Dataset Information

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and to provide online materials from a national quality improvement (QI) study to help other institutions to address local screening deficits.

Methods

This prospective, national QI study on Return-to-Screening enrolled 748 accredited cancer programs in the United States from April through June 2021. Local prepandemic and pandemic monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) were used to calculate the relative percent change in MTV to describe the monthly screening gap.

Results

The majority of facilities reported monthly screening deficits (colorectal cancer, 80.6% [n = 104/129]; cervical cancer, 69.0% [n = 20/29]; breast cancer, 55.3% [n = 241/436]; lung cancer, 44.6% [n = 98/220]). Overall, the median relative percent change in MTV ranged from -17.7% for colorectal cancer (interquartile range [IQR], -33.6% to -2.8%), -6.8% for cervical cancer (IQR, -29.4% to 1.7%), -1.6% for breast cancer (IQR, -9.6% to 7.0%), and 1.2% for lung cancer (IQR, -16.9% to 19.0%). Geographic differences were not observed. There were statistically significant differences in the percent change in MTV between institution types for colorectal cancer screening (P = .02).

Conclusion

Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the screening resources made available online may help facilities to close critical gaps and address screenings missed in 2020.

Lay summary

Question: How can the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on cancer screening be mitigated?

Findings

When national resources were provided, including methods to calculate local screening deficits, 748 cancer programs promptly enrolled in a national Return-to-Screening study, and the majority identified local screening deficits, most notably in colorectal cancer. Using these results, 814 quality improvement projects were initiated with the potential to add 70,000 screening tests in 2021. Meaning: Cancer screening is still in need of urgent attention, and the online resources that we provide may help to close critical screening deficits.

SUBMITTER: Joung RH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9086125 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Joung Rachel H RH Nelson Heidi H Mullett Timothy W TW Kurtzman Scott H SH Shafir Sarah S Harris James B JB Yao Katharine A KA Brajcich Brian C BC Bilimoria Karl Y KY Cance William G WG

Cancer 20220321 11

<h4>Background</h4>Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are expected to increase due to cancer screening deficits associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although national deficits have been quantified, a structured response to identifying and addressing local deficits has not been widely available. The objectives of this report are to share preliminary data on monthly screening deficits in breast, colorectal, lung, and cervical cancers across diverse settings and ...[more]

PMID: 35307815

Similar Datasets

Project description:The colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process involves multiple interfaces (communication exchanges and transfers of responsibility for specific actions) among primary care and gastroenterology providers, laboratory, and administrative staff. After a retrospective electronic health record (EHR) analysis discovered substantial clinic variation and low CRC screening prevalence overall in an urban, integrated safety-net system, we launched a qualitative analysis to identify potential quality improvement targets to enhance fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion, the system's preferred screening modality. Here, we report examination of organization-, clinic-, and provider-level interfaces over a three-year period (December 2011-October 2014). We deployed in parallel 3 qualitative data collection methods: (1) structured observation (90+ hours, 10 sites); (2) document analysis (n > 100); and (3) semi-structured interviews (n = 41) and conducted iterative thematic analysis in which findings from each method cross-informed subsequent data collection. Thematic analysis was guided by a conceptual model and applied deductive and inductive codes. There was substantial variation in protocols for distributing and returning FIT kits both within and across clinics. Providers, clinic and laboratory staff had differing access to important data about FIT results based on clinical information system used and this affected results reporting. Communication and coordination during electronic referrals for diagnostic colonoscopy was suboptimal particularly for co-morbid patients needing anesthesia clearance. Our multi-level approach elucidated organizational deficiencies not evident by quantitative analysis alone. Findings indicate potential quality improvement intervention targets including: (1) best-practices implementation across clinics; (2) detailed communication to providers about FIT results; and (3) creation of EHR alerts to resolve pending colonoscopy referrals before they expire.

Project description:ImportanceCancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed.ObjectiveTo assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening.Design, setting, and participantsAccredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022.ExposuresCollaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods.ResultsOf 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, -13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, -23.1 to -3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests).Conclusions and relevanceIn this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.

Project description:BackgroundAround 57,000 people in Spain and Portugal currently living with HIV or chronic hepatitis C are unaware of their infection. The COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted screening efforts for these infections. We designed an intervention to increase and sustain opportunistic blood-borne virus (BBV) screening and linkage to care (SLTC) by implementing the TEST model.MethodsThe Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) method of quality improvement (QI) was implemented in 8 healthcare organizations (HCOs), including four hospitals, two clusters of community health centers, and two community-based organizations (CBOs). Baseline assessment included a review of BBV SLTC practices, testing volume, and results 12 months before the intervention. Changes in BBV testing rates over time were measured before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. A mixed ANOVA model was used to analyze the possible effect on testing volumes among HCOs over the three study periods.InterventionBBV testing was integrated into normal clinical flow in all HCOs using existing clinical infrastructure and staff. Electronic health record (EHR) systems were modified whenever possible to streamline screening processes, implement systemic institutional policy changes, and promote QI.ResultsTwo years after the launch of the intervention in screening practices, testing volumes increased by 116%, with formal healthcare settings recording larger increases than CBOs. The start of the COVID-19 lockdowns was accompanied by a global 60% decrease in testing in all HCOs. Screening emergency department patients or using EHR systems to automate screening showed the highest resilience and lowest reduction in testing. HCOs recovered 77% of their testing volume once the lockdowns were lifted, with CBOs making the fullest recovery. Globally, enhanced screening techniques enabled HCOs to diagnose a total of 1,860 individuals over the research period.ConclusionsImplementation of the TEST model enabled HCOs to increase and sustain BBV screening, even during COVID-19 lockdowns. Although improvement in screening was noted in all HCOs, additional work is needed to develop strong patient linkage to care models in challenging times, such as global pandemics.

Project description:Background:Several frameworks have been developed to identify essential determinants for healthcare improvement. These frameworks aim to be comprehensive, leading to the creation of long lists of determinants that are not prioritised based on being experienced as most important. Furthermore, most existing frameworks do not describe the methods or actions used to identify and address the determinants, limiting their practical value. The aim of this study is to describe the development of a tool with prioritised facilitators and barriers supplemented with methods to identify and address each determinant. The tool can be used by those performing quality improvement initiatives in healthcare practice. Methods:A mixed-methods study design was used to develop the tool. First, an online survey was used to ask healthcare professionals about the determinants they experienced as most facilitating and most hindering during the performance of their quality improvement initiative. A priority score was calculated for every named determinant, and those with a priority score ? 20 were incorporated into the tool. Semi-structured interviews with implementation experts were performed to gain insight on how to analyse and address the determinants in our tool. Results:The 25 healthcare professionals in this study experienced 64 facilitators and 66 barriers when performing their improvement initiatives. Of these, 12 facilitators and nine barriers were incorporated into the tool. Sufficient support from management of the department was identified as the most important facilitator, while having limited time to perform the initiative was considered the most important barrier. The interviews with 16 experts in implementation science led to various inputs for identifying and addressing each determinant. Important themes included maintaining adequate communication with stakeholders, keeping the initiative at a manageable size, learning by doing and being able to influence determinants. Conclusions:This paper describes the development of a tool with prioritised determinants for performing quality improvement initiatives with suggestions for analysing and addressing these determinants. The tool is developed for those engaged in quality improvement initiatives in practice, so in this way it helps in bridging the research to practice gap of determinants frameworks. More research is needed to validate and develop the tool further.

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence base for quality improvement (QI) interventions is expanding rapidly. The diversity of the initiatives and the inconsistency in labeling these as QI interventions makes it challenging for researchers, policymakers, and QI practitioners to access the literature systematically and to identify relevant publications.MethodsWe evaluated search strategies developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed based on free text words, Medical subject headings (MeSH), QI intervention components, continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods, and combinations of the strategies. Three sets of pertinent QI intervention publications were used for validation. Two independent expert reviewers screened publications for relevance. We compared the yield, recall rate, and precision of the search strategies for the identification of QI publications and for a subset of empirical studies on effects of QI interventions.ResultsThe search yields ranged from 2,221 to 216,167 publications. Mean recall rates for reference publications ranged from 5% to 53% for strategies with yields of 50,000 publications or fewer. The 'best case' strategy, a simple text word search with high face validity ('quality' AND 'improv*' AND 'intervention*') identified 44%, 24%, and 62% of influential intervention articles selected by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) experts, a set of exemplar articles provided by members of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) group, and a sample from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) register of studies, respectively. We applied the search strategy to a PubMed search for articles published in 10 pertinent journals in a three-year period which retrieved 183 publications. Among these, 67% were deemed relevant to QI by at least one of two independent raters. Forty percent were classified as empirical studies reporting on a QI intervention.ConclusionsThe presented search terms and operating characteristics can be used to guide the identification of QI intervention publications. Even with extensive iterative development, we achieved only moderate recall rates of reference publications. Consensus development on QI reporting and initiatives to develop QI-relevant MeSH terms are urgently needed.

Dataset Information

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Lay summary

Findings

Publications

A national quality improvement study identifying and addressing cancer screening deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets