A centrally generated primary care physician audit report does not improve colonoscopy uptake after a positive result on a fecal occult blood test in Ontario's ColonCancerCheck program

From participation to diagnostic assessment: a systematic scoping review of the role of the primary healthcare sector in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program

Primary health care (PHC) plays a vital support role in organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs by encouraging patient participation and ensuring timely referral for diagnostic assessment follow up. A systematic scoping review of the current evidence was conducted to inform strategies that better engage the PHC sector in organised CRC screening programs. Articles published from 2005 to November 2019 were searched across five databases. Evidence was synthesised and interventions that specifically require PHC involvement were mapped to stages of the CRC screening pathway. Fifty-seven unique studies were identified in which patient, provider and system-level interventions align with defined stages of the CRC screening pathway: namely, identifying/reminding patients who have not responded to CRC screening (non-adherence) (n=46) and follow up of a positive screen referral (n=11). Self-management support initiatives (patient level) and improvement initiatives (system level) demonstrate consistent benefits along the CRC screening pathway. Interventions evaluated as part of a quality-improvement process tended to report effectiveness; however, the variation in reporting makes it difficult to determine which elements contributed to the overall study outcomes. To maximise the benefits of population-based screening programs, better integration into existing primary care services can be achieved through targeting preventive and quality care interventions along the entire screening pathway.

What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?

Screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality; however, this remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and adherence to colorectal cancer screening falls far short of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of 80%. Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. Outreach is the active dissemination of screening outside of the primary care setting, such as mailing fecal blood tests to individuals' homes. Navigation uses trained personnel to assist individuals through the screening process. Patient education may take the form of brochures, videos, or websites. Provider education can include feedback about screening rates of patient panels. Reminders to healthcare providers can be provided by dashboards of patients due for screening. Financial incentives provide monetary compensation to individuals when they complete screening tests, either as fixed payments or via a lottery. Individual preference for specific screening strategies has also been examined in several trials, with a choice of screening strategies yielding higher adherence than recommendation of a single strategy.

Interventions to Improve Follow-up of Positive Results on Fecal Blood Tests: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Fecal immunochemical testing is the most commonly used method for colorectal cancer screening worldwide. However, its effectiveness is frequently undermined by failure to obtain follow-up colonoscopy after positive test results.

PURPOSE

To evaluate interventions to improve rates of follow-up colonoscopy for adults after a positive result on a fecal test (guaiac or immunochemical).

DATA SOURCES

English-language studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase from database inception through June 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized and nonrandomized studies reporting an intervention for colonoscopy follow-up of asymptomatic adults with positive fecal test results.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted data and ranked study quality; 2 rated overall strength of evidence for each category of study type.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three studies were eligible for analysis, including 7 randomized and 16 nonrandomized studies. Three were at low risk of bias. Eleven studies described patient-level interventions (changes to invitation, provision of results or follow-up appointments, and patient navigators), 5 provider-level interventions (reminders or performance data), and 7 system-level interventions (automated referral, precolonoscopy telephone calls, patient registries, and quality improvement efforts). Moderate evidence supported patient navigators and provider reminders or performance data. Evidence for system-level interventions was low. Seventeen studies reported the proportion of test-positive patients who completed colonoscopy compared with a control population, with absolute differences of -7.4 percentage points (95% CI, -19 to 4.3 percentage points) to 25 percentage points (CI, 14 to 35 percentage points).

LIMITATION

More than half of studies were at high or very high risk of bias; heterogeneous study designs and characteristics precluded meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Patient navigators and giving providers reminders or performance data may help improve colonoscopy rates of asymptomatic adults with positive fecal blood test results. Current evidence about useful system-level interventions is scant and insufficient.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42016048286).

Clinical utility of a blood-based protein assay to increase screening of elevated-risk patients for colorectal cancer in the primary care setting

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in finding early stage CRC and dramatically improves survival rates. Despite this, the number of eligible patients who do not obtain CRC screening is unacceptably high.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal, randomized controlled trial investigating the utility of a blood-based protein assay on the quality of care delivered by practicing PCPs in the United States. We used standardized simulated patients (CPVs), presenting with symptoms suggestive of a higher likelihood of CRC, to measure how frequently these PCPs ordered diagnostic colonoscopy. 190 PCPs cared for three patients at baseline and three patients post-intervention. The PCPs were randomized into one of two study arms: control and intervention. The intervention arm consisted of educational materials about the blood-based protein assay and positive test results. Each simulated patient in the intervention arm had a positive test result that was given to the doctor. The controls were given neither intervention materials nor blood-based protein assay results. Physician responses in both groups were scored against evidence-based criteria. Data were collected at baseline and post-intervention.

RESULTS

At baseline, we found that 71% of physicians ordered diagnostic colonoscopy. In round 2, 23% of physicians in the intervention arm adopted the new blood-based protein assay. Ordering physicians were 3.88 (95% CI 1.67-9.03) times more likely to order a diagnostic colonoscopy. In percentage terms, those who ordered the assay were more likely to order colonoscopy (92%) than either intervention physicians who did not order the assay (77%) or control physicians (66%) (p < 0.001). A marginal effects estimation showed that use of the assay would increase ordering colonoscopy to nearly 95%.

CONCLUSION

Over one-third of adults in the United States do not follow the recommended screening guidelines for CRC. The introduction of a blood-based protein assay significantly increased the likelihood that physicians would order diagnostic colonoscopies in elevated-risk patients compared to those without access to the assay results. The overall change in clinical utility observed here has the potential to significantly improve clinical care.