Literature DB >> 25471345

Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-up for positive fecal occult blood test results: an observational study.

Melissa R Partin1, Diana J Burgess2, James F Burgess3, Amy Gravely4, David Haggstrom5, Sarah E Lillie2, Sean Nugent4, Adam A Powell4, Aasma Shaukat2, Louise C Walter6, David B Nelson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the contribution of organizational structures and processes identified from facility surveys to follow-up for positive fecal occult blood tests [FOBT-positive (FOBT(+))].
METHODS: We identified 74,104 patients with FOBT(+) results from 98 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities between August 16, 2009 and March 20, 2011, and followed them until September 30, 2011, for completion of colonoscopy. We identified patient characteristics from VHA administrative records, and organizational factors from facility surveys completed by primary care and gastroenterology chiefs. We estimated predictors of colonoscopy completion within 60 days and six months using hierarchical logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Thirty percent of patients with FOBT(+) results received colonoscopy within 60 days and 49% within six months. Having gastroenterology or laboratory staff notify gastroenterology providers directly about FOBT(+) cases was a significant predictor of 60-day [odds ratio (OR), 1.85; P = 0.01] and six-month follow-up (OR, 1.25; P = 0.008). Additional predictors of 60-day follow-up included adequacy of colonoscopy appointment availability (OR, 1.43; P = 0.01) and frequent individual feedback to primary care providers about FOBT(+) referral timeliness (OR, 1.79; P = 0.04). Additional predictors of six-month follow-up included using guideline-concordant surveillance intervals for low-risk adenomas (OR, 1.57; P = 0.01) and using group appointments and combined verbal-written methods for colonoscopy preparation instruction (OR, 1.48; P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Directly notifying gastroenterology providers about FOBT(+) results, using guideline-concordant adenoma surveillance intervals, and using colonoscopy preparations instruction methods that provide both verbal and written information may increase overall follow-up rates. Enhancing follow-up within 60 days may require increased colonoscopy capacity and feedback to primary care providers. IMPACT: These findings may inform organizational-level interventions to improve FOBT(+) follow-up. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25471345      PMCID: PMC4323731          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1170

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  44 in total

1.  A patient education program is cost-effective for preventing failure of endoscopic procedures in a gastroenterology department.

Authors:  G Abuksis; M Mor; N Segal; I Shemesh; I Morad; S Plaut; E Weiss; J Sulkes; G Fraser; Y Niv
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Factors that influence the decision to do an adequate evaluation of a patient with a positive stool for occult blood.

Authors:  H M Shields; M S Weiner; D R Henry; J A Lloyd; B J Ransil; D A Lamphier; D W Gallagher; D A Antonioli; B A Rosner
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Abnormal Pap smear follow-up in a high-risk population.

Authors:  L P Engelstad; S L Stewart; B H Nguyen; K L Bedeian; M M Rubin; R J Pasick; R A Hiatt
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Physician and patient factors associated with ordering a colon evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test.

Authors:  Barbara Turner; Ronald E Myers; Terry Hyslop; Walter W Hauck; David Weinberg; Timothy Brigham; James Grana; Todd Rothermel; Neil Schlackman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Primary care practice organization influences colorectal cancer screening performance.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Yano; Lynn M Soban; Patricia H Parkerton; David A Etzioni
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Challenges in the management of positive fecal occult blood tests.

Authors:  Sandhya K Rao; Thad F Schilling; Thomas D Sequist
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Ronald E Myers; Barbara Turner; David Weinberg; Terry Hyslop; Walter W Hauck; Timothy Brigham; Todd Rothermel; James Grana; Neil Schlackman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Susan Carol Bradford; Ann G Zauber; Larry G Kessler; Eric J Feuer; David C Grossman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 9.  Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality.

Authors:  Sylvia J Hysong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Telephone reminders to reduce non-attendance rate for endoscopy.

Authors:  C S Lee; P A McCormick
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 18.000

View more
  28 in total

1.  Timeliness of Colonoscopy After Abnormal Fecal Test Results in a Safety Net Practice.

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

2.  Complicating "the good result": narratives of colorectal cancer screening when cancer is not found.

Authors:  Jean M Hunleth; Robert Gallo; Emily K Steinmetz; Aimee S James
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2019-02-04

3.  Race/Ethnicity and Adoption of a Population Health Management Approach to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community-Based Healthcare System.

Authors:  Shivan J Mehta; Christopher D Jensen; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Reinier Meester; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Stacey Fedewa; Michael Goodman; Robert H Fletcher; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Resolving Rivalries and Realigning Goals: Challenges of Clinical and Research Multiteam Systems.

Authors:  David E Gerber; Torsten Reimer; Erin L Williams; Mary Gill; Laurin Loudat Priddy; Deidi Bergestuen; Joan H Schiller; Haskell Kirkpatrick; Simon J Craddock Lee
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.840

5.  Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results.

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

6.  Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Jane J Kim; Elisabeth F Beaber; Yingye Zheng; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Jessica Chubak; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale McLerran; Nancy Breen; Emily F Conant; Berta M Geller; Beverly B Green; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Inrig; Celette Sugg Skinner; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Mitchell Schnall; Carolyn M Rutter; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Effect of Time to Diagnostic Testing for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Abnormalities on Screening Efficacy: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Jane J Kim; Reinier G S Meester; Brian L Sprague; Emily A Burger; Ann G Zauber; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Nicole G Campos; Chyke A Doubeni; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Stephen Sy; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha Stout; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Douglas A Corley; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel.

Authors:  Simon J Craddock Lee; Torsten Reimer; Sandra Garcia; Erin L Williams; Mary West; Tobi Stuart; David E Gerber
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2019-10-07

9.  Time to Colonoscopy after Positive Fecal Blood Test in Four U.S. Health Care Systems.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Michael P Garcia; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Yingye Zheng; Douglas A Corley; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal; Carrie N Klabunde; Chyke A Doubeni; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Joanne E Schottinger; Beverly B Green; Virginia P Quinn; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Ann G Zauber; Chyke A Doubeni; Christopher D Jensen; Virginia P Quinn; Mark Helfand; Jason A Dominitz; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.