Burnout and Commitment After 18 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Follow-Up Qualitative Study with Primary Care Teams.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practice teams continue to grapple with the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, despite the increased demands and low levels of control, in practices where protective equipment were available and practice-level support was high, few team members reported burnout, and many described a greater sense of purpose. However, since those early days, burnout levels have increased and high rates of turnover have been reported across the health care system, and further qualitative studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: The present study is a follow-up to a qualitative study on the workplace stress during the pandemic. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, APPROACH: Fourteen primary care providers and staff completed 1-year follow-up semistructured interviews (approximately 1.5 years into the pandemic) about their workplace demands, control, social support, burnout, and commitment to primary care. PRIMARY RESULTS: Primary care practice was characterized as high demand before the pandemic but the additional demands of the pandemic were leading participants to consider early retirement, quitting primary care or health care, and expressing a profound need for health care redesign. Short staffing extended medical leaves for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 needs, increased management of patient mental health and aggressive behaviors, and frustration that practices were being held to prepandemic metrics all contributed to ever higher rates of burnout. Troublingly, while many described high-quality relationships at the practice level, the majority of participants described their organization-level support as largely unresponsive to their input and as offering little support or resources, though a few acknowledged that this could reflect that leadership is also under immense strain. Despite challenges, a number of participants expressed continued commitment to primary care. CONCLUSION: Fundamental redesign of primary care is required to prevent further loss of health care personnel and to provide opportunities for these staff to recover during the grueling, ongoing crisis.

Implementing and Evaluating a Fellowship for Community-Based Physicians and Physician Assistants: Leadership, Practice Transformation, and Precepting.

INTRODUCTION: Formal training in practice transformation, leadership, clinical education, and/or the time to gain these skills are limited postresidency for primary care physicians and physician assistants. Therefore, we created a novel Primary Care Champions fellowship program that provides practical experiences in education, practice transformation, and leadership for primary care physicians and physician assistants in community practice. The purpose of this study is to describe the fellowship and evaluate feedback from the first cohort. METHODS: In the Jefferson Primary Care Champions Fellowship, fellows are provided protected time from clinical obligations to engage in didactic, informal, and experiential learning. They meet monthly and participate in student precepting training and receive mentorship from senior clinician administrators, scientists, educators, and population health researchers to hone skills for leadership and practice transformation endeavors. Cohort one began in September 2018. All fellows were family physicians from community-based practices in Philadelphia, PA (N = 4) and selected in collaboration with their practice leadership. Mixed-methods postprogram evaluations included Organizational Readiness Assessment and qualitative feedback. RESULTS: Fellows denoted individual time, small-group mentorship, protected project time, and open-robust discussions about primary care most useful. Three fellows reported that they plan to continue their practice-improvement projects postfellowship and one published her initial project findings and reflections. DISCUSSION: Overall feedback from the first cohort was positive. Fellows greatly appreciated structured time to explore primary care interests, contemplated long-term career prospects, and considered leadership opportunities. Cohort two is currently underway and cohort three is in recruitment.

Burnout and Commitment to Primary Care: Lessons From the Early Impacts of COVID-19 on the Workplace Stress of Primary Care Practice Teams.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected all areas of health care. Primary care practices are on the front lines for patients seeking health care during this period. Understanding clinical and administrative staff members' strategies for managing the broad-ranging changes to primary care service delivery is important for the support of workforce well-being, burnout, and commitment to primary care. METHODS: Thirty-three staff members from 8 practices within a single health care system completed short, semistructured interviews from May 11, 2020 to July 20, 2020. Interviews were coded using a combination of conventional and directed content analysis. RESULTS: Themes emerged from the data that mapped onto the Job Demands-Control-Social Support model. Participants reported that every aspect of primary care service delivery needed to be adapted for COVID-19, which increased their job demands significantly. Several also described pride in their development of new skills, and in most interviews, they expressed that the experience brought staff together. Staff engaged in active cognitive reframing of events during the interviews as they coped with increased workplace stress. However, as the pandemic changed from an acute stress event to a chronic stressor, staff were more likely to indicate signs of burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care teams absorbed tremendous burdens during COVID-19 but also found that some stress was offset by increased support from management and colleagues, belief in their own necessity, and new development opportunities. Considering high prepandemic strain levels, the ability of primary care teams to persist under these conditions might erode as the crisis becomes an enduring challenge.

Development and evaluation of employee wellness sessions in response to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread mental health distress. Few COVID-19 employee wellness initiatives have been evaluated and have primarily focused on frontline health care workers. This study described the feasibility and utilization of, and participant satisfaction for virtual COVID-19 employee wellness sessions at a large university and health system. METHOD: Thomas Jefferson University behavioral health consultants (BHCs) and behavioral health leaders developed and offered JeffBeWell (JBW) wellness sessions over 17 weeks during March 2020 through July 2020. Sessions were advertised via mass emails and an employee intranet. Multiple live thirty-minute sessions were offered weekly; facilitators provided psychoeducation and offered coping tools. Topics included working remotely, parenting, sleep, nutrition, grief, anxiety, and yoga and relaxation. Attendance was tracked and participants were asked to complete satisfaction surveys; survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 388 sessions were offered with 1,324 participants. Attendance rose in weeks 1-5, followed by a decline and then a second increase in Weeks 15 through 17, 213 participants (16%) responded to the survey. The largest portion of respondents were in academic administrative roles (46%), followed by clinical providers and staff (34%) and faculty and students (9%). Of respondents, 91% of respondents felt that the sessions met their expectations, 92% felt the session helped them, and 92% planned to attend future sessions. DISCUSSION: JBW sessions were feasible to implement, attended by diverse participants and well received by survey respondents, although attendance has fluctuated during the pandemic. BHCs have refined sessions based on participant feedback and are tailoring more sessions to specific audiences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Preparing women experiencing symptoms of menopause for shared decision making about treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision support intervention that can be used with women experiencing menopausal symptoms to facilitate treatment shared decision making. METHODS: Our research team contacted patients with reported menopausal symptoms by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we sent participants a booklet on the treatment of menopausal symptoms. A nurse educator then contacted participants by telephone to review the booklet and guide them through a structured decision counseling exercise designed to help clarify treatment preference. A 60-day endpoint telephone survey was completed. RESULTS: Forty-eight consenting participants completed the baseline survey and 37 (77%) also completed a decision counseling session. At baseline, 19 of the women who had decision counseling were not being treated for menopausal symptoms and 18 were being treated. After decision counseling, 13 (68%) participants who were not being treated and 14 (78%) who were being treated identified a preferred treatment. Comparison of baseline and endpoint survey data showed that participant treatment knowledge increased (P = 0.007) and treatment decisional conflict decreased (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 71% of participants reported that they had received new information about treatment and 94% said they believed better prepared to discuss treatment with their healthcare provider. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led decision counseling increased participant treatment knowledge, reduced treatment decisional conflict, and helped to clarify treatment preference. Implementation of this strategy could help to facilitate provider-patient shared decision making about the treatment of menopausal symptoms.

Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making in Older African-American Women.

BACKGROUND: Discussions about whether to continue breast cancer screening in older women are complex, particularly for African American women. Decision aids may be helpful in guiding these conversations; however, little is known about the feasibility and acceptability of using breast cancer decision aids in older African American women. This study explored African American women's knowledge of breast cancer screening guidelines in older adults, prior conversations with providers regarding continuation of screening, and their understanding/willingness to engage in discussions about individualized breast cancer screening decision-making using two versions of tested decision aids. METHODS: Twenty-four African American women; (age m = 83) in urban geriatric practice. Interviews with African American women age 75+. Both DAs include age, health/functional status, and comorbidities questions to determine a BCS harms/benefit score. RESULTS: Most participants (75%) reported familiarity with current breast cancer screening guidelines. Twenty-nine percent reported prior discussions with providers about continuing breast cancer screenings. Sixty percent did not need assistance completing DAs while 40% did. 66.7% found the decision aids "very helpful" in reflecting their breast cancer screening thoughts; 58.3% had no preference regarding either decision aid version. 75% of participants were willing to complete the decision aid before a provider visit. Participants equally preferred a health educator or provider facilitating discussion of breast cancer screening harms and benefits and potential cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Older African American women are willing to engage in discussions about whether or not to continue breast cancer screening and found decision aids helpful.

Feasibility Pilot Outcomes of a Mammography Decision Support and Navigation Intervention for Women With Serious Mental Illness Living in Supportive Housing Settings.

Objective: People with serious mental illness (SMI) experience significant disparities in morbidity and mortality from preventable and treatable medical conditions. Women with SMI have low mammography screening rates. SMI, poverty, and poor access to care can have a significant effect on a woman's opportunity to learn about and discuss breast cancer screening with health care providers. This study examines the feasibility pilot outcomes of mammography decision support and patient navigation intervention (DSNI) for women with SMI living in supportive housing settings. The primary research question was: Does the DSNI increase knowledge, promote favorable attitudes, and decrease decisional conflict relating to screening mammography? Methods: We developed the intervention with the community using participatory methods. Women (n = 21) with SMI who had not undergone screening mammography in the past year participated in an educational module and decision counseling session and received patient navigation over a 6-month period. We conducted surveys and interviews at baseline and follow-ups to assess mammography decisional conflict. Results: Among study participants, 67% received a mammogram. The mammogram DSNI was feasible and acceptable to women with SMI living in supportive housing settings. From baseline to 1-month follow-up, decisional conflict decreased significantly (P = .01). The patient navigation process resulted in 270 attempted contacts (M = 12.86, SD = 10.61) by study staff (phone calls and emails with patient and/or case manager) and 165 navigation conversations (M = 7.86, SD = 4.84). A barrier to navigation was phone communication, with in-person navigation being more successful. Participants reported they found the intervention helpful and made suggestions for further improvement. Conclusions: The process and outcomes evaluation support the feasibility and acceptability of the mammography DSNI. This project provides initial evidence that an intervention developed with participatory methods can improve cancer screening outcomes in supportive housing programs for people with SMI.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective strategies are needed to raise colorectal cancer screening rates among Hispanics. METHODS: We surveyed and randomized 400 Hispanic primary care patients either to a Decision Support and Navigation Intervention (DSNI) Group (n = 197) or a Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 203). Both groups received a colorectal cancer screening kit [bilingual informational booklet, fecal immunochemical stool blood test (SBT), and colonoscopy screening instructions]. The DSNI Group received a telephone contact from a patient navigator. The navigator clarified screening test preference and likelihood of test performance, helped to develop a screening plan, and provided guidance through test performance. An endpoint telephone survey and medical chart review were completed. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess 12-month screening adherence, change in decision stage, and knowledge and perceptions. RESULTS: Screening adherence was significantly higher in the DSNI Group than the SI Group [OR, 4.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-7.6]. The DSNI Group, compared with the SI Group, also displayed higher SBT screening [OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7), higher colonoscopy screening (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.1-18.7), and greater forward change in screening decision stage (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.6-9.5). At endpoint, study groups did not differ in screening knowledge or perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The DSNI had a greater positive impact on colorectal cancer screening outcomes than the SI. IMPACT: Health system implementation of DSNI strategies may help to reduce Hispanic colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.

Primary Care Providers' Attitudes and Practices Regarding Cancer Screening in Older Adults.

Cancer screening decisions for older adults should be individualized. However, conducting such complex shared decisions may be challenging for primary care providers (PCPs). Additionally, there is little information about how PCPs make these decisions. This study consisted of a provider survey and chart review to assess current PCP approaches to breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for patients ages ≥75 years. PCP survey questions: panel age, comfort with discussion of screening harms and benefits, screening decision-making process, and discussion style. One hundred charts were chosen from a random sample of male and female patients ages ≥75 with a recent office visit. Chart reviews assessed whether providers recommended screening for breast and/or CRC in patients ages ≥75, if there was a documented screening discussion, and if screening was completed. Fifty-one PCPs completed the survey. PCPs varied in the proportions of older adults they recommended for breast and CRC screening; 90.2% reported feeling very (43.1%) or somewhat (47.1%) comfortable discussing reasons for/against screening with older patients. Top screening considerations: life expectancy (84.3%), patient preference (82.4%), and severity of medical conditions (70.6%). Three-quarters (74.55%) reported a shared decision-making approach with discussion of harms/benefits. Of 61 eligible patients, 8 (13.1%) had a documented discussion regarding mammography; of 58 patients eligible for CRC screening, 7 (12.1%) had a documented discussion. Findings showed inconsistency in PCP approaches to cancer screening in older adults and in documentation of discussion. There is ample room for improvement in standardizing approaches and documentation of cancer screening discussions with older patients.

A learning community approach to identifying interventions in health systems to reduce colorectal cancer screening disparities.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the United States has been increasing, screening rates are not optimal, and there are persistent disparities in CRC screening and mortality, particularly among minority patients. As most CRC screening takes place in primary care, health systems are well-positioned to address this important population health problem. However, most health systems have not actively engaged in identifying and implementing effective evidence-based intervention strategies that can raise CRC screening rates and reduce disparities. Drawing on the Collective Impact Model and the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, our project team applied a learning community strategy to help two health systems in southeastern Pennsylvania identify evidence-based CRC screening interventions for primary care patients. Initially, this approach involved activating a coordinating team, steering committee (health system leadership and stakeholder organizations), and patient and stakeholder advisory committee to identify candidate CRC screening intervention strategies. The coordinating team guided the steering committee through a scoping review to identify seven randomized trials that identified interventions that addressed CRC screening disparities. Subsequently, the coordinating team and steering committee applied a screening intervention classification typology to select an intervention strategy that involved using an outreach strategy to provide minority patients with access to both stool blood test and colonoscopy screening. Finally, the coordinating team and steering committee engaged the health system patient and stakeholder advisory committee in planning for intervention implementation, thus taking up the challenge of reducing and important health disparity in patient populations served by the two health systems.

Using a health system learning community strategy to address cancer disparities.

Accountable care organizations and health systems have the potential to increase patient engagement in medical care, improve population health outcomes, and reduce costs. Characteristics of highly integrated learning health care systems that seek to achieve these goals have been described in the literature. However, there have been few reports on how health systems, especially those that are loosely integrated, can develop the infrastructure needed to support achievement of these goals. In this report, we describe a learning community strategy that involved forming a coordinating team, a steering committee, and patient and stakeholder advisory committees to address cancer screening and disparities in 2 health systems in southeastern Pennsylvania-Jefferson Health and the Lehigh Valley Health Network. This project engaged diverse patients, health care providers, health system leaders, public and private payers, and other stakeholders in identifying and adapting evidence-based methods to increase colorectal and lung cancer screening in primary care. Here, we describe components of a health system learning community. In addition, we describe activities in which different components of the learning community were engaged. Finally, we explore prospects for using this type of approach to catalyze the development of learning health care systems.

Using Concept Mapping to Explore Barriers and Facilitators to Breast Cancer Screening in Formerly Homeless Women with Serious Mental Illness.

Women with serious mental illness (SMI) have disproportionately worse breast cancer profiles than those of other women. The purpose of this project was to examine barriers to and facilitators of breast cancer screening, specifically in formerly homeless women with SMI using the participatory methodology of concept mapping. A series of three concept mapping focus groups were held with 27 women over the age of 40 with a diagnosis of a SMI who live in supportive housing programs, and with 16 housing program staff. Data from the focus groups were combined through multidimensional scaling to create a visual cluster map. Barriers and facilitators to mammography screening generated by the participants clustered into eight categories. Participants rated addressing educational issues as most important and feasible. Interventions designed to improve mammogram screening in this population should address patients' perception of personal risk and should target education and support systems as modifiable factors.

Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Little is known about the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) feedback on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In a recently completed randomized trial, primary care patients received GERA feedback based on a blood test for genetic polymorphisms and serum folate level (GERA Group) versus usual care (Control Group). Subsequently, participants were offered CRC screening. Among participants who received GERA feedback, being at elevated risk was negatively associated with prospective CRC screening adherence. Secondary analyses of data from this study were performed to identify independent predictors of adherence among participants who received GERA feedback. We obtained baseline survey, follow-up survey, and endpoint medical records data on sociodemographic background, knowledge, psychosocial characteristics, risk status, and adherence for 285 GERA Group participants. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of CRC screening adherence. Following a 6-month outcomes observation period, we also conducted two focus groups with GERA Group participants to assess their perceptions of GERA risk feedback and screening. Content analyses of focus group data were evaluated to gain insights into participant response to risk feedback. Overall, half of GERA Group participants adhered to screening within 6 months after randomization. Multivariable analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between race and GERA feedback status relative to screening adherence (p = 0.043). Among participants who received average risk feedback, adherence was comparable among whites (49.7 %) and nonwhites (54.1 %); however, among those at elevated risk, adherence was substantially higher among whites (66.7 %) compared to nonwhites (33.3 %). Focus group findings suggest that whites were more likely than nonwhites to view elevated risk feedback as a prompt to screen. In response to receiving elevated risk feedback, nonwhites were more likely than whites to report feeling anxiety about the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC. Further research is needed to explore race-related CRC screening differences in response to GERA feedback.

Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to determine the effect of preference-based tailored navigation on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence and related outcomes among African Americans (AAs). METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included 764 AA patients who were age 50 to 75 years, were eligible for CRC screening, and had received care through primary care practices in Philadelphia. Consented patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to either a Standard Intervention (SI) group (n = 380) or a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) group (n = 384). The SI group received a mailed stool blood test kit plus colonoscopy instructions, and a reminder. The TNI group received tailored navigation (a mailed stool blood test kit or colonoscopy instructions based on preference, plus telephone navigation) and a reminder. A six-month survey and a 12-month medical records review were completed to assess screening adherence, change in overall screening preference, and perceptions about screening. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess intervention impact on outcomes. RESULTS: At six months, adherence in the TNI group was statistically significantly higher than in the SI group (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.9). Positive change in overall screening preference was also statistically significantly greater in the TNI group compared with the SI group (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.3). There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions about screening between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored navigation in primary care is a promising approach for increasing CRC screening among AAs. Research is needed to determine how to maximize intervention effects and to test intervention impact on race-related disparities in mortality and survival.

Genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: New methods are needed to improve health behaviors, such as adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Personalized genetic information to guide medical decisions is increasingly available. Whether such information motivates behavioral change is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether individualized genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) of CRC susceptibility improves adherence to screening in average-risk persons. DESIGN: 2-group, randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0087360). SETTING: 4 medical school-affiliated primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: 783 participants at average risk for CRC who were not adherent to screening at study entry. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to usual care or GERA, which evaluated methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms and serum folate levels. On the basis of prespecified combinations of polymorphisms and serum folate levels, GERA recipients were told that they were at elevated or average risk for CRC. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was CRC screening within 6 months of study entry. RESULTS: Overall screening rates for CRC did not statistically significant differ between the usual care (35.7%) and GERA (33.1%) groups. After adjustment for baseline participant factors, the odds ratio for screening completion for GERA versus usual care was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.22). Within the GERA group, screening rates did not significantly differ between average-risk (38.1%) and elevated-risk (26.9%) participants. Odds ratios for elevated- versus average-risk participants remained nonsignificant after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.39 to 1.42]). LIMITATION: Only 1 personalized genetic and environmental interaction and 1 health behavior (CRC screening) were assessed. CONCLUSION: In average-risk persons, CRC screening uptake was not positively associated with feedback from a single personalized GERA. Additional studies will be required to evaluate whether other approaches to providing GERA affect screening utilization differently. These findings raise concern about the effectiveness of moderately predictive assessment of genetic risk to promote favorable health care behavior. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care. METHODS: We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening. RESULTS: Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests. CONCLUSIONS: Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches. IMPACT: Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.

Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients. METHODS: Participants (n = 945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n = 317), to an SI group (n = 316), or to a TNI group (n = 312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving "investigator salaries," were assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Program costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible.

The increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer: a call to action.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common and second most lethal cancer. More than one-tenth of CRC cases (11% of colon cancers and 18% of rectal cancers) have a young onset (ie, occurring in individuals younger than 50 years). The CRC incidence and mortality rates are decreasing among all age groups older than 50 years, yet increasing in younger individuals for whom screening use is limited and key symptoms may go unrecognized. Familial syndromes account for approximately 20% of young-onset CRCs, and the remainder are typically microsatellite stable cancers, which are more commonly diploid than similar tumors in older individuals. Young-onset CRCs are more likely to occur in the distal colon or rectum, be poorly differentiated, have mucinous and signet ring features, and present at advanced stages. Yet, stage-specific survival in patients with young-onset CRC is comparable to that of patients with later-onset cancer. Primary care physicians have an important opportunity to identify high-risk young individuals for screening and to promptly evaluate CRC symptoms. Risk modification, targeted screening, and prophylactic surgery may benefit individuals with a predisposing hereditary syndrome or condition (eg, inflammatory bowel disease) or a family history of CRC or advanced adenomatous polyps. When apparently average-risk young adults present with CRC-like symptoms (eg, unexplained persistent rectal bleeding, anemia, and abdominal pain), endoscopic work-ups can expedite diagnosis. Early screening in high-risk individuals and thorough diagnostic work-ups in symptomatic young adults may improve young-onset CRC trends.

Colorectal cancer screening in the framework of the medical home model: findings from focus groups and interviews.

A recent report from a survey of 15 primary care practices revealed considerable variability and much room for improvement in aspects of primary care practice that are associated with increased colorectal cancer screening rates. There was low utilization of patient reminders, tracking of test completion, rescheduling of missed appointments, and inconsistent follow-up of positive stool blood tests. Qualitative data collected in the same study provide insights into how the practices operated. Focus group discussions with the clinicians and staff of the practices and key informant interviews with office managers support the survey findings by shedding light on a lack of office policies and systems. Many practices lacked a systematic way to identify patients who were not up to date on screening while they were visiting the practice, thereby passing up the best opportunity to reach them. These findings are not consistent with the patient-centered medical home model.