Literature DB >> 25605531

Rates and correlates of potentially inappropriate colorectal cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

Adam A Powell1, Sameer D Saini, Matthew K Breitenstein, Siamak Noorbaloochi, Andrea Cutting, Deborah A Fisher, Hanna E Bloomfield, Krysten Halek, Melissa R Partin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening procedures can inflate healthcare costs and increase medical risk. Little is known about the prevalence or causes of inappropriate CRC screening.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate CRC screening, and its association with patient and facility characteristics in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) . DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all VHA patients aged 50 years and older who completed a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or a screening colonoscopy between 1 October 2009 and 31 December 2011 (n = 1,083,965). MAIN MEASURES: Measures included: proportion of patients whose test was classified as potentially inappropriate; associations between potentially inappropriate screening and patient demographic and health characteristics, facility complexity, CRC screening rates, dependence on FOBT, and CRC clinical reminder attributes. KEY
RESULTS: Of 901,292 FOBT cases, 26.1 % were potentially inappropriate (13.9 % not due, 7.8 % limited life expectancy, 11.0 % receiving FOBT when colonoscopy was indicated). Of 134,335 screening colonoscopies, 14.2 % were potentially inappropriate (10.4 % not due, 4.4 % limited life expectancy). Each additional 10 years of patient age was associated with an increased likelihood of undergoing potentially inappropriate screening (ORs = 1.60 to 1.83 depending on screening mode). Compared to facilities scoring in the bottom third on a measure of reliance on FOBT (versus screening colonoscopy), facilities scoring in the top third were less likely to conduct potentially inappropriate FOBTs (OR = 0.,78) but more likely to conduct potentially inappropriate colonoscopies (OR = 2.20). Potentially inappropriate colonoscopies were less likely to be conducted at facilities where primary care providers were assigned partial responsibility (OR = 0.74) or full responsibility (OR = 0.73) for completing the CRC clinical reminder.
CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of VHA CRC screening tests are potentially inappropriate. Establishing processes that enforce appropriate screening intervals, triage patients with limited life expectancies, and discourage the use of FOBTs when a colonoscopy is indicated may reduce inappropriate testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25605531      PMCID: PMC4441657          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3163-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  29 in total

Review 1.  Complications of colonoscopy: magnitude and management.

Authors:  Cynthia W Ko; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-10

2.  Fairness in prospective payment: a clustering approach.

Authors:  T Stefos; N LaVallee; F Holden
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D C Cherkin; M A Ciol
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Evelyn P Whitlock; Jennifer S Lin; Elizabeth Liles; Tracy L Beil; Rongwei Fu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-10-06       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Appropriateness of referrals for open-access endoscopy. How do physicians in different medical specialties do?

Authors:  R J Mahajan; J S Barthel; J B Marshall
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1996-10-14

6.  Levels and variation in overuse of fecal occult blood testing in the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Adam A Powell; Ann Bangerter; Krysten Halek; James F Burgess; Deborah A Fisher; David B Nelson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population.

Authors:  James S Goodwin; Amanpal Singh; Nischita Reddy; Taylor S Riall; Yong-Fang Kuo
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-05-09

8.  The interrelationships between and contributions of background, cognitive, and environmental factors to colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph Grill; Diana J Burgess; Michelle van Ryn; Deborah A Fisher; Joan M Griffin; Adam A Powell; Krysten Halek; Ann Bangerter; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 2.506

9.  The impact of comorbidity on survival of Danish colorectal cancer patients from 1995 to 2006--a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Lene H Iversen; Mette Nørgaard; Jacob Jacobsen; Søren Laurberg; Henrik T Sørensen
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark.

Authors:  Sei J Lee; W John Boscardin; Irena Stijacic-Cenzer; Jessamyn Conell-Price; Sarah O'Brien; Louise C Walter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08
View more
  18 in total

1.  How Do Older Adults Consider Age, Life Expectancy, Quality of Life, and Physician Recommendations When Making Cancer Screening Decisions? Results from a National Survey Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia Boyd; John F P Bridges; Qian-Li Xue; Antonio C Wolff; Nancy L Schoenborn
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Influence of Age, Health, and Function on Cancer Screening in Older Adults with Limited Life Expectancy.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Jin Huang; Orla C Sheehan; Jennifer L Wolff; David L Roth; Cynthia M Boyd
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Capsule commentary on Powell et al., Rates and correlates of potentially inappropriate colorectal cancer screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  David L Hahn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Examining Generalizability of Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Cessation of Screening Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Low Health Literacy.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Norah L Crossnohere; Ellen M Janssen; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia M Boyd; Antonio C Wolff; Qian-Li Xue; Jacqueline Massare; Marcela Blinka; John F P Bridges
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Developing and Testing an Electronic Measure of Screening Colonoscopy Overuse in a Large Integrated Healthcare System.

Authors:  Sameer D Saini; Adam A Powell; Jason A Dominitz; Deborah A Fisher; Joseph Francis; Linda Kinsinger; Kathleen S Pittman; Philip Schoenfeld; Stephanie E Moser; Sandeep Vijan; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Communicating About Stopping Cancer Screening: Comparing Clinicians' and Older Adults' Perspectives.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Cynthia M Boyd; Sei J Lee; Danelle Cayea; Craig E Pollack
Journal:  Gerontologist       Date:  2019-05-17

7.  Is 45 the new 50 in colorectal cancer screening?

Authors:  Paul Fritsch; Clarence Wong; Michael R Kolber
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  Factors Associated With the Overuse of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Zachary Predmore; Jean Pannikottu; Ritu Sharma; Monica Tung; Stephanie Nothelle; Jodi B Segal
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 1.852

9.  Primary Care Practitioners' Views on Incorporating Long-term Prognosis in the Care of Older Adults.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Theron L Bowman; Danelle Cayea; Craig Evan Pollack; Scott Feeser; Cynthia Boyd
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence of Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Age 76 to 95 Years.

Authors:  John Bian; Charles Bennett; Gregory Cooper; Alessandra D'Alfonso; Deborah Fisher; Joseph Lipscomb; Chao-Nan Qian
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.