Literature DB >> 23868477

Assessing screening quality in the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

Marion R Nadel1, Janet Royalty, Jean A Shapiro, Djenaba Joseph, Laura C Seeff, Dorothy S Lane, Diane M Dwyer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gaps in screening quality in community practice have been well documented. The authors examined recommended indicators of screening quality in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which provided colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic services between 2005 and 2009 for asymptomatic, low-income, underinsured, or uninsured individuals at 5 sites around the United States.
METHODS: For each client screened in the CRCSDP, a standardized set of colorectal cancer clinical data elements was collected. Data regarding client age, screening history, risk level, screening test indication, results, and recommendation for the next test were analyzed. For colonoscopies, data were analyzed regarding whether the cecum was reached, bowel preparation was adequate, and identified lesions were completely removed.
RESULTS: Overall, 53% of the fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) (2295 tests) distributed were completed and returned. At the 2 sites with adequate numbers of FOBTs, 77% and 97%, respectively, of clients with positive results received follow-up colonoscopies. Site-specific cecal intubation rates ranged from 90% to 98%. Adenoma detection rates were 32% for men and 21% for women. For approximately one-third of colonoscopies, the recommended interval to the next test was shorter than recommended by national guidelines. At some sites, endoscopists failed to report on the adequacy of bowel preparation and completeness of polyp removal.
CONCLUSIONS: Cecal intubation rates and adenoma detection rates met recommended levels. The authors identified the need for improvements in the follow-up of positive FOBTs, documentation of important elements in colonoscopy reports, and recommendations for rescreening or surveillance intervals after colonoscopy. Monitoring quality indicators is important to improve screening quality.
© 2013 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colonoscopy; colorectal neoplasms; fecal occult blood; health care; mass screening; quality indicators

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23868477      PMCID: PMC4479171          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28164

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  30 in total

Review 1.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Trends in colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Su-Ying Liang; Uri Ladabaum; Jennifer Haas; Karla Kerlikowske; David Lieberman; Robert Hiatt; Mika Nagamine; Stephanie L Van Bebber
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 3.  Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

Authors:  David Lieberman; Marion Nadel; Robert A Smith; Wendy Atkin; Subash B Duggirala; Robert Fletcher; Seth N Glick; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; David Ransohoff; Douglas Rex; Robert Schoen; Paul Schroy; Sidney Winawer
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  A national survey of primary care physicians' methods for screening for fecal occult blood.

Authors:  Marion R Nadel; Jean A Shapiro; Carrie N Klabunde; Laura C Seeff; Robert Uhler; Robert A Smith; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-01-18       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'Brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Patrick Connor; Daniel McGee; Paul Jowell; Nick Nickl; Steve Schutz; Joseph Leung; John Lee; Eric Libby
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Fecal occult blood testing beliefs and practices of U.S. primary care physicians: serious deviations from evidence-based recommendations.

Authors:  Marion R Nadel; Zahava Berkowitz; Carrie N Klabunde; Robert A Smith; Steven S Coughlin; Mary C White
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-04-10       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy.

Authors:  Pauline A Mysliwiec; Martin L Brown; Carrie N Klabunde; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-08-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Dealing with uncertainty: surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy.

Authors:  Theodore R Levin
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  6 in total

1.  A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Sonja Hoover; Florence K L Tangka; Amy DeGroff; Cynthia S Soloe; Laura C Arena; Dara F Schlueter; Djenaba A Joseph; Faye L Wong
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Colorectal cancer screening: Estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity.

Authors:  Djenaba A Joseph; Reinier G S Meester; Ann G Zauber; Diane L Manninen; Linda Winges; Fred B Dong; Brandy Peaker; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Developmental milestones across the programmatic life cycle: implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

Authors:  Rebecca Glover-Kudon; Amy DeGroff; Elizabeth A Rohan; Judith Preissle; Jennifer E Boehm
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Toward the Elimination of Colorectal Cancer Disparities Among African Americans.

Authors:  Steven S Coughlin; Daniel S Blumenthal; Shirley Jordan Seay; Selina A Smith
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2015-10-28

5.  Challenges Implementing Lung Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Authors:  Steven B Zeliadt; Richard M Hoffman; Genevieve Birkby; Jan M Eberth; Alison T Brenner; Daniel S Reuland; Susan A Flocke
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 6.604

6.  Variations in Screening Quality in a Federal Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for the Uninsured.

Authors:  Marion R Nadel; Janet Royalty; Djenaba Joseph; Tanner Rockwell; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Simone C Gray; Jean A Shapiro
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 2.830

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.