BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for all adults 50 to 75 years old, yet only slightly more than one-half of eligible people are current with screening. Because CRC screening is usually initiated upon recommendations of primary care physicians, interventions in these settings are needed to improve screening. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a quality improvement intervention combining electronic medical record based audit and feedback, practice site visits for academic detailing and participatory planning, and "best-practice" dissemination on CRC screening in primary care practice. RESEARCH DESIGN: Two-year group randomized trial. SUBJECTS:Physicians, midlevel providers, and clinical staff members in 32 primary care practices in 19 States caring for 68,150 patients 50 years of age or older. MEASURES: Proportion of active patients up-to-date (UTD) with CRC screening (colonoscopywithin 10 years, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or at home fecal occult blood testing within 1 year) and having screening recommended within past year among those not UTD. RESULTS: Patients 50 to 75 years in intervention practices exhibited significantly greater improvement (from 60.7% to 71.2%) in being UTD with CRC screening than patients in control practices (from 57.7% to 62.8%), the adjusted difference being 4.9% (95% confidence interval, 3.8%-6.1%). Recommendations for screening also increased more in intervention practices with the adjusted difference being 7.9% (95% confidence interval, 6.3%-9.5%). There was wide interpractice variation in CRC screening throughout the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent quality improvement intervention in practices that use electronic medical record can improve CRC screening.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for all adults 50 to 75 years old, yet only slightly more than one-half of eligible people are current with screening. Because CRC screening is usually initiated upon recommendations of primary care physicians, interventions in these settings are needed to improve screening. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a quality improvement intervention combining electronic medical record based audit and feedback, practice site visits for academic detailing and participatory planning, and "best-practice" dissemination on CRC screening in primary care practice. RESEARCH DESIGN: Two-year group randomized trial. SUBJECTS: Physicians, midlevel providers, and clinical staff members in 32 primary care practices in 19 States caring for 68,150 patients 50 years of age or older. MEASURES: Proportion of active patients up-to-date (UTD) with CRC screening (colonoscopy within 10 years, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or at home fecal occult blood testing within 1 year) and having screening recommended within past year among those not UTD. RESULTS:Patients 50 to 75 years in intervention practices exhibited significantly greater improvement (from 60.7% to 71.2%) in being UTD with CRC screening than patients in control practices (from 57.7% to 62.8%), the adjusted difference being 4.9% (95% confidence interval, 3.8%-6.1%). Recommendations for screening also increased more in intervention practices with the adjusted difference being 7.9% (95% confidence interval, 6.3%-9.5%). There was wide interpractice variation in CRC screening throughout the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent quality improvement intervention in practices that use electronic medical record can improve CRC screening.
Authors: Chris Feifer; Steven M Ornstein; Ruth G Jenkins; Andrea Wessell; Sarah T Corley; Lynne S Nemeth; Loraine Roylance; Paul J Nietert; Heather Liszka Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Steven Ornstein; Paul J Nietert; Ruth G Jenkins; Andrea M Wessell; Lynne S Nemeth; Heather L Rose Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2008-07
Authors: Debra J Holden; Daniel E Jonas; Deborah S Porterfield; Daniel Reuland; Russell Harris Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; David Lanier; Marion R Nadel; Caroline McLeod; Gigi Yuan; Sally W Vernon Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-05-13 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ann G Zauber; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Amy B Knudsen; Janneke Wilschut; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jane Zapka; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Taplin; Gigi Yuan; David Ransohoff; Sarah Kobrin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael E Green; Stewart B Harris; Susan Webster-Bogaert; Han Han; Jyoti Kotecha; Alexander Kopp; Minnie M Ho; Richard V Birtwhistle; Richard H Glazier Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-04-06
Authors: Charles E Basch; Patricia Zybert; Randi L Wolf; Corey H Basch; Ralph Ullman; Celia Shmukler; Fionnuala King; Alfred I Neugut; Steven Shea Journal: J Community Health Date: 2015-10
Authors: Michael K Dougherty; Alison T Brenner; Seth D Crockett; Shivani Gupta; Stephanie B Wheeler; Manny Coker-Schwimmer; Laura Cubillos; Teri Malo; Daniel S Reuland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Beverly B Green; Ching-Yun Wang; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391