Marilyn M Schapira1, Brian L Sprague2, Carrie N Klabunde3, Anna N A Tosteson4, Asaf Bitton5,6, Jane S Chen6, Elisabeth F Beaber7, Tracy Onega4, Charles D MacLean2, Kimberly Harris6, Kathleen Howe2, Loretta Pearson4, Sarah Feldman5,6, Phyllis Brawarsky6, Jennifer S Haas8. 1. University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, 1110 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. mschap@upenn.edu. 2. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 3. Office of Disease Prevention, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Woman's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). DESIGN: Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers. MAIN MEASURES: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up. KEY RESULTS: There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings.
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). DESIGN: Web and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers. MAIN MEASURES: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up. KEY RESULTS: There were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer screening; cervical cancer screening; patient-centered medical home
Authors: Sean R McClellan; Lawrence P Casalino; Stephen M Shortell; Diane R Rittenhouse Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Heather M Edwards; Mary K Foster; Erica S Breslau; Veronica Chollette; Irene Prabhu Das; Steven B Clauser; Mary L Fennell; Jane Zapka Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2012-05
Authors: Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Leiyu Shi; Diana C Lock; De-Chih Lee; Lydie A Lebrun-Harris; Marshall H Chin; Preeta Chidambaran; Robert S Nocon; Jinsheng Zhu; Alek Sripipatana Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane J Kim; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Ann G Zauber; Ann M Geiger; Aruna Kamineni; Donald L Weaver; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jane M Zapka; Heather M Edwards; Veronica Chollette; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; William E Barlow; Marilyn M Schapira; Charles D MacLean; Carrie N Klabunde; Brian L Sprague; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Tracy Onega; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Tracy Onega; Tor D Tosteson; Julie Weiss; Jennifer S Haas; Martha Goodrich; Roberta DiFlorio; Charles Brackett; Cheryl Clark; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Nancy R Kressin; Kristina Cooper; Cinthya Marturano; Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia; Christine M Gunn Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2021-01-17
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; Christine Vogeli; Liyang Yu; Steven J Atlas; Celette Sugg Skinner; Kimberly A Harris; Sarah Feldman; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2021-06-23