5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A provider feedback intervention to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening in a Swiss academic general practice

      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

          Colorectal cancer (CRC) cancer screening uptake is low in our diverse, outpatient teaching clinic. A state-level public screening programme was recently launched that provides faecal immunochemical tests or screening colonoscopy to all citizens aged 50–69 years via mailed invitations, with the possibility of earlier, opportunistic inclusion. Mailed outreach is expected to be rolled out over the next 5 years. In the interim, we aimed to increase CRC screening by accelerating the inclusion of patients into the programme by implementing a provider feedback programme with residents. We used billing reports to define the eligible target population and monthly lists of included patients to track progress. All residents received a standard intervention that provided basic training and communication tools facilitating shared decision making in CRC screening decisions. We then developed and implemented the intervention over 3 Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles in 2 of 4 groups of residents, each with 7 residents and approximately 250 eligible patients. The intervention consisted of individualised reports on the proportion of each resident’s patients that had been included in the screening programme and the names of patients who had not yet been included. The first group that received the intervention had included 58 of 232 eligible patients (25%) at 8 months after the feedback intervention and the second group 51 of 249 eligible patients (20%) at 4 months. In comparison, the 2 groups with only the standard intervention had included 32 of 252 (13%) and 27 of 260 (10%) of their patients, respectively, at 11 months after the baseline intervention. These results suggest that provider feedback to medical residents can promote resident self-awareness and increase the proportion of patients included in a public programme when provided in addition to educational interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

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

          Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.

          National guideline groups recommend screening and discussion of screening options for persons at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, emerging evidence suggests that CRC screening is simultaneously underused, overused, and misused and that adequate patient-provider discussions about screening are infrequent. To summarize evidence on factors that influence CRC screening and strategies that increase the appropriate use and quality of CRC screening and CRC screening discussions. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for English-language publications describing studies conducted in the United States from January 1998 through September 2009. Two reviewers independently selected studies that addressed the study questions and met eligibility criteria. Information on study design, setting, intervention, outcomes, and quality were extracted by one reviewer and double-checked by another. Reviewers assigned a strength-of-evidence grade for intervention categories by using criteria plus a consensus process. Reviewers found evidence of simultaneous underuse, overuse, and misuse of CRC screening as well as inadequate clinical discussions about CRC screening. Several patient-level factors were independently associated with lower screening rates, including having low income or less education, being uninsured, being Hispanic or Asian, being less acculturated into the United States, or having limited access to care. Evidence that interventions that included patient reminders or one-on-one interactions (that is, between patients and nonphysician clinic staff), eliminated structural barriers (for example, simplifying access to fecal occult blood test cards), or made system-level changes (for example, using systematic screening as opposed to opportunistic screening) were effective in enhancing use of CRC screening was strong. Evidence on how best to enhance discussions about CRC screening options is limited. No studies focused on reducing overuse, and very few focused on misuse. Reporting and publication bias may have affected our findings. The independent effect of individual elements of multicomponent interventions was often uncertain. Although CRC screening is underused overall, important problems of overuse and misuse also exist. System- and policy-level interventions that target vulnerable populations are needed to reduce underuse. Interventions aimed at reducing barriers by making the screening process easier are likely to be effective. Studies aimed at reducing overuse and misuse and at enhancing the quality and frequency of discussions about CRC screening options are needed. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Challenges of Measuring, Improving, and Reporting Quality in Primary Care.

            We propose a new set of priorities for quality management in primary care, acknowledging that payers and regulators likely will continue to insist on reporting numerical quality metrics. Primary care practices have been described as complex adaptive systems. Traditional quality improvement processes applied to linear mechanical systems, such as isolated single-disease care, are inappropriate for nonlinear, complex adaptive systems, such as primary care, because of differences in care processes, outcome goals, and the validity of summative quality scorecards. Our priorities for primary care quality management include patient-centered reporting; quality goals not based on rigid targets; metrics that capture avoidance of excessive testing or treatment; attributes of primary care associated with better outcomes and lower costs; less emphasis on patient satisfaction scores; patient-centered outcomes, such as days of avoidable disability; and peer-led qualitative reviews of patterns of care, practice infrastructure, and intrapractice relationships.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in practice.

              A recommendation from a physician is the most influential factor in determining whether a patient is screened for colorectal cancer. While the vast majority of primary care physicians report that they screen for colorectal cancer, many patients do not receive the recommendation they need. Evidence-based strategies can help the physician ensure that every appropriate patient leaves the office with the needed recommendation. Choosing an office system that can be implemented by the physician or office staff can fuel efforts to achieve higher screening rates. Reminder systems, tracking systems, communication strategies, and policies that reinforce use of evidence-based guidelines may contribute.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open Qual
                BMJ Open Qual
                bmjqir
                bmjoq
                BMJ Open Quality
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2399-6641
                2019
                3 March 2019
                : 8
                : 1
                : e000452
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté) , University of Lausanne , Lausanne, Switzerland
                [2 ] departmentInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM) , University of Bern , Bern, Switzerland
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Kevin Selby; kevin.selby@ 123456hospvd.ch
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9096-0720
                Article
                bmjoq-2018-000452
                10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000452
                6440588
                e31b0ac5-9ccb-41c0-aa24-bd39c973b3b0
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 13 June 2018
                : 23 January 2019
                : 10 February 2019
                Categories
                BMJ Quality Improvement report
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                primary care,audit and feedback,graduate medical education,pdsa

                Comments

                Comment on this article