A "sludge audit" for health system colorectal cancer screening services.

OBJECTIVES: "Sludge," or the frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to attain what they want or need, is an unexplored health care delivery factor that may contribute to deficiencies in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We piloted a method to identify and quantify sludge in a southeastern US health system's delivery of CRC screening services. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods sludge audit. METHODS: We collected and analyzed quantitative (insurance claims, electronic health record, and administrative files) and qualitative (stakeholder interviews and process observations) data associated with CRC screening for instances of sludge. Because they contribute to sludge and reduce system capacity for high-value screening, we also evaluated low-value CRC screening processes. RESULTS: Although specific results were likely amplified by effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sludge audit revealed important areas for improvement. A 60.4% screening rate was observed. Approximately half of screening orders were not completed. The following categories of sludge were identified: communication, time, technology, administrative tasks, paperwork, and low-value care. For example, wait times for screening colonoscopy were substantial, duplicate orders were common, and some results were not accessible in the electronic health record. Of completed screenings, 32% were low-value and 38% were associated with low-value preoperative testing. There was evidence of a differential negative impact of sludge to vulnerable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our sludge audit method identified and quantified multiple instances of sludge in a health system's CRC screening processes. Sludge audits can help organizations to systematically evaluate and reduce sludge for more effective and equitable CRC screening.

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

Dietary and Biological Assessment of the Omega-3 Status of Collegiate Athletes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Omega-3 fatty acids (ω-3 FA) are associated with cardiovascular health, brain function, reduction of inflammation, and several other physiological roles of importance to competitive athletes. The ω-3 FA status of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletes has not been well-described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ω-3 FA status of NCAA Division I athletes using dietary and biological assessment methodology. Athletes from nine NCAA Division I institutions from throughout the U.S. (n = 1,528, 51% male, 34 sports represented, 19.9 ± 1.4 years of age) completed a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to assess ω-3 FA from diet and supplements. Omega-3 Index (O3i) was evaluated in a sub-set of these participants (n = 298, 55% male, 21 sports represented, 20.0 ± 1.3 years of age) using dried blood spot sampling. Only 6% (n = 93) of athletes achieved the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics' recommendation to consume 500 mg DHA+EPA per day. Use of ω-3 FA supplements was reported by 15% (n = 229) of participants. O3i was 4.33 ± 0.81%, with no participants meeting the O3i benchmark of 8% associated with the lowest risk of cardiovascular disease. Every additional weekly serving of fish or seafood was associated with an absolute O3i increase of 0.27%. Overall, sub-optimal ω-3 FA status was observed among a large, geographically diverse group of male and female NCAA Division I athletes. These findings may inform interventions aimed at improving ω-3 FA status of collegiate athletes. Further research on athlete-specific ω-3 FA requirements is needed.

The association between event learning and continuous quality improvement programs and culture of patient safety.

PURPOSE: To present our approach and results from our quality and safety program and to report their possible impact on our culture of patient safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We created an event learning system (termed a "good catch" program) and encouraged staff to report any quality or safety concerns in real time. Events were analyzed to assess the utility of safety barriers. A formal continuous quality improvement program was created to address these reported events and make improvements. Data on perceptions of the culture of patient safety were collected using the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality survey administered before, during, and after the initiatives. RESULTS: Of 560 good catches reported, 367 could be ascribed to a specific step on our process map. The calculated utility of safety barriers was highest for those embedded into the pretreatment quality assurance checks performed by physicists and dosimetrists (utility score 0.53; 93 of 174) and routine checks done by therapists on the initial day of therapy. Therapists and physicists reported the highest number of good catches (24% each). Sixty-four percent of events were caused by performance issues (eg, not following standardized processes, including suboptimal communications). Of 31 initiated formal improvement events, 26 were successfully implemented and sustained, 4 were discontinued, and 1 was not implemented. Most of the continuous quality improvement program was conducted by nurses (14) and therapists (7). Percentages of positive responses in the patient safety culture survey appear to have increased on all dimensions (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that event learning and continuous quality improvement programs can be successfully implemented and that there are contemporaneous improvements in the culture of safety.

Improving Patient Safety in Clinical Oncology: Applying Lessons From Normal Accident Theory.

Concerns for patient safety persist in clinical oncology. Within several nonmedical areas (eg, aviation, nuclear power), concepts from Normal Accident Theory (NAT), a framework for analyzing failure potential within and between systems, have been successfully applied to better understand system performance and improve system safety. Clinical oncology practice is interprofessional and interdisciplinary, and our therapies often have narrow therapeutic windows. Thus, many of our processes are, in NAT terms, interactively complex and tightly coupled within and across systems and are therefore prone to unexpected behaviors that can result in substantial patient harm. To improve safety at the University of North Carolina, we have applied the concepts of NAT to our practice to better understand our systems' behavior and adopted strategies to reduce complexity and coupling. Furthermore, recognizing that we cannot eliminate all risks, we have stressed safety mindfulness among our staff to further promote safety. Many specific examples are provided herein. The lessons from NAT are translatable to clinical oncology and may help to promote safety.

Quantification of the impact of multifaceted initiatives intended to improve operational efficiency and the safety culture: a case study from an academic medical center radiation oncology department.

PURPOSE: We have systematically been incorporating several operational efficiency and safety initiatives into our academic radiation oncology clinic. We herein quantify the impact of these initiatives on prospectively collected, clinically meaningful, metrics. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The data from 5 quality improvement initiatives, each focused on a specific safety/process concern in our clinic, are presented. Data was collected prospectively: operational metrics recorded before and after implementation of the initiative were compared using statistical analysis. Results from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) patient safety culture surveys administered during and after many of these initiatives were similarly compared. RESULTS: (1) Workload levels for nurses assisting with brachytherapy were high (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) scores >55-60, suggesting, "overwork"). Changes in work flow and procedure room layout reduced workload to more acceptable levels (NASA-TLX <55; P < .01). (2) The rate of treatment therapists being interrupted was reduced from a mean of 4 (range, 1-11) times per patient treatment to a mean <1 (range, 0-3; P < .001) after implementing standards for electronic communication and placement of monitors informing patients and staff of the treatment machine status (ie, delayed, on time). (3) The rates of replans by dosimetrists was reduced from 11% to 6% (P < .01) through a more systematic pretreatment peer review process. (4) Standardizing nursing and resident functions reduced patient wait times by ≈ 45% (14 min; P < .01). (5) Standardizing presimulation instructions from the physician reduced the number of patients experiencing delays on the simulator (>50% to <10%; P < .01). To assess the overall changes in "patient safety culture," we conducted a pre- and postanalysis using the AHRQ survey. Improvements in all measured dimensions were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement initiatives can be successfully implemented in an academic radiation oncology department to yield measurable improvements in operations resulting in improvement in patient safety culture.

Quantitative assessment of workload and stressors in clinical radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: Workload level and sources of stressors have been implicated as sources of error in multiple settings. We assessed workload levels and sources of stressors among radiation oncology professionals. Furthermore, we explored the potential association between workload and the frequency of reported radiotherapy incidents by the World Health Organization (WHO). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data collection was aimed at various tasks performed by 21 study participants from different radiation oncology professional subgroups (simulation therapists, radiation therapists, physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians). Workload was assessed using National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task-Load Index (NASA TLX). Sources of stressors were quantified using observational methods and segregated using a standard taxonomy. Comparisons between professional subgroups and tasks were made using analysis of variance ANOVA, multivariate ANOVA, and Duncan test. An association between workload levels (NASA TLX) and the frequency of radiotherapy incidents (WHO incidents) was explored (Pearson correlation test). RESULTS: A total of 173 workload assessments were obtained. Overall, simulation therapists had relatively low workloads (NASA TLX range, 30-36), and physicists had relatively high workloads (NASA TLX range, 51-63). NASA TLX scores for physicians, radiation therapists, and dosimetrists ranged from 40-52. There was marked intertask/professional subgroup variation (P<.0001). Mental demand (P<.001), physical demand (P=.001), and effort (P=.006) significantly differed among professional subgroups. Typically, there were 3-5 stressors per cycle of analyzed tasks with the following distribution: interruptions (41.4%), time factors (17%), technical factors (13.6%), teamwork issues (11.6%), patient factors (9.0%), and environmental factors (7.4%). A positive association between workload and frequency of reported radiotherapy incidents by the WHO was found (r = 0.87, P value=.045). CONCLUSIONS: Workload level and sources of stressors vary among professional subgroups. Understanding the factors that influence these findings can guide adjustments to the workflow procedures, physical layout, and/or communication protocols to enhance safety. Additional evaluations are needed in order to better understand if these findings are systemic.