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.

Exploring Health Beliefs Among Hispanic Adults with Prediabetes.

Diabetes and prediabetes are increasing in prevalence, corresponding to epidemic rates of obesity. Hispanic adults with prediabetes are 1.7 times more likely than non-Hispanic whites to progress to diabetes. We set out to understand health beliefs of Hispanic adults and, with that knowledge, facilitate tailored messaging to promote patient activation and lifestyle change. Using the Risk Perception Survey for Developing Diabetes along with demographic and lifestyle intervention interest questions, a 34-question survey was mailed to a registry of Hispanic adults with a diagnosis of prediabetes and an HbA1c between 5.7 and 6.4% (N = 414). Despite more than three-quarters of respondents (n = 92; 77%) indicating they had prior knowledge of their diagnosis, overall diabetes risk knowledge was low. A significant difference in diabetes risk knowledge was found between groups stratified by education level. High scores in personal control and worry were reported. Respondents overwhelmingly reported interest in exercise (n = 92; 77%) and healthy eating interventions (n = 60; 50%) over technology-based interventions. High levels of worry and personal control, combined with low to intermediate levels of risk knowledge, indicate an opportunity for education and activation in this community. Healthy eating and exercise programs are possible interventions that may slow the progression from prediabetes to diabetes.

Impact of Race Versus Education and Race Versus Income on Patients' Motivation to Participate in Clinical Trials.

Our study investigates whether levels of motivation and barriers to participation in clinical trials vary with patients' education and income. A self-administered survey asked outpatients to rank potential influential factors on a "0" to "4" significance scale for their motivation to participate in clinical trials. Principal component analysis (PCA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests analyzed the impact of race, education, and income on their motivation to participate. Analysis included 1841 surveys; most respondents had a high school education or some college, and listed annual income < $30,000. There was a significant interaction between race and income on our motivation scale 1 scores (p = .0261). Compared with their counterparts, subjects with less education/lower income ranked monetary compensation (p = .0420 and p < .0001, respectively) as a higher motivator. Minorities and patients with less education and lower income appear to be more influenced by their desire to please the doctor, the race and sex of the doctor, and the language spoken by the doctor being the same as theirs. For all races, education appeared to have a direct relationship with motivation to participate, except for African-Americans, whose motivation appeared to decline with more education. Income appeared to have an inverse relationship with motivation to participate for all races.

Factors Influencing Participation in Clinical Trials: Emergency Medicine vs. Other Specialties.

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated factors that influence emergency medicine (EM) patients' decisions to participate in clinical trials and whether the impact of these factors differs from those of other medical specialties. METHODS: A survey was distributed in EM, family medicine (FM), infectious disease (ID), and obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN) outpatient waiting areas. Eligibility criteria included those who were 18 years of age or older, active patients on the day of the survey, and able to complete the survey without assistance. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test and ordinal logistic regression analyses to identify differences in participants' responses. RESULTS: A total of 2,893 eligible subjects were approached, and we included 1,841 surveys in the final analysis. Statistically significant differences (p≤0.009) were found for eight of the ten motivating factors between EM and one or more of the other specialties. Regardless of a patient's gender, race, and education, the relationship with their doctor was more motivating to patients seen in other specialties than to EM patients (FM [odds ratio {OR}:1.752, 95% confidence interval {CI}{1.285-2.389}], ID [OR:3.281, 95% CI{2.293-4.695}], and OB/GYN [OR:2.408, 95% CI{1.741-3.330}]). EM's rankings of "how well the research was explained" and whether "the knowledge learned would benefit others" as their top two motivating factors were similar across other specialties. All nine barriers showed statistically significant differences (p≤0.008) between EM and one or more other specialties. Participants from all specialties indicated "risk of unknown side effects" as their strongest barrier. Regardless of the patients' race, "time commitment" was considered to be more of a barrier to other specialties when compared to EM (FM [OR:1.613, 95% CI{1.218-2.136}], ID [OR:1.340, 95% CI{1.006-1.784}], or OB/GYN [OR:1.901, 95% CI{1.431-2.526}]). Among the six resources assessed that help patients decide whether to participate in a clinical trial, only one scored statistically significantly different for EM (p<0.001). EM patients ranked "having all material provided in my own language" as the most helpful resource. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences between EM patients and those of other specialties in the factors that influence their participation in clinical trials. Providing material in the patient's own language, explaining the study well, and elucidating how their participation might benefit others in the future may help to improve enrollment in EM-based clinical trials.

Research Professionals' Perspectives, Barriers, and Recommendations Regarding Minority Participation in Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate research professionals' perspectives regarding minority participation in clinical trials. METHODS: A web-based survey of research professionals at US institutions receiving NIH and/or AHRQ funding to conduct clinical research in 2013. Descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation (SD), and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were utilized for analysis. RESULTS: Distributed were 13,041 surveys with 967 (7.4%) responses. Overall and race-stratified analyses included 633 and 521 surveys, respectively. A majority agreed that patients' race (mean, 3.4; SD = 1.0) and primary language (mean, 4.0; SD = 0.9) have an effect on enrollment. They had more success in enrolling those whose primary language was the same as their own (mean, 3.8; SD = 1.0), and that a language barrier and time spent arranging for interpreters had prevented them from offering a study to potential candidates (mean, 3.2; SD = 1.2). Non-Caucasian respondents were more likely to agree that "fear of unknown side effects" was a deterrent for minorities (p < 0.01), "minorities are more likely to be unavailable for follow-up phone calls" (p = 0.07), and "the unavailability of translated material discourages non-English speakers from participation" (p = 0.08). They also were more likely to be neutral or agree with being discouraged from enrolling minorities because of the possibility of their withdrawal or being less likely to be available for phone follow-ups and follow-up visits (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite a few subtle racial differences in research professionals' perspectives, a majority expressed no hesitation in enrolling minorities. Patients' race and primary language appeared to influence enrollment. A language barrier appeared to be the strongest barrier for research professionals.

Racial Differences Among Factors Associated with Participation in Clinical Research Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether racial differences exist among various factors associated with patients' decision to participate in clinical research trials. METHODS: A self-administered, IRB-approved survey was utilized with inclusion criteria requiring subjects to be 18 years of age or older, having active patient status and ability to complete the survey without assistance. Subjects were asked to rate potential influential motivators, barriers, and facilitators on a "no influence" (0) to "most influence" (4) scale for participation in research that tests a new drug or device. Kruskal-Wallis testing was used to identify factors significantly associated with race. RESULTS: Analysis included 1643 surveys: 949 (57.8 %) Caucasian; 217 (13.2 %) African-American; 317 (19.3 %) Hispanic; 62 (3.8 %) Multiracial; and 98 (6.0 %) "Other" minorities. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ .02) by race were found for five out of ten motivating factors. "How well the research study is explained to me" had the highest mean value for all races except other minorities, for whom "Knowledge learned from my participation will benefit someone in the future" scored highest. "Risk of unknown side-effects" was the greatest barrier for all races. CONCLUSION: Racial differences exist not only between Caucasians and Minorities for the factors associated with their clinical trial participation, but also among different minority races themselves. To promote diversity in research, recruitment strategies for each individual race should be customized based on what matters to the target population.

Implementation of Technology-based Patient Engagement Strategies within Practice-based Research Networks.

BACKGROUND: Technology-based patient engagement strategies (such as patient portals) are increasingly available, yet little is known about current use and barriers within practice-based research networks (PBRNs). PBRN directors have unique opportunities to inform the implementation of patient-facing technology and to translate these findings into practice. METHODS: PBRN directors were queried regarding technology-based patient engagement strategies as part of the 2015 CAFM Educational Research Alliance (CERA) survey of PBRN directors. A total of 102 PBRN directors were identified via the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's registry; 54 of 96 eligible PBRN directors completed the survey, for a response rate of 56%. RESULTS: Use of technology-based patient engagement strategies within PBRNs was limited, with less than half of respondents reporting experience with the most frequently named tools (risk assessments/decision aids). Information technology (IT) support was the top barrier, followed by low rates of portal enrollment. For engaging participant practices, workload and practice leadership were cited as most important, with fewer respondents noting concerns about patient privacy. DISCUSSION: Given limited use of patient-facing technologies, PBRNs have an opportunity to clarify the optimal use of these strategies. Providing IT support and addressing clinician concerns regarding workload may facilitate the inclusion of innovative technologies in PBRNs.

Perceived Fall Risk and Functional Decline: Gender Differences in Patient's Willingness to Discuss Fall Risk, Fall History, or to Have a Home Safety Evaluation.

The CDC reports that among older adults, falls are the leading cause of injury-related death and rates of fall-related fractures among older women are twice those of men. We set out to 1) determine patient perceptions (analyzed by gender) about their perceived fall risk compared to their actual risk for functional decline and death and 2) to report their comfort level in discussing their fall history or a home safety plan with their provider. Elders who presented to the Emergency Department (ED†) were surveyed. The survey included demographics, the Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) and the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES); both validated surveys measuring fall concern and functional decline. Females had higher FES scores (mean 12.3, SD 5.9) than males (mean 9.7, SD 5.9 p = .007) in the 146 surveys analyzed. Females were more likely to report an increased fear of falling, and almost three times more likely to have a VES score of 3 or greater than males (OR = 2.86, 95% CI: 1.17-7.00, p = .02). A strong correlation was observed between FES and VES scores (r = 0.80, p < .001). No difference in correlation was observed between males and females, p = .26. Participants (77 percent) reported they would be comfortable discussing their fall risk with a provider; there was no difference between genders (p = .57). In this study, irrespective of gender, there appears to be a high association between subjects' perceived fall risk and risk for functional decline and death. The majority of patients are likely willing to discuss their fall risk with their provider. These findings may suggest a meaningful opportunity for fall risk mitigation in this setting.

Clinician-Reported Barriers to Group Visit Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Group visits have been shown to improve disease-oriented outcomes and satisfaction, yet many clinicians have not incorporated them into practice. We aimed to identify clinician-reported barriers that preclude clinicians from implementing group visits. METHODS: Primary care physicians from one practice-based research network were surveyed regarding their experience with and barriers to group visits. The survey, developed for this study, was mailed to 246 clinicians. RESULTS: Of 107 respondents (44% response rate), those in practice <10 years were significantly more likely to have had group visit experience than those with >10 years of experience. For those without prior group visit experience, training was named as the top barrier to incorporating group visits. Those with group visit experience named staffing concerns and recruitment as the top barriers to group visit implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians without prior group visit experience were less likely to endorse group visits. Addressing the modifiable barriers may enhance the incorporation of group visits into practice.

Diabetes Mellitus: Management of Gastrointestinal Complications.

Gastrointestinal disorders are common complications of diabetes mellitus and include gastroparesis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and chronic diarrhea. Symptoms of gastroparesis include early satiety, postprandial fullness, nausea, vomiting of undigested food, bloating, and abdominal pain. Gastroparesis is diagnosed based on clinical symptoms and a delay in gastric emptying in the absence of mechanical obstruction. Gastric emptying scintigraphy is the preferred diagnostic test. Treatment involves glucose control, dietary changes, and prokinetic medications when needed. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its more severe variant, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, are becoming increasingly prevalent in persons with diabetes. Screening for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is not recommended, and most cases are diagnosed when steatosis is found incidentally on imaging or from liver function testing followed by diagnostic ultrasonography. Liver biopsy is the preferred diagnostic test for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Clinical scoring systems are being developed that, when used in conjunction with less invasive imaging, can more accurately predict which patients have severe fibrosis requiring biopsy. Treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease involves weight loss and improved glycemic control; no medications have been approved for treatment of this condition. Diabetes is also a risk factor for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Patients may be asymptomatic or present with atypical symptoms, including globus sensation and dysphagia. Diabetes also may exacerbate hepatitis C and pancreatitis, resulting in more severe complications. Glycemic control improves or reverses most gastrointestinal complications of diabetes.

Patient-Reported Barriers and Limitations to Attending Diabetes Group Visits.

PURPOSE: Through this exploratory study, we sought to understand why group visit participation is low among adult patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Eligible study participants included adult patients with type 2 diabetes. After a pilot survey was sent to a random sample of 48 patients, the remaining 187 eligible patients were invited to complete a revised version of the survey. RESULTS: Most frequently cited reasons for not attending group visits included diabetes under control, work and/or other responsibilities, and time barriers. There was variability in the desired time for the visits, though the majority of patients preferred evening visits. While some patients reported copays as a challenge, the likelihood of attending did not decrease for this subgroup. Most patients surveyed (54%) indicated interest in diabetes group visits. CONCLUSION: Implementing strategies to address the patient-identified system barriers (eg, time, transportation, and copays) may increase participation in diabetes group visits.

Mechanical falls: are patients willing to discuss their risk with a health care provider?

BACKGROUND: Falls in the elderly cause serious injury. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine subjects' comfort in discussing fall risk and home safety evaluations. METHODS: This prospective study surveyed a convenience sample of subjects (≥50 years old) in an emergency department (ED), health fair (HF), and family practice (FP). The survey included the Falls Efficacy Scale and Vulnerable Elders Survey-validated surveys measuring fall concern and functional decline. Other data-environmental living conditions, participant behaviors, fall frequency-were collected. The associations between perceived fall risk and participant characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics and random-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Participants (n = 416, 38% males, 62% females) had a mean age of 67.6 years; 35% were high fall risk. Previous year falls (p = 0.002), use of assistive device (p < 0.001), having at least one alcoholic drink/week (p = 0.043), and poor or fair perceived health status (p < 0.001) were associated with perceived fall risk. HF respondents were more willing than FP respondents to discuss falls (84.9% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.025). The difference was not significant between the HF and ED respondents (84.9% vs. 76.9, p = 0.11). HF subjects were more willing than FP to have a home safety inspection (68.9% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001). The difference was not significant between the HF and ED respondents (68.9% vs 58.5, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived and actual fall risks are highly associated. Most participants are willing to discuss their fall risk and a home safety evaluation. HF subjects were most willing to have these discussions; ED subjects were less willing than HF, but not significantly different from health fair participants. FP participants were significantly less willing to have these discussions than HF participants. This may suggest a meaningful opportunity for fall risk prevention in outpatient settings such as health fairs and the ED.

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.

Variation in colorectal cancer screening steps in primary care: basis for practice improvement.

No published research has assessed the specific steps that primary care practices actually take to carry out screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). A written survey was distributed to clinicians and staff at 15 primary care practices to determine whether they perceived that personnel in their practices performed a series of 4 steps associated with screening colonoscopy and 7 steps associated with stool blood test screening. For each discrete step, the percentage of respondents from each practice who indicated that a given step is performed in that practice was calculated along with the mean of practice percentages. Survey results indicate wide variation in the degree to which these screening steps are performed across the 15 practices.  Variation was greater for steps that involved contacting nonresponders (reminders), scheduling, and rescheduling. Survey responses suggest substantial variation and much room for improvement in practice performance of evidence-based steps in the CRC screening process.

'In the Moment': An Analysis of Facilitator Impact During a Quality Improvement Process.

Facilitators frequently act 'in the moment' - deciding if, when and how to intervene into group process discussions. This paper offers a unique look at how facilitators impacted eleven primary care teams engaged in a 12-week quality improvement (QI) process. Participating in a federally funded QI trial, primary care practices in New Jersey and Pennsylvania formed practice-based teams comprised of physicians, nurses, administrative staff, and patients. External facilitators met with each team to help them identify and implement changes aimed at improving the organization, work relationships, office functions, and patient care. Audio-recordings of the meetings and descriptive field notes were collected. These qualitative data provided information on how facilitators acted 'in the moment' and how their interventions impacted group processes over time. Our findings reveal that facilitators impacted groups in multiple ways throughout the QI process, rather than through a linear progression of stages or events. We present five case examples that show what acting 'in the moment' looked like during the QI meetings and how these facilitator actions/interventions impacted the primary care teams. These accounts provide practical lessons learned and insights into effective facilitation that may encourage others in their own facilitation work and offer beneficial strategies to facilitators in other contexts.

Implementing an electronic medical record in a family medicine practice: communication, decision making, and conflict.

PURPOSE: Electronic medical record (EMR) systems offer substantial opportunities to organize and manage clinical data in ways that can potentially improve preventive health care, the management of chronic illness, and the financial health of primary care practices. The functionality of EMRs as implemented, however, can vary substantially from that envisaged by their designers and even from those who purchase the programs. The purpose of this study was to explore how unique aspects of a family medicine office culture affect the initial implementation of an EMR. METHODS: As part of a larger study, we conducted a qualitative case study of a private family medicine practice that had recently purchased and implemented an EMR. We collected data using participant observation, in-depth interviews, and key informant interviews. After the initial data collection, we shared our observations with practice members and returned 1 year later to collect additional data. RESULTS: Dysfunctional communication patterns, the distribution of formal and informal decision-making power, and internal conflicts limited the effective implementation and use of the EMR. The implementation and use of the EMR made tracking and monitoring of preventive health and chronic illness unwieldy and offered little or no improvement when compared with paper charts. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an EMR without an understanding of the systemic effects and communication and the decision-making processes within an office practice and without methods for bringing to the surface and addressing conflicts limits the opportunities for improved care offered by EMRs. Understanding how these common issues manifest within unique practice settings can enhance the effective implementation and use of EMRs.