BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Veterans Health Administration initiated a yearlong Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative (C4) to improve timely follow-up after positive fecal occult blood tests. METHODS: Twenty-one facilities formed local quality improvement (QI) teams. Teams received QI training, created process flow maps, implemented process changes, and shared learning through 2 face-to-face meetings, conference calls, and a discussion board. We evaluated pre-post change in the timeliness of follow-up among C4 facilities and 3 control facilities. Outcome measures included the proportion of patients receiving a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year, the proportion receiving 60-day follow-up (the focus of C4 teams), and average days to colonoscopy. Survey data from C4 team members was analyzed to identify predictors of facility-level improvement. RESULTS: Both C4 and control facilities improved on 1-year follow-up (10% and 9% increases, respectively, both P's<0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion receiving 60-day follow-up among C4 facilities (27% pre-C4 vs. 39% post-C4, P=0.008) but a nonsignificant decrease among control facilities (45% pre-C4 vs. 29% post-C4, P=0.14). Average days to colonoscopy decreased significantly among C4 facilities (129 pre-C4 vs. 103 post-C4, P=0.004) but increased significantly among control facilities (81 pre-C4 vs. 103 post-C4, P=0.04). Teams with the most improvement established clear roles/goals, had previous QI training, made more use of QI tools, and incorporated primary care education into their improvement work. CONCLUSIONS: A Veterans Health Administration improvement collaborative modestly decreased time to colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer screening test but significant room for improvement remains and benefits of participation were not realized by all facilities.
BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Veterans Health Administration initiated a yearlong Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative (C4) to improve timely follow-up after positive fecal occult blood tests. METHODS: Twenty-one facilities formed local quality improvement (QI) teams. Teams received QI training, created process flow maps, implemented process changes, and shared learning through 2 face-to-face meetings, conference calls, and a discussion board. We evaluated pre-post change in the timeliness of follow-up among C4 facilities and 3 control facilities. Outcome measures included the proportion of patients receiving a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year, the proportion receiving 60-day follow-up (the focus of C4 teams), and average days to colonoscopy. Survey data from C4 team members was analyzed to identify predictors of facility-level improvement. RESULTS: Both C4 and control facilities improved on 1-year follow-up (10% and 9% increases, respectively, both P's<0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion receiving 60-day follow-up among C4 facilities (27% pre-C4 vs. 39% post-C4, P=0.008) but a nonsignificant decrease among control facilities (45% pre-C4 vs. 29% post-C4, P=0.14). Average days to colonoscopy decreased significantly among C4 facilities (129 pre-C4 vs. 103 post-C4, P=0.004) but increased significantly among control facilities (81 pre-C4 vs. 103 post-C4, P=0.04). Teams with the most improvement established clear roles/goals, had previous QI training, made more use of QI tools, and incorporated primary care education into their improvement work. CONCLUSIONS: A Veterans Health Administration improvement collaborative modestly decreased time to colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer screening test but significant room for improvement remains and benefits of participation were not realized by all facilities.
Authors: Leah L Zullig; George L Jackson; Raye Anne Dorn; Dawn T Provenzale; Rebecca McNeil; Catherine M Thomas; Michael J Kelley Journal: Mil Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.437
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
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Sallie Weaver; Eduardo Salas; Veronica Chollette; Heather M Edwards; Suanna S Bruinooge; Michael P Kosty Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Roxanne Wadia; Mark Shifman; Forrest L Levin; Luis Marenco; Cynthia A Brandt; Kei-Hoi Cheung; Tamar Taddei; Michael Krauthammer Journal: AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc Date: 2017-07-26
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
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Diana J Burgess; James F Burgess; Amy Gravely; David Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; Sean Nugent; Adam A Powell; Aasma Shaukat; Louise C Walter; David B Nelson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Megan A Adams; Joel H Rubenstein; Rachel Lipson; Robert G Holleman; Sameer D Saini Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.128