Improving Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care via Practice Facilitation and Academic Detailing: A Multi-PBRN Quality Improvement Project.

PURPOSE: In the United States, cancer screening rates are often below national targets. This project implemented practice facilitation and academic detailing aimed at increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates in safety-net primary care practices. METHODS: Three practice-based research networks across western and central New York State partnered to provide quality improvement strategies on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Pre/postintervention screening rates for all participating practices were collected annually, as were means across all practices over 7 years. Simple ordinary least squares linear regression was used to calculate the trend for each cancer type and test for statistical significance (ie, P≤0.05), using the ordinal time point as a fixed effect. RESULTS: An overall increase in mean screening rates was seen over the duration of this project for colorectal (24.6% preintervention to 48.0% in year 7 of intervention; P<0.001) and breast cancer (37.0% preintervention to 48.6% in year 7; P=0.460). Mean cervical cancer screening rates decreased (35.5% preintervention to 31.4% in year 7; P=0.209). Success in increasing screening rates varied across regions of New York State. CONCLUSIONS: Practice facilitation and academic detailing were successful in significantly increasing, on average, colorectal cancer screening rate. Cervical cancer screening showed an overall decrease, likely due to difficulties for primary care practices in tracking and implementation, as many patients seek this service at outside gynecology facilities. Regional differences, guideline changes, and practice reorganization each may have played a part in observed trends. A standardization of queries being used to pull screening rates is an important step in increasing the reliability of these data.

Increasing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screenings: A Qualitative Assessment of Barriers and Promoters in Safety-Net Practices.

PURPOSE: Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal in underserved populations. A 7-year quality improvement (QI) project implemented academic detailing and practice facilitation in safety-net primary care practices to increase cancer screening rates. This manuscript assesses barriers and promoters. METHODS: Primary care practices providing care to underserved patients were recruited in New York cities Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Enrollment totaled 31 practices, with 12 practices participating throughout. Annually, each practice received 6 months of practice facilitation support for development and implementation of evidence-based interventions to increase screening rates for the three cancer types. At the end of each practice facilitation period, focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with participating personnel. Content analysis was performed annually to identify barriers and promoters. A comprehensive final analysis was performed at project end. RESULTS: Barriers included system-level (inconsistent communication with specialists, electronic health record system transitions, ownership changes) and practice-level challenges (staff turnover, inconsistent data entry, QI fatigue) that compound patient-level challenges of transportation, cost, and health literacy. Cyclical barriers like staff turnover returned despite attempts to resolve them, while successful implementation was promoted by reducing patients' structural barriers, adapting interventions to existing practice priorities, and enacting officewide policies. During the QI project, practices became aware of the impact of social determinants of health on patients' screening decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The project's longitudinal design enabled identification of key barriers that reduced accuracy of practices' screening rates and increased risk of patients falling through the cracks. Identified promoters can help sustain interventions to increase screenings.

Impact of COVID-19 on Screening Rates for Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancer: Practice Feedback From a Quality Improvement Project in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Three New York State practice-based research networks provided quality improvement strategies to improve screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal (BCC) cancers in safety-net primary care, over 7 years. In the final year (Y7), the United States experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on BCC cancer screening rates was assessed qualitatively. METHODS: A total of 12 primary care practices participated in Y7 of the quality improvement project. BCC cancer screening rates at year beginning and end were assessed. Practice staff were asked about how COVID-19 impacted screening. Average pre/postintervention screening rates and qualitative thematic analysis regarding how COVID-19 impacted cancer screening were ascertained. RESULTS: In Y7, there was an increase in breast cancer and a decrease in colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates compared to the previous project year. Many practices were able to continue pre-COVID-19 cancer screening processes. Overall, practices reported loss of staff, changes in data entry, and a shift from preventive screening to care of sick patients. Telehealth was vital for practices to continue serving patients but had a less positive impact on patients with financial/technological disadvantages. BCC cancer screenings were impacted at various levels. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted primary care practice cancer screening; however, some practices were able to mitigate effects by shifting focus to processes supporting screening outside of in-person office visits.

A Practice Facilitation and Academic Detailing Intervention Can Improve Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care Safety Net Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Despite the current evidence of preventive screening effectiveness, rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer in the United States fall below national targets. We evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of combining practice facilitation and academic detailing quality improvement (QI) strategies to help primary care practices increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among patients. METHODS: Practices received a 1-hour academic detailing session addressing current cancer screening guidelines and best practices, followed by 6 months of practice facilitation to implement evidence-based interventions aimed at increasing patient screening. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance compared screening rates before and after the intervention, provider surveys, and TRANSLATE model scores. Qualitative data were gathered via participant focus groups and interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-three practices enrolled in the project: 4 federally qualified health centers, 10 practices affiliated with larger health systems, 4 physician-owned practices, 4 university hospital clinics, and 1 nonprofit clinic. Average screening rates for breast cancer increased by 13% (P = .001), and rates for colorectal cancer increased by 5.6% (P = .001). Practices implemented a mix of electronic health record data cleaning workflows, provider audits and feedback, reminder systems streamlining, and patient education and outreach interventions. Practice facilitators assisted practices in tailoring interventions to practice-specific priorities and constraints and in connecting with community resources. Practices with resource constraints benefited from the engagement of all levels of staff in the quality improvement processes and from team-based adaptations to office workflows and policies. Many practices aligned quality improvement interventions in this project with patient-centered medical home and other regulatory reporting targets. CONCLUSIONS: Combining practice facilitation and academic detailing is 1 method through which primary care practices can achieve systems-level changes to better manage patient population health.

Do clinicians recommend aspirin to patients for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated guidelines in 2009 recommending aspirin to prevent myocardial infarction among at-risk men and stroke among at-risk women. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine clinician aspirin recommendation among eligible persons based on cardiovascular risk scores and USPSTF cutoffs. DESIGN: We used across-sectional analysis of a current nationally representative sample. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 40 years and older, and in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2011-2012). MAIN MEASURES: We determined aspirin eligibility for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention for each participant based on reported and assessed cardiovascular risk factors. We assessed men's risk using a published coronary heart disease risk calculator based on Framingham equations, and used a similar calculator for stroke to assess risk for women. We applied the USPSTF risk cutoffs for sex and age that account for offsetting risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage. We assessed clinician recommendation for aspirin based on participant report. RESULTS: Among men 45-79 years and women 55-79 years, 87 % of men and 16 % of women were potentially eligible for primary CVD aspirin prevention. Clinician recommendation rates for aspirin among those eligible were low, 34 % for men and 42 % for women. Rates were highest among diabetics (63 %), those 65 to 79 years (52 %) or those in poor health (44 %). In contrast, aspirin recommendation rates were 76 % for CVD secondary prevention. After accounting for patient factors, particularly age, eligibility for aspirin prevention was not significantly associated with receiving a clinician's recommendation for aspirin (AOR 0.99 %; CI 0.7-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an "A recommendation" from the USPSTF for aspirin for primary prevention of CVD, the majority of men and women potentially eligible for aspirin did not recall a clinical recommendation from their clinician.

Physician perspectives on incentives to participate in practice-based research: a greater rochester practice-based research network (GR-PBRN) study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand factors associated with primary care physician research participation in a practice-based research network (PBRN) and to compare perspectives by specialty. METHODS: We surveyed primary care internists, family physicians, and pediatricians in Monroe County, New York, regarding their past experience with research and incentives to participate in practice-based research. We performed descriptive and tabular analyses to assess perceptions and used chi(2) and analysis of variance to compare perceptions across the 3 specialties. RESULTS: The response rate was 33%. The most frequently endorsed aspects of collaboration were the opportunity to enact quality improvement (78%), contribution to clinical knowledge (75%), and intellectual stimulation (65%). Significant differences among the primary care specialties were found in 2 aspects: ((1)) internists were more likely to endorse additional source of income as "important," and family medicine physicians were more likely to cite the opportunity to shape research questions, projects, and journal articles as "important." CONCLUSION: Physicians across all 3 specialties cited the opportunity to enact quality improvement and contribution to clinical knowledge as important incentives to participating in practice-based research. This supports the importance of strengthening the interface between research and quality improvement in PBRN projects. Further study is needed to assess reasons for differences among specialties if PBRNs are to become successful in research involving adult patients.