Dataset Information

Increasing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screenings: A Qualitative Assessment of Barriers and Promoters in Safety-Net Practices

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal in underserved populations. A 7-year quality improvement (QI) project implemented academic detailing and practice facilitation in safety-net primary care practices to increase cancer screening rates. This manuscript assesses barriers and promoters.

Methods

Primary care practices providing care to underserved patients were recruited in New York cities Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Enrollment totaled 31 practices, with 12 practices participating throughout. Annually, each practice received 6 months of practice facilitation support for development and implementation of evidence-based interventions to increase screening rates for the three cancer types. At the end of each practice facilitation period, focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with participating personnel. Content analysis was performed annually to identify barriers and promoters. A comprehensive final analysis was performed at project end.

Results

Barriers included system-level (inconsistent communication with specialists, electronic health record system transitions, ownership changes) and practice-level challenges (staff turnover, inconsistent data entry, QI fatigue) that compound patient-level challenges of transportation, cost, and health literacy. Cyclical barriers like staff turnover returned despite attempts to resolve them, while successful implementation was promoted by reducing patients’ structural barriers, adapting interventions to existing practice priorities, and enacting officewide policies. During the QI project, practices became aware of the impact of social determinants of health on patients’ screening decisions.

Conclusions

The project’s longitudinal design enabled identification of key barriers that reduced accuracy of practices’ screening rates and increased risk of patients falling through the cracks. Identified promoters can help sustain interventions to increase screenings.

SUBMITTER: Brady L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8530240 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to increase cancer screenings in safety net primary care systems has great potential for reducing cancer disparities. Yet there is a gap in understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence EBP implementation within these high-priority systems. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), our study aims to fill this gap with a multiple case study of health care safety net systems that were funded by an American Cancer Society (ACS) grants program to increase breast and colorectal cancer screening rates. The initiative funded 68 safety net systems to increase cancer screening through implementation of evidence-based provider and client-oriented strategies.Data are from a mixed-methods evaluation with nine purposively selected safety net systems. Fifty-two interviews were conducted with project leaders, implementers, and ACS staff. Funded safety net systems were categorized into high-, medium-, and low-performing cases based on the level of EBP implementation. Within- and cross-case analyses were performed to identify CFIR constructs that influenced level of EBP implementation.Of 39 CFIR constructs examined, six distinguished levels of implementation. Two constructs were from the intervention characteristics domain: adaptability and trialability. Three were from the inner setting domain: leadership engagement, tension for change, and access to information and knowledge. Engaging formally appointed internal implementation leaders, from the process domain, also distinguished level of implementation. No constructs from the outer setting or individual characteristics domain differentiated systems by level of implementation.Our study identified a number of influential CFIR constructs and illustrated how they impacted EBP implementation across a variety of safety net systems. Findings may inform future dissemination efforts of EBPs for increasing cancer screening in similar settings. Moreover, our analytic approach is similar to previous case studies using CFIR and hence could facilitate comparisons across studies.

Project description:IntroductionClinical settings are being encouraged to identify and address patients' social needs within the clinic or through partner organizations. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe the current practice of social needs-targeted care in 3 Texas safety net clinics, and facilitators and barriers to adopting new social needs-targeted care tools and practices.MethodsInterviews were conducted with staff at 3 safety net clinics serving small and mid-sized communities. Analysis focused on perspectives and decisions around adopting new tools or practices related to social needs-targeted care, including standardized screening tools and community resource referral platforms.ResultsNine staff across 3 organizations were interviewed. Two organizations were currently using a standard social needs screening tool in their routine practice, and a third was considering doing so. One organization had adopted a community resource referral platform in partnership with a large community collaboration. Three case studies illustrate a range of facilitators, barriers, perceived benefits, and drawbacks influencing social needs-targeted practices. Benefits of systematic data collection on social needs included the generation of data for community action. Drawbacks include concerns about data privacy. Community resource referral platforms were seen as valuable for creating accountability, but required an influential community partner and adequate community resources. Concerns about disempowering clients and blurring roles were voiced, and potential to increase provider job satisfaction was identified.ConclusionsBenefits and drawbacks of adopting new tools and practices related to social needs-targeted care are strongly influenced by the community context. For the adoption of community resource referral platforms, the outer setting is particularly relevant; adoption readiness is best assessed at the community or regional level rather than the clinic system level. While screening tools are much easier than referral platforms for clinics to adopt, the ability to address identified needs remains heavily based on the outer setting.

Project description:BackgroundPrior studies have shown that virtual reality (VR) is an efficacious treatment modality for opioid-sparing pain management. However, the majority of these studies were conducted among primarily White, relatively advantaged populations and in well-resourced settings.ObjectiveWe conducted a qualitative, theory-informed implementation science study to assess the readiness for VR in safety-net settings.MethodsUsing the theoretical lens of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework, we conducted semistructured interviews with current VR users and nonusers based in safety-net health systems (n=15). We investigated barriers and facilitators to a commercially available, previously validated VR technology platform AppliedVR (Los Angeles, CA, USA). We used deductive qualitative analysis using the overarching domains of the CFIR framework and performed open, inductive coding to identify specific themes within each domain.ResultsInterviewees deemed the VR intervention to be useful, scalable, and an appealing alternative to existing pain management approaches. Both users and nonusers identified a lack of reimbursement for VR as a significant challenge for adoption. Current users cited positive patient feedback, but safety-net stakeholders voiced concern that existing VR content may not be relevant or appealing to diverse patients. All respondents acknowledged the challenge of integrating and maintaining VR in current pain management workflows across a range of clinical settings, and this adoption challenge was particularly acute, given resource and staffing constraints in safety-net settings.ConclusionsVR for pain management holds interest for frontline pain management clinicians and leadership in safety-net health settings but will require significant tailoring and adaption to address the needs of diverse populations. Integration into complex workflows for pain management is a significant barrier to adoption, and participants cited structural cost and reimbursement concerns as impediments to initial implementation and scaling of VR use.

Project description:Background:Safety net hospitals, which serve vulnerable and underserved populations and often operate on smaller budgets than non-safety net hospitals, may experience unique implementation challenges. We sought to describe common barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of improvement initiatives in a safety net hospital, and identify potentially transferable lessons to enhance implementation efforts in similar settings. Methods:We interviewed leaders within five inpatient departments and asked them to identify the priority inpatient improvement initiative from the last year. We then conducted individual, semi-structured interviews with 25 stakeholders across the five settings. Interviewees included individuals serving in implementation oversight, champion, and frontline implementer roles. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed the discussion guide and a priori codes for directed content analysis. Results:Despite pursuing diverse initiatives in different clinical departments, safety net hospital improvement stakeholders described common barriers and facilitators related to inner and outer setting dynamics, characteristics of individuals involved, and implementation processes. Implementation barriers included (1) limited staffing resources, (2) organizational recognition without financial investment, and (3) the use of implementation strategies that did not adequately address patients' biopsychosocial complexities. Facilitators included (1) implementation approaches that combined passive and active communication styles, (2) knowledge of patient needs and competitive pressure to perform well against non-SNHs, (3) stakeholders' personal commitment to reduce health inequities, and (4) the use of multidisciplinary task forces to drive implementation activities. Conclusion:Inner and outer setting dynamics, individual's characteristics, and process factors served as implementation barriers and facilitators within the safety net. Future work should seek to leverage findings from this study toward efforts to enact positive change within safety net hospitals.