12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Role of quality measurement in inappropriate use of screening for colorectal cancer: retrospective cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To examine whether the age based quality measure for screening for colorectal cancer is associated with overuse of screening in patients aged 70-75 in poor health and underuse in those aged over age 75 in good health.

          Design Retrospective cohort study utilizing electronic data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States.

          Setting VA Health Care System.

          Participants Veterans aged ≥50 due for repeat average risk colorectal cancer screening at a primary care visit in fiscal year 2010.

          Main outcome measures Completion of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing within 24 months of the 2010 visit.

          Results 399 067 veterans met inclusion/exclusion criteria (mean age 67, 97% men). Of these, 38% had electronically documented screening within 24 months. In multivariable log binomial regression adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, sex, and number of primary care visits, screening decreased markedly after the age of 75 (the age cut off used by the quality measure) (adjusted relative risk 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.40). A veteran who was aged 75 and unhealthy (in whom life expectancy might be limited and screening more likely to result in net burden or harm) was significantly more likely to undergo screening than a veteran aged 76 and healthy (unadjusted relative risk 1.64, 1.36 to 1.97).

          Conclusions Specification of a quality measure can have important implications for clinical care. Future quality measures should focus on individual risk/benefit to ensure that patients who are likely to benefit from a service receive it (regardless of age), and that those who are likely to incur harm are spared unnecessary and costly care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

          (2008)
          Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. To update its recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review on 4 selected questions relating to test characteristics and benefits and harms of screening technologies, and 2) a decision analytic modeling analysis using population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of available screening modalities when used in a programmatic way over time. The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer in adults 76 to 85 years of age. There may be considerations that support colorectal cancer screening in an individual patient. (C recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than age 85 years. (D recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer. (I statement).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Administration and patients in a national sample.

            The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has introduced an integrated electronic medical record, performance measurement, and other system changes directed at improving care. Recent comparisons with other delivery systems have been limited to a small set of indicators. To compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure. Cross-sectional comparison. 12 VHA health care systems and 12 communities. 596 VHA patients and 992 patients identified through random-digit dialing. All were men older than 35 years of age. Between 1997 and 2000, quality was measured by using a chart-based quality instrument consisting of 348 indicators targeting 26 conditions. Results were adjusted for clustering, age, number of visits, and medical conditions. Patients from the VHA scored significantly higher for adjusted overall quality (67% vs. 51%; difference, 16 percentage points [95% CI, 14 to 18 percentage points]), chronic disease care (72% vs. 59%; difference, 13 percentage points [CI, 10 to 17 percentage points]), and preventive care (64% vs. 44%; difference, 20 percentage points [CI, 12 to 28 percentage points]), but not for acute care. The VHA advantage was most prominent in processes targeted by VHA performance measurement (66% vs. 43%; difference, 23 percentage points [CI, 21 to 26 percentage points]) and least prominent in areas unrelated to VHA performance measurement (55% vs. 50%; difference, 5 percentage points [CI, 0 to 10 percentage points]). Unmeasured residual differences in patient characteristics, a lower response rate in the national sample, and differences in documentation practices could have contributed to some of the observed differences. Patients from the VHA received higher-quality care according to a broad measure. Differences were greatest in areas where the VHA has established performance measures and actively monitors performance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making.

              Considerable uncertainty exists about the use of cancer screening tests in older people, as illustrated by the different age cutoffs recommended by various guideline panels. We suggest that a framework to guide individualized cancer screening decisions in older patients may be more useful to the practicing clinician than age guidelines. Like many medical decisions, cancer screening decisions require weighing quantitative information, such as risk of cancer death and likelihood of beneficial and adverse screening outcomes, as well as qualitative factors, such as individual patients' values and preferences. Our framework first anchors decisions through quantitative estimates of life expectancy, risk of cancer death, and screening outcomes based on published data. Potential benefits of screening are presented as the number needed to screen to prevent 1 cancer-specific death, based on the estimated life expectancy during which a patient will be screened. Estimates reveal substantial variability in the likelihood of benefit for patients of similar ages with varying life expectancies. In fact, patients with life expectancies of less than 5 years are unlikely to derive any survival benefit from cancer screening. We also consider the likelihood of potential harm from screening according to patient factors and test characteristics. Some of the greatest harms of screening occur by detecting cancers that would never have become clinically significant. This becomes more likely as life expectancy decreases. Finally, since many cancer screening decisions in older adults cannot be answered solely by quantitative estimates of benefits and harms, considering the estimated outcomes according to the patient's own values and preferences is the final step for making informed screening decisions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: research scientist
                Role: research scientist
                Role: research scientist
                Role: research scientist
                Role: data analyst
                Role: director and research scientist
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2014
                26 February 2014
                : 348
                : g1247
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA
                [2 ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [3 ]Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Building 9, VA Minneapolis Health Care System, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: S D Saini Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, 2215 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA sdsaini@ 123456umich.edu
                Article
                sais016470
                10.1136/bmj.g1247
                3935739
                24574474
                4248dcb5-efff-48f8-bc9f-30d93ce863b9
                © Saini et al 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

                History
                : 24 January 2014
                Categories
                Research
                1779

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article