Literature DB >> 32631782

Impact of a Hybrid Lung Cancer Screening Model on Patient Outcomes and Provider Behavior.

Erin A Hirsch1, Melissa L New2, Stephanie L Brown3, Anna E Barón1, Peter B Sachs4, Stephen P Malkoski5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation is complicated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement requirements of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling. LCS programs can utilize different structures to meet these requirements, but the impact of programmatic structure on provider behavior and screening outcomes is poorly described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective chart review of 624 patients in a hybrid structure, academic LCS program, we compared characteristics and outcomes of primary care provider (PCP)- and specialist-screened patients. We also assessed the impact of the availability of an LCS specialty clinic and best practice advisory (BPA) on PCP ordering patterns using electronic medical record generated reports.
RESULTS: During the study period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, 48% of patients were specialist-screened and 52% were PCP-screened; there were no clinically relevant differences in patient characteristics or screening outcomes between these populations. PCPs demonstrate distinct practice patterns when offered the choice of specialist-driven or PCP-driven screening. Increased exposure to a LCS BPA is associated with increased PCP screening orders. The addition of a nurse navigator into the LCS program increased documentation of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling to > 95% and virtually eliminated screening of ineligible patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic interventions including a BPA and nurse navigator are associated with increased screening and improved program quality, as evidenced by reduced screening of ineligible patients, increased lung cancer risk of the screened population, and improved compliance with LCS guidelines. Individual PCPs demonstrate clear preferences regarding LCS that should be considered in program design.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Best practice advisory; Lung cancer risk; Nurse navigator; Shared decision making; Tobacco cessation

Year:  2020        PMID: 32631782      PMCID: PMC7606309          DOI: 10.1016/j.cllc.2020.05.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer        ISSN: 1525-7304            Impact factor:   4.785


  17 in total

1.  Pack-Year Cigarette Smoking History for Determination of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility. Comparison of the Electronic Medical Record versus a Shared Decision-making Conversation.

Authors:  Hannah E Modin; Joelle T Fathi; Christopher R Gilbert; Candice L Wilshire; Andrew K Wilson; Ralph W Aye; Alexander S Farivar; Brian E Louie; Eric Vallières; Jed A Gorden
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2017-08

2.  Incidental Findings in a Decentralized Lung Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Katherine Janssen; Kelsey Schertz; Nathan Rubin; Abbie Begnaud
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2019-09

3.  Maximizing Benefits and Minimizing Harms of Lung Cancer Screening: A Teachable Moment.

Authors:  Jason N Mansoori; Nathaniel Little; Stephen P Malkoski
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 4.  Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders.

Authors:  Roy C Baron; Stephanie Melillo; Barbara K Rimer; Ralph J Coates; Jon Kerner; Nancy Habarta; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Susan A Sabatino; Randy Elder; Kimberly Jackson Leeks
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Counseling and Shared Decision-Making Visit.

Authors:  Peter J Mazzone; Amanda Tenenbaum; Meredith Seeley; Hilary Petersen; Christina Lyon; Xiaozhen Han; Xiao-Feng Wang
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Attitudes About Lung Cancer Screening: Primary Care Providers Versus Specialists.

Authors:  Sritha Rajupet; Dhvani Doshi; Juan P Wisnivesky; Jenny J Lin
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.785

7.  Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death.

Authors:  Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Martin Tammemagi; Christine D Berg; Neil E Caporaso; Tom L Riley; Mary Korch; Gerard A Silvestri
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes.

Authors:  Nathan M Souza; Rolf J Sebaldt; Jean A Mackay; Jeanette C Prorok; Lorraine Weise-Kelly; Tamara Navarro; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-08-03       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  New recommendation and coverage of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening: uptake has increased but is still low.

Authors:  Jiang Li; Sukyung Chung; Esther K Wei; Harold S Luft
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  An Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Beliefs and Practice Patterns for Community Providers Compared to Academic Providers.

Authors:  Marjon Khairy; Duy K Duong; Salma Shariff-Marco; Iona Cheng; Jennifer Jain; Anupama Balakrishnan; Lynn Liu; Aarti Gupta; Ranjani Chandramouli; Ann Hsing; Ann Leung; Baldeep Singh; Viswam S Nair
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.302

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.