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.

Community Engagement in Academic Health Centers: A Model for Capturing and Advancing Our Successes.

Community engagement (CE) has come to the forefront of academic health centers' (AHCs) work because of two recent trends: the shift from a more traditional 'treatment of disease' model of health care to a population health paradigm (Gourevitch, 2014), and increased calls from funding agencies to include CE in research activities (Bartlett, Barnes, & McIver, 2014). As defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, community engagement is "the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to address issues affecting the well-being of those people" (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1997, p. 9). AHCs are increasingly called on to communicate details of their CE efforts to key stakeholders and to demonstrate their effectiveness. The population health paradigm values preventive care and widens the traditional purview of medicine to include social determinants of patients' health (Gourevitch, 2014). Thus, it has become increasingly important to join with communities in population health improvement efforts that address behavioral, social, and environmental determinants of health (Michener, et al., 2012; Aguilar-Gaxiola, et al., 2014; Blumenthal & Mayer, 1996). This CE can occur within multiple contexts in AHCs (Ahmed & Palermo, 2010; Kastor, 2011) including in education, clinical activities, research, health policy, and community service.

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.