Recommended Core Measures for Evaluating the Patient-Centered Medical Home: Cost, Utilization, and Clinical Quality

Outlines the process of the Patient-Centered Medical Home Evaluators' Collaborative for identifying core standardized measures and their recommended principles and measures for evaluating cost and utilization and clinical quality

Can nudge-interventions address health service overuse and underuse? Protocol for a systematic review

IntroductionNudge-interventions aimed at health professionals are proposed to reduce the overuse and underuse of health services. However, little is known about their effectiveness at changing health professionals’ behaviours in relation to overuse or underuse of tests or treatments.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to systematically identify and synthesise the studies that have assessed the effect of nudge-interventions aimed at health professionals on the overuse or underuse of health services.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review. All study designs that include a control comparison will be included. Any qualified health professional, across any specialty or setting, will be included. Only nudge-interventions aimed at altering the behaviour of health professionals will be included. We will examine the effect of choice architecture nudges (default options, active choice, framing effects, order effects) and social nudges (accountable justification and pre-commitment or publicly declared pledge/contract). Studies with outcomes relevant to overuse or underuse of health services will be included. Relevant studies will be identified by a computer-aided search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases. Two independent reviewers will screen studies for eligibility, extract data and perform the risk of bias assessment using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We will report our results in a structured synthesis format, as recommended by the Cochrane EPOC group.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this study. Results will be presented at relevant scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed literature

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

BackgroundThe Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada.MethodsA clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing.ResultsThe tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making.ConclusionThe integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting.Trial registrationThe registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460

Quality Improvement Measures for Cervical Screening Guidelines in a Clinic for Uninsured Adults

Cervical cancer, a completely curable disease with early detection and management, is an international concern. Early identification allows for treatment of the disease, which prevents or slows progression, ultimately reducing morbidity and mortality. Due to the regressive nature of most cervical lesions, the duration between cervical cytology has been lengthened to prevent over diagnosis and treatment. This was reflected in the 2012 United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) clinical practice guideline for cervical cancer screening. The purpose of this project was to determine the effectiveness of a quality improvement initiative to increase adherence to the 2012 USPSTF guideline at a volunteer medical clinic for the working uninsured. In this retrospective, time series observational evaluation, data were collected via chart review regarding adherence to the guideline. The intervention consisted of the placement of a visual algorithm educational tool for clinical decision-making for cervical cytology screening in each exam room. Data were collected during three time periods: (1) the 3 months prior to initial education of clinic staff regarding the guideline; (2) the 3months between initial education and introduction of the algorithm; and (3) the 3 months post introduction of the algorithm. A total of 335 charts were reviewed. There was a significant difference in the proportion of appropriate screening among the three groups (Χ2= 6.83 p=.03). There was also a significant difference in appropriate screening rates between the new and established patients’ group, controlling for group (p\u3c.0001). The use of the interventional algorithm is recommended to improve adherence to evidence-based practice guideline related to cervical screening as it decreases harm(s) to the patient by reduction of fear, cost to the patient, and overtreatment of benign regressive lesions

A Multi-Faceted Quality Improvement Project Amid a Global Pandemic: Improving Guideline-Consistent Cervical Cancer Screening Rates and Provider Knowledge of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results During Reactivation of a Metro Family Practice Clinic

Background: Despite the evidence-based value of cervical cancer screening, recent updates to guidelines, and general availability of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test, guideline-adherent screening rates remain low. The COVID-19 pandemic further impedes progress as preventive healthcare is delayed and patients are reluctant to enter healthcare facilities. Objectives: The purpose of this project was to evaluate if provider education and patient reminder letters comprising written education and risk-mitigation efforts improved cervical cancer screening rates and increased providers’ knowledge of appropriate follow-up during reopening of a metro family practice clinic amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A multi-faceted quality improvement project included a 3-month intervention phase comprised of: (1) provider education with descriptive analysis of pre- and post-intervention knowledge of cervical cancer screening scores as well as, (2) distribution of reminder letters to 295 eligible patients. Results:The overall cervical cancer screening rate increased by 1% during the 3-month period. Provider questionnaire scores noted a significant increase in knowledge and intent to change practice patterns (p Conclusion: Findings indicate that provider education improves knowledge of cervical cancer screening and follow-up, as well as, fosters an intent to change practice patterns according to established guidelines. Reminder letters did provide a modest increase in cervical cancer screening rates during the COVID-19 pandemic suggesting that written education and risk-mitigation efforts can encourage patients to schedule in-person appointments

Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests a systematic review

IMPORTANCE Unrealistic patient expectations of the benefits and harms of interventions can influence decision making and may be contributing to increasing intervention uptake and health care costs. OBJECTIVE To systematically review all studies that have quantitatively assessed patients' expectations of the benefits and/or harms of any treatment, test, or screening test. EVIDENCE REVIEW A comprehensive search strategy was used in 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO) up to June 2013, with no language or study type restriction.We also ran cited reference searches of included studies and contacted experts and study authors. Two researchers independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted participants' estimates of benefit and harms and authors' contemporaneous estimates. FINDINGS Of the 15 343 records screened, 36 articles (from 35 studies) involving a total of 27 323 patients were eligible. Fourteen studies focused on a screen, 15 on treatment, 3 a test, and 3 on treatment and screening. More studies assessed only benefit expectations (22 [63%]) than benefit and harm expectations (10 [29%]) or only harm (3 [8%]). Fifty-four outcomes (across 32 studies) assessed benefit expectations: of the 34 outcomes with overestimation data available, the majority of participants overestimated benefit for 22 (65%) of them. For 17 benefit expectation outcomes, we could not calculate the proportion of participants who overestimated or underestimated, although for 15 (88%) of these, study authors concluded that participants overestimated benefits. Expectations of harm were assessed by 27 outcomes (across 13 studies): underestimation data were available for 15 outcomes and the majority of participants underestimated harm for 10 (67%) of these. A correct estimation by at least 50% of participants only occurred for 2 outcomes about benefit expectations and 2 outcomes about harm expectations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The majority of participants overestimated intervention benefit and underestimated harm. Clinicians should discuss accurate and balanced information about intervention benefits and harms with patients, providing the opportunity to develop realistic expectations and make informed decisions

Participants, physicians or programmes : participants’ educational level and initiative in cancer screening

This study is an in-depth examination of at whose initiative (participant, physician or screening programme) individuals participate in cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening across the EU-28. Special attention is paid to (1) the association with educational attainment and (2) the country’s cancer screening strategy (organised, pilot/regional or opportunistic) for each type of cancer screened. Data were obtained from Eurobarometer 66.2 ‘Health in the European Union’ (2006). Final samples consisted of 10,186; 5443 and 9851 individuals for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Multinomial logistic regressions were performed. Surprisingly, even in countries with organised screening programmes, participation in screenings for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer was most likely to be initiated by the general practitioner (GP) or the participant. In general, GPs were found to play a crucial role in making referrals to screenings, regardless of the country’s screening strategy. The results also revealed differences between educational groups with regard to their incentive to participate in cervical and breast cancer screening and, to a lesser extent, in colorectal cancer screening. People with high education are more likely to participate in cancer screening at their own initiative, while people with less education are more likely to participate at the initiative of a physician or a screening programme. Albeit, the results varied according to type of cancer screening and national screening strategy. Keywords: Cancer screening participation; Cancer screening initiative; Educational inequalities; Organised screening programmes; Opportunistic screening; EU-2

Perspect Public Health

Vaccinations and disease-screening services occupy an important position within the constellation of interventions designed to prevent, forestall or mitigate illness: they straddle the worlds of clinical medicine and public health. This paper focuses on a set of clinical preventive services that are recommended in the USA for adults aged 65 and older, based on their age and gender. These services include immunisations against influenza and pneumococcal disease, and screening for colorectal and breast cancers. We explore opportunities and challenges to enhance the delivery of these interventions, and describe some recently developed models for integrating prevention efforts based in clinician offices and in communities. We also report on a state-level surveillance measure that assesses whether older adults are 'up to date' on this subset of preventive services. To better protect the health of older Americans and change the projected trajectory of medical costs, expanded delivery of recommended vaccinations and disease screenings is likely to remain a focus for both US medicine and public health.20122015-08-11T00:00:00ZCC999999/Intramural CDC HHS/United States22729006PMC4532267704