Literature DB >> 21959573

Performance of implementing guideline-driven cervical cancer screening measures in an inner-city hospital system.

Daryl L Wieland1, Laura L Reimers, Eijean Wu, Lisa M Nathan, Tammy Gruenberg, Maria Abadi, Mark H Einstein.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: : In 2006, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology updated evidence-based guidelines recommending screening intervals for women with abnormal cervical cytology diagnosis. In our low-income inner-city population, we sought to improve performance by uniformly applying the guidelines to all patients. We report the prospective performance of a comprehensive tracking, evidence-based algorithmically driven call back, and appointment scheduling system for cervical cancer screening in a resource-limited inner-city population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: : Outreach efforts were formalized with algorithm-based protocols for triage to colposcopy, with universal adherence to evidence-based guidelines. During implementation from August 2006 to July 2008, we prospectively tracked performance using the electronic medical record with administrative and pathology reports to determine performance variables such as the total number of Pap tests, colposcopy visits, and the distribution of abnormal cytology and histology results, including all cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2, 3 diagnoses.
RESULTS: : A total of 86,257 gynecologic visits and 41,527 Pap tests were performed system-wide during this period of widespread and uniform implementation of standard cervical cancer screening guidelines. The number of Pap tests performed per month varied little. The incidence of CIN 1 significantly decreased from 117 (68.4%) of 171 during the first tracked month to 52 (54.7%) of 95 during the last tracked month (p = 0.04). The monthly incidence rate of CIN 2, 3, including incident cervical cancers, did not change. The total number of colposcopy visits declined, resulting in a 50% decrease in costs related to colposcopy services and approximately a 12% decrease in costs related to excisional biopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: : Adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines reduced the number of unnecessary colposcopies without increasing numbers of potentially missed CIN 2, 3 lesions, including cervical cancer. Uniform implementation of administrative-based performance initiatives for cervical cancer screening minimizes differences in provider practices and maximizes performance of screening while containing cervical cancer screening costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21959573      PMCID: PMC3681613          DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e3182112f22

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis        ISSN: 1089-2591            Impact factor:   1.925


  19 in total

1.  Medscape's response to the Institute of Medicine Report: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.

Authors:  M Leavitt
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2001-03-05

2.  Cervical cytology screening practices among obstetrician-gynecologists.

Authors:  Kenneth L Noller; Barbara Bettes; Stanley Zinberg; Jay Schulkin
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Cervical-cancer screening--new guidelines and the balance between benefits and harms.

Authors:  George F Sawaya
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-11-25       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and risk of preterm birth.

Authors:  Claudia L Werner; Julie Y Lo; Thomas Heffernan; William F Griffith; Donald D McIntire; Kenneth J Leveno
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal cohort study.

Authors:  C B Woodman; S Collins; H Winter; A Bailey; J Ellis; P Prior; M Yates; T P Rollason; L S Young
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-06-09       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Cervical cancer screening with both human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou testing vs Papanicolaou testing alone: what screening intervals are physicians recommending?

Authors:  Mona Saraiya; Zahava Berkowitz; K Robin Yabroff; Louise Wideroff; Sarah Kobrin; Vicki Benard
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-06-14

Review 7.  Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Amy Leader; Elizabeth Neilson; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  Risk of cervical cancer associated with extending the interval between cervical-cancer screenings.

Authors:  George F Sawaya; K John McConnell; Shalini L Kulasingam; Herschel W Lawson; Karla Kerlikowske; Joy Melnikow; Nancy C Lee; Ginny Gildengorin; Evan R Myers; A Eugene Washington
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-10-16       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Genital human papillomavirus infection: incidence and risk factors in a cohort of female university students.

Authors:  Rachel L Winer; Shu-Kuang Lee; James P Hughes; Diane E Adam; Nancy B Kiviat; Laura A Koutsky
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 10.  Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening.

Authors:  Thomas C Wright; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; J Thomas Cox; Francisco Garcia; Sue Goldie; Kenneth Hatch; Kenneth L Noller; Nancy Roach; Carolyn Runowicz; Debbie Saslow
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  2 in total

1.  Improving the Utilization of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cytology Co-testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in an Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident Clinic.

Authors:  Kurt Yoshino; Maxine Karimoto; Christina Marzo; Bliss Kaneshiro; Mark Hiraoka
Journal:  Hawaii J Med Public Health       Date:  2015-08

2.  Patterns of adherence to NICE glaucoma guidance in two different service delivery models.

Authors:  A Chawla; I Patel; C Yuen; C Fenerty
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 3.775

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.