Guideline-inconsistent breast cancer screening for women over 50: a vignette-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations have issued guidelines recommending breast cancer screening for women 50 years of age. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the percent of U.S. primary care physicians who report breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with guidelines, and the characteristics of physicians who reported offering extra test modalities. DESIGN: We analyzed a subset of a 2008 cross-sectional Women's Health Care survey sent to primary care physicians randomly selected from the national American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. A subset of physicians received a survey that presented a vignette of a health maintenance visit for an asymptomatic 51-year-old woman who was not at high risk for breast cancer. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally. PARTICIPANTS: 1,654 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists under age 65, who practiced in office or hospital based settings (62.8 % response rate). After exclusions, 553 study physicians remained for analysis. MAIN MEASURE: Physician self-report of breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), defined as almost always offering mammography. KEY RESULTS: 36.0 % (95 % CI: 31.8 %-40.5 %) of physicians reported offering breast cancer screening tests inconsistent with national guidelines, with most offering extra tests (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and/or ultrasound) (33.2 %, 95 % CI 29.1 %-37.6 %). In adjusted analysis, risk-averse physicians and those who believed in the clinical effectiveness of MRI were more likely to offer extra breast cancer screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often report offering breast cancer screening test modalities beyond those recommended for a 51-year-old woman. Strategies, such as academic detailing regarding appropriate use of technology and provision of clinical decision support for breast cancer screening, could decrease overuse of resources.

Improving the efficiency and relevance of evidence-based recommendations in the era of whole-genome sequencing: an EGAPP methods update.

To provide an update on recent revisions to Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) methods designed to improve efficiency, and an assessment of the implications of whole genome sequencing for evidence-based recommendation development. Improvements to the EGAPP approach include automated searches for horizon scanning, a quantitative ranking process for topic prioritization, and the development of a staged evidence review and evaluation process. The staged process entails (i) triaging tests with minimal evidence of clinical validity, (ii) using and updating existing reviews, (iii) evaluating clinical validity prior to analytic validity or clinical utility, (iv) using decision modeling to assess potential clinical utility when direct evidence is not available. EGAPP experience to date suggests the following approaches will be critical for the development of evidence based recommendations in the whole genome sequencing era: (i) use of triage approaches and frameworks to improve efficiency, (ii) development of evidence thresholds that consider the value of further research, (iii) incorporation of patient preferences, and (iv) engagement of diverse stakeholders. The rapid advances in genomics present a significant challenge to traditional evidence based medicine, but also an opportunity for innovative approaches to recommendation development.

Developing a practice-based research network by integrating quality improvement: challenges and ingredients for success.

Improving patient outcomes in community-based settings is the goal of both the Clinical Translational Science Award program and practice-based quality improvement (QI) programs. Given this common goal, integrating QI and outcomes research is a promising strategy for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical interventions. This article describes the challenges and strengths illuminated by the conduct of a combined research/QI study in a nascent practice-based research network. Challenges include research's exclusion of clinic patients who might benefit from the intervention; QI programs' less uniform approach to intervention implementation; and the need for both academic and clinically relevant products and publications. A major strength is the increased likelihood of both engaging clinical practices in research and developing successful clinical interventions. Required elements for success include identification of enthusiastic clinical research "champions," involvement of researchers with clinical experience, and adequate funding to support both research and clinical resources and dissemination. Combined Ql/research projects in the practice-based research environment have the potential to improve and shorten the cycle from good idea to improved clinical outcomes in real-world settings.

Nonrecommended breast and colorectal cancer screening for young women: a vignette-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence of physicians offering nonrecommended breast or colorectal cancer screening for young women. PURPOSE: The goal of the current paper was to examine the percentage of primary care physicians nationally who self-report offering breast or colorectal cancer screening tests for young women, and physician/practice characteristics associated with such recommendations. METHODS: Analysis was performed in 2011 on data from a 2008 cross-sectional survey presenting a vignette of a health maintenance visit by an asymptomatic woman aged 35 years. This study included surveys sent to 1546 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists aged <65 years, randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile (60.6% response rate). Relevant respondent subsamples were used for the breast (n=505) and colorectal (n=721) cancer screening analyses. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally. The main outcome was physician self-report of offering breast or colorectal cancer screening tests. RESULTS: 75.3% (95% CI =71.0%, 79.2%) of physicians offered breast cancer screening tests; most commonly these physicians reported offering mammography alone (76.5%, 95% CI= 71.6%, 80.8%). A total of 39.3% (95% CI=35.5%, 43.2%) of physicians offered colorectal cancer screening tests; most commonly these physicians reported offering FOBT alone (43.3%, 95% CI=37.2%, 49.6%). In adjusted analysis, physician factors associated with offering breast and colorectal cancer screening tests were: estimating higher patient breast/colorectal cancer risk, and not listing the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force as a top influential organization. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of physicians report offering nonrecommended breast or colorectal cancer screening tests for young women. Physicians' higher cancer-risk estimation accounted for some overscreening, but even physicians who estimated the patient to be at the same risk as the general population reported offering nonrecommended screening tests.

LC Data QUEST: A Technical Architecture for Community Federated Clinical Data Sharing.

The University of Washington Institute of Translational Health Sciences is engaged in a project, LC Data QUEST, building data sharing capacity in primary care practices serving rural and tribal populations in the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho region to build research infrastructure. We report on the iterative process of developing the technical architecture for semantically aligning electronic health data in primary care settings across our pilot sites and tools that will facilitate linkages between the research and practice communities. Our architecture emphasizes sustainable technical solutions for addressing data extraction, alignment, quality, and metadata management. The architecture provides immediate benefits to participating partners via a clinical decision support tool and data querying functionality to support local quality improvement efforts. The FInDiT tool catalogues type, quantity, and quality of the data that are available across the LC Data QUEST data sharing architecture. These tools facilitate the bi-directional process of translational research.

Facilitating health data sharing across diverse practices and communities.

Health data sharing with and among practices is a method for engaging rural and underserved populations, often with strong histories of marginalization, in health research. The Institute of Translational Health Sciences, funded by a National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award, is engaged in the LC Data QUEST project to build practice and community based research networks with the ability to share semantically aligned electronic health data. We visited ten practices and communities to assess the feasibility of and barriers to developing data sharing networks. We found that these sites had very different approaches and expectations for data sharing. In order to support practices and communities and foster the acceptance of data sharing in these settings, informaticists must take these diverse views into account. Based on these findings, we discuss system design implications and the need for flexibility in the development of community-based data sharing networks.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Family History and Improving Health.

National Institutes of Health consensus and state-of-the science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session; 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session; and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health or the U.S. government. The statement reflects the panel's assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a "snapshot in time" of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group.

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative, established by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supports the development and implementation of a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications for clinical and public health practice in the United States. An independent, non-federal EGAPP Working Group (EWG), a multidisciplinary expert panel selects topics, oversees the systematic review of evidence, and makes recommendations based on that evidence. This article describes the EGAPP processes and details the specific methods and approaches used by the EWG.

A workforce analysis informing medical school expansion, admissions, support for primary care, curriculum, and research.

PURPOSE: This case study describes the findings of a physician workforce analysis and how an institution is using these findings to address the decreasing proportion of medical students choosing primary care careers. METHODS: A University of Washington School of Medicine committee commissioned an analysis of the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The analysis examined physician-to-population ratios, rural-urban geographic distribution, physician demographics, and physician graduation from the university or one of its affiliated residency programs for graduates of allopathic medical schools and residencies at the county level in the 5 states in the WWAMI partnership (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho). RESULTS: The analysis found that in 2005, the 5 WWAMI states ranked at the bottom of US states in the number of publicly supported medical school and residency slots per capita. Although physician-to-population ratios were comparable to those in the rest of the country, the 5 WWAMI states imported most of their physicians, including family physicians, approximately 70% of whom came from other medical schools or residency programs. Family physicians were the only specialty distributed across the population gradient from urban to isolated rural areas. The workforce analysis is informing planning for medical school expansion, admissions, support for primary care, curriculum, and research at an institution with a clear mission that includes training the health workforce for its region. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis has wide potential applicability, but it has special relevance for primary care and has been particularly useful in making the case for supporting primary care education in the WWAMI region.