Carly D Rachocki; Ellen H Chen; Lukejohn W Day; Urmimala Sarkar; Ma Somsouk
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  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

Review 4.  Clinical decision support for colon and rectal surgery: an overview.

Authors:  Allison B McCoy; Genevieve B Melton; Adam Wright; Dean F Sittig
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2013-03

5.  A vision for using online portals for surveillance of patient-centered communication in cancer care.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Neeraj K Arora; Kathleen M Mazor; Richard L Street
Journal:  Patient Exp J       Date:  2015 Fall-Winter

6.  Prospective controlled assessment of impact of feedback on gastroenterology trainees in outpatient practice.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  The Need for an Integrated Patient Navigation Pathway to Improve Access to Colonoscopy After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Testing: A Safety-Net Hospital Experience.

Authors:  Sreedevi Thamarasseril; Taft Bhuket; Chuck Chan; Benny Liu; Robert J Wong
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2017-06

8.  Patient-Reported Attributions for Missed Colonoscopy Appointments in Two Large Healthcare Systems.

Authors:  Viraj Bhise; Varsha Modi; Anisha Kalavar; Donna Espadas; Loretta Hanser; Milena Gould; Hashem B El-Serag; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 3.199

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.  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.