Dataset Information

Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

ABSTRACT: Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors.All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance.The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit.Rates of cancer screening at 1 year.Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n?=?185) or usual care (n?=?181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p?=?0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p?=?0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different.A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.

SUBMITTER: Hendren S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3889982 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

Hendren Samantha S Winters Paul P Humiston Sharon S Idris Amna A Li Shirley X L SX Ford Patricia P Specht Raymond R Marcus Stephen S Mendoza Michael M Fiscella Kevin K

Journal of general internal medicine 20130702 1

<h4>Background</h4>Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.<h4>Design</h4>Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors.<h4>Subjects< ...[more]

PMID: 23818159

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n?=?435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n?=?433).The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, ??=?0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, ??=?0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions designed to narrow the gap between research findings and clinical practice may be effective, but also costly. Economic evaluations are necessary to judge whether such interventions are worth the effort. We have evaluated the economic effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The tailored intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial, and was shown to significantly increase the use of thiazides for patients started on antihypertensive medication, but had little or no impact on other outcomes. The increased use of thiazides was not expected to have an impact on health outcomes.Methods and findingsWe performed cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses on data from a randomized trial involving 146 general practices from two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Only patients that were being started on antihypertensive medication were included in the analyses. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders. Pharmacists conducted the visits. A cost-minimization framework was adopted, where the costs of intervention were set against the reduced treatment costs (principally due to increased use of thiazides rather than more expensive medication). The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as the cost per additional patient being started on thiazides. The net annual cost (cost minimization) in our study population was 53,395 US dollars, corresponding to 763 US dollars per practice. The cost per additional patient started on thiazides (cost-effectiveness) was 454 US dollars. The net annual savings in a national program was modeled to be 761,998 US dollars, or 540 US dollars per practice after 2 y. In this scenario the savings exceeded the costs in all but two of the sensitivity analyses we conducted, and the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be 183 US dollars.ConclusionsWe found a significant shift in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs towards the use of thiazides in our trial. A major reason to promote the use of thiazides is their lower price compared to other drugs. The cost of the intervention was more than twice the savings within the time frame of our study. However, we predict modest savings over a 2-y period.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fostering a culture of safety is an essential step in ensuring patient safety and quality in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve the safety culture in the family and community medicine teaching units in an Atlantic European Region. METHODS:Randomized study conducted in family and community medicine teaching units in Galicia (Spain). Participants were all fourth-year residents and their tutors (N?=?138). Those who agreed to participate were randomized into one of two groups (27 tutors/26 residents in the intervention group, 23 tutors/ 23 residents in the control one).All were sent the Survey on Patient Safety Culture. After that, the intervention group received specific training in safety; they also recorded incidents over 15?days, documented them following a structured approach, and had feedback on their performance. The control group did not receive any action. All participants completed the same survey four months later. Outcome measures were the changes in safety culture as quantified by the results variables of the Survey: Patient Safety Grade and Number of events reported. We conducted bivariate and adjusted analyses for the outcome measures. To explore the influence of participants' demographic characteristics and their evaluation of the 12 dimensions of the safety culture, we fitted a multivariate model for each outcome. RESULTS:Trial followed published protocol. There were 19 drop outs. The groups were comparable in outcome and independent variables at start. The experiment did not have any effect on Patient safety grade (-?0.040) in bivariate analysis. The odds of reporting one to two events increased by 1.14 (0.39-3.35), and by 13.75 (2.41-354.37) the odds of reporting 3 or more events. Different dimensions had significant independent effects on each outcome variable. CONCLUSION:A educational intervention in family and community medicine teaching units may improve the incidents reported. The associations observed among organizational dimensions and outcomes evidence the complexity of patient safety culture measurement and, also, show the paths for improvement. In the future, it would be worthwhile to replicate this study in teaching units from different settings and with different health professionals engaged. TRIAL REGISTRATION:It was retrospectively registered with ( ISRCTN41911128 , 31/12/2010).

Project description:ImportanceIn the US, federal value-based incentive programs are more likely to penalize safety-net institutions than non-safety-net institutions. Whether these programs differentially change the rates of targeted health care-associated infections in safety-net vs non-safety-net hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the association of Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) implementation with changes in rates of targeted health care-associated infections and disparities in rates among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis interrupted time series included all US acute care hospitals enrolled in the Preventing Avoidable Infectious Complications by Adjusting Payment study that participated in mandatory reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the 2015 American Hospital Association annual survey. Penalty statuses for 2015 to 2018 were obtained from Hospital Compare. Data were analyzed between July 9, 2018, and October 1, 2019.ExposuresHACRP and HVBP implementation in fiscal year 2015 or 2016.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were rates of 4 health care-associated infections: central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), surgical site infection (SSI) after colon surgical procedures, and SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedures. Regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess the association of HACRP and HVBP implementation with health care-associated infection rates and disparities in infection rates.ResultsOf the 618 acute care hospitals included in this study, 473 (76.5%) were non-safety net and 145 (23.5%) were considered safety net. In these hospitals, HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with improvements in level or trend for any health care-associated infection examined (eg, CAUTI in safety-net hospitals: incidence rate ratio [IRR] for level change, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.79-1.23; P = .89]; IRR for change in slope, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .80]). Before program implementation, infection rates were statistically significantly higher for safety-net than for non-safety-net hospitals for CLABSI (IRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42; P = .004), CAUTI (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P < .001), and SSI after colon surgical procedure (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50; P = .009). The disparity persisted over time when comparing the last year of the study with the first year (CLABSI: ratio of ratios [ROR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .48]; CAUTI: ROR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .31]; SSI after colon surgical procedures: ROR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20; P = .75]). Rates of SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedure were similar in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals before implementation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40; P = .27) but higher after implementation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.83; P = .006), although this change was not significant (ROR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59; P = .20).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with any improvements in targeted health care-associated infections among safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals or with changes in disparities in infection rates. Given the persistent health care-associated infection rate disparities, these programs appear to function as a disproportionate penalty system for safety-net hospitals that offer no measurable benefits for patients.

Project description:Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices' successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.

Dataset Information

Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

Publications

Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets