RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people. Screening at recommended intervals can detect CRC in its early, most treatable stages, or prevent CRC through removal of precancerous polyps. However, CRC screening percentages remain low among AI/AN people. Reminder and tracking systems can be used to improve CRC screening percentages. PURPOSE: In this study we assessed the prevalence of CRC screening reminder and tracking systems in Indian Health Service (IHS), Tribal, or Urban (I/T/U) health facilities. METHODS: A telephone survey of randomly selected small, medium and large I/T/U health facilities nationwide was conducted. Three health facilities from each of the 12 IHS areas nationwide were selected from a list of I/T/U healthcare facilities that provide CRC screening or refer patients to another facility for screening, with the goal of having one small, one medium, and one large I/T/U health facility from each IHS area. RESULTS: Thirty-four facilities (94%) participated in the telephone survey between April 1 and September 24, 2010. All facilities used the IHS Resource and Patient Management System to manage their patient care, and 82% used the Electronic Health Record (EHR) version. Over half of these facilities (55%) performed in-office fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) collected during a digital rectal exam, all of which reported that they also sent FOBT cards home with patients. Fifty-three percent of facilities used an opportunistic, visit-based approach to CRC screening. Nearly a third (32%) of facilities reported using a reminder system to notify patients that they were due for CRC screening. Almost two-thirds (65%) of facilities used a reminder system to notify health care providers that patients were due for CRC screening. While 73% of facilities used a system to track whether patients were due for CRC screening, only 61% used a system to track patient results for CRC screening, and 42% used a system to track patients with a personal history of polyps or CRC. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of facilities performed in-office FOBT tests using a digital rectal exam, which is a practice that is contrary to national CRC screening recommendations. Additionally, the majority of facilities reported not using an organized system for CRC screening. Use of patient reminders was suboptimal. However, facilities did report use of provider reminders, tracking when patients were due for CRC screening, and tracking CRC screening results. As the EHR system becomes more widely used and established, I/T/U facilities could be encouraged to increase their use of the EHR tools available to aid in systematically increasing CRC screening percentages.
RESUMO
The global resurgence of malaria has raised concerns of the possible reintroduction of indigenous transmission in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Malaria Surveillance System, using data supplied by state and local health departments (SLHDs), is maintained to detect local malaria transmission and monitor trends in imported cases. To determine the completeness of reporting of malaria cases to SLHDs, cases identified by local surveillance systems were compared with those identified through active case detection conducted at all laboratories that receive clinical specimens from 11 metropolitan areas in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Of the 61 malaria cases identified through either local surveillance or active case detection, 43 (70%) were identified by SLHDs (range by metropolitan area = 50-100%) and 56 (92%) through active case detection. High percentages of cases were identified by SLHDs in New Mexico (80%) and San Diego County (88%), where laboratories are required to send positive blood smears to the SLHD laboratory for confirmation. Completeness of reporting, calculated using the Lincoln-Peterson Capture-Recapture technique, was 69% for SLHD surveillance systems and 89% for laboratory-based active case detection. The high percentage of cases identified by the 11 SLHDs suggests that the National Malaria Surveillance System provides trends that accurately reflect the epidemiology of malaria in the United States. Case identification may be improved by promoting confirmatory testing in SLHD laboratories and incorporating laboratory-based reporting into local surveillance systems.
