Primary care physicians' use of family history for cancer risk assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Family history (FH) assessment is useful in identifying and managing patients at increased risk for cancer. This study assessed reported FH quality and associations with physician perceptions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Primary care physicians practicing in two northeastern U.S. states were surveyed (n = 880; 70% response rate). Outcome measures of FH quality were extent of FH taken and ascertaining age at cancer diagnosis for affected family members. Predictors of quality measured in this survey included: perceived advantages and disadvantages of collecting FH information, knowledge of management options, access to supportive resources, and confidence in ability to interpret FH.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Reported collection of information regarding second degree blood relatives and age of diagnosis among affected relatives was low. All hypothesized predictors were associated with measures of FH quality, but not all were consistent independent predictors. Perceived advantages of taking a family history, access to supportive resources, and confidence in ability to identify and manage higher risk patients were independent predictors of both FH quality measures. Perceived disadvantages of taking a family history was independently associated one measure of FH quality. Knowledge of management options was not independently associated with either quality measure.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Modifiable perception and resource factors were independently associated with quality of FH taking in a large and diverse sample of primary care physicians. Improving FH quality for identification of high risk individuals will require multi-faceted interventions.</p

Early Initiation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Individuals with Affected First-degree Relatives

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines recommend initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 40 for individuals with affected first-degree relatives, yet little evidence exists describing how often these individuals receive screening procedures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of individuals in whom early initiation of colorectal cancer screening might be indicated and whether screening disparities exist. DESIGN: Population-based Supplemental Cancer Control Module to the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents, 5,564, aged 40 to 49 years were included within the analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Patient self-report of sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or fecal occult blood test. RESULTS: Overall, 279 respondents (5.4%: 95% C.I., 4.7, 6.2) reported having a first-degree relative affected with colorectal cancer. For individuals with a positive family history, 67 whites (27.9%: 95% C.I., 21.1, 34.5) and 3 African American (9.3%: 95% C.I., 1.7, 37.9) had undergone an endoscopic procedure within the previous 10 years (P-value = .03). After adjusting for age, family history, gender, educational level, insurance status, and usual source of care, whites were more likely to be current with early initiation endoscopic screening recommendations than African Americans (OR = 1.38: 95% C.I., 1.01, 1.87). Having an affected first-degree relative with colorectal cancer appeared to have a stronger impact on endoscopic screening for whites (OR = 3.21: 95% C.I., 2.31, 4.46) than for African Americans (OR = 1.05: 95% C.I., 0.15, 7.21). CONCLUSIONS: White participants with a family history are more likely to have endoscopic procedures beginning before age 50 than African Americans

Missed Opportunities: Family History and Behavioral Risk Factors in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among a Multiethnic Group of Women

BACKGROUND: Clinician’s knowledge of a woman’s cancer family history (CFH) and counseling about health-related behaviors (HRB) is necessary for appropriate breast cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicians solicit CFH and counsel women on HRB; to assess relationship of well visits and patient risk perception or worry with clinician’s behavior. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Multiethnic sample; 1,700 women from San Francisco Mammography Registry with a screening mammogram in 2001–2002. MEASUREMENTS: Predictors: well visit in prior year, self-perception of 10-year breast cancer risk, worry scale. Outcomes: Patient report of clinician asking about CFH in prior year, or ever counseling about HRB in relation to breast cancer risk. Multivariate models included age, ethnicity, education, language of interview, insurance/mammography facility, well visit, ever having a breast biopsy/follow-up mammography, Gail-Model risk, Jewish heritage, and body mass index. RESULTS: 58% reported clinicians asked about CFH; 33% reported clinicians ever discussed HRB. In multivariate analysis, regardless of actual risk, perceived risk, or level of worry, having had a well visit in prior year was associated with increased odds (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.6, 3.3) that a clinician asked about CFH. Regardless of actual risk of breast cancer, a higher level of worry (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.4, 2.6) was associated with increased odds that a clinician ever discussed HRB. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are missing opportunities to elicit family cancer histories and counsel about health-related behaviors and breast cancer risk. Preventive health visits offer opportunities for clinicians to address family history, risk behaviors, and patients’ worries about breast cancer

Informing patients of familial diabetes mellitus risk: How do they respond? A cross-sectional survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A strong family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) confers increased DM risk. This survey analysis determined whether patients who were informed by their doctors of familial DM risk acknowledged that risk and took steps to reduce it.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted an analysis of the National <it>Health Styles 2004 </it>mail survey. All non-diabetic participants who responded to the question of whether their doctor had or had not informed them of their familial DM risk (<it>n </it>= 3,323) were compared for their risk-reducing behaviour and attitude to DM risk.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-one percent (<it>n </it>= 616) of the question responders that had DM family histories were informed by their doctors of their familial risk; the chance of being informed increased with the number of relatives that had the disease. Members of the informed group were more likely than those in the non-informed group to report lifestyle changes to prevent DM (odds ratio [OR] 4.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.5–5.2) and being tested for DM (OR 2.9, 95% CI 2.4–3.6), although no significant improvement occurred in their U.S.-recommended exercise activity (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7–1.1). Overall, informed responders recognised both their familial and personal DM risk; most discussed diabetes with their family (69%), though less so with friends (42%); however, 44% of them still did not consider themselves to be at risk.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Responders who were informed by their doctors of being at familial DM risk reported greater incidences of lifestyle changes, DM screening, and awareness of risk than non-informed responders. Doctors were more likely to inform patients with stronger DM family histories. Identifying this higher risk group, either in isolation or in combination with other recognised risk factors, offers doctors the opportunity to target limited health promotion resources efficiently for primary DM prevention.</p

STAT-HI: A Socio-Technical Assessment Tool for Health Informatics Implementations

This paper proposes a socio-technical assessment tool (STAT-HI) for health informatics implementations. We explore why even projects allegedly using sound methodologies repeatedly fail to give adequate attention to socio-technical issues, and we present an initial draft of a structured assessment tool for health informatics implementation that encapsulates socio-technical good practice. Further work is proposed to enrich and validate the proposed instrument. This proposal was presented for discussion at a meeting of the UK Faculty of Health Informatics in December 2009

Glucose testing and insufficient follow-up of abnormal results: a cohort study

BACKGROUND: More than 6 million Americans have undiagnosed diabetes. Several national organizations endorse screening for diabetes by physicians, but actual practice is poorly understood. Our objectives were to measure the rate, the predictors and the results of glucose testing in primary care, including rates of follow-up for abnormal values. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 301 randomly selected patients with no known diabetes who received care at a large academic general internal medicine practice in New York City. Using medical records, we collected patients' baseline characteristics in 1999 and followed patients through the end of 2002 for all glucose tests ordered. We used multivariate logistic regression to measure associations between diabetes risk factors and the odds of glucose testing. RESULTS: Three-fourths of patients (78%) had at least 1 glucose test ordered. Patient age (≥45 vs. <45 years), non-white ethnicity, family history of diabetes and having more primary care visits were each independently associated with having at least 1 glucose test ordered (p < 0.05), whereas hypertension and hyperlipidemia were not. Fewer than half of abnormal glucose values were followed up by the patients' physicians. CONCLUSION: Although screening for diabetes appears to be common and informed by diabetes risk factors, abnormal values are frequently not followed up. Interventions are needed to trigger identification and further evaluation of abnormal glucose tests

Screening Patients with a Family History of Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVES: To compare screening practices and beliefs in patients with and without a clinically important family history. DESIGN: We mailed a brief questionnaire asking about family history and a second, longer survey asking about knowledge of and beliefs about colorectal cancer to all respondents with a family history and a random sample of respondents without a family history of colorectal cancer. We reviewed electronic medical records for screening examinations and recording of family history. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand eight hundred seventy of 6,807 randomly selected patients ages 35–55 years who had been continuously enrolled in a large multispecialty group practice for at least 5 years. MEASUREMENTS: Recognition of increased risk, screening practices, and beliefs—all according to strength of family history and patient’s age. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of respondents reported a family history of colorectal cancer. In 11%, this history was strong enough to warrant screening before age 50 years. However, only 39% (95% CI 36, 42) of respondents under the age of 50 years said they had been asked about family history and only 45% of those with a strong family history of colorectal cancer had been screened appropriately. Forty-six percent of patients with a strong family history did not know that they should be screened at a younger age than average risk people. Medical records mentioned family history of colorectal cancer in 59% of patients reporting a family history. CONCLUSIONS: More efforts are needed to translate information about family history of colorectal cancer into the care of patients

Patient- and system-related barriers for the earlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A cohort of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients represents an opportunity to study missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Primary objective: To study the epidemiology of diagnostic delays and failures to offer/complete CRC screening. Secondary objective: To identify system- and patient-related factors that may contribute to diagnostic delays or failures to offer/complete CRC screening.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Setting: Rural Veterans Administration (VA) Healthcare system. Participants: CRC cases diagnosed within the VA between 1/1/2000 and 3/1/2007. Data sources: progress notes, orders, and pathology, laboratory, and imaging results obtained between 1/1/1995 and 12/31/2007. Completed CRC screening was defined as a fecal occult blood test or flexible sigmoidoscopy (both within five years), or colonoscopy (within 10 years); delayed diagnosis was defined as a gap of more than six months between an abnormal test result and evidence of clinician response. A summary abstract of the antecedent clinical care for each patient was created by a certified gastroenterologist (GI), who jointly reviewed and coded the abstracts with a general internist (TW).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study population consisted of 150 CRC cases that met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 69.04 (range 35-91); 99 (66%) were diagnosed due to symptoms; 61 cases (46%) had delays associated with system factors; of them, 57 (38% of the total) had delayed responses to abnormal findings. Fifteen of the cases (10%) had prompt symptom evaluations but received no CRC screening; no patient factors were identified as potentially contributing to the failure to screen/offer to screen. In total, 97 (65%) of the cases had missed opportunities for early diagnosis and 57 (38%) had patient factors that likely contributed to the diagnostic delay or apparent failure to screen/offer to screen.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Missed opportunities for earlier CRC diagnosis were frequent. Additional studies of clinical data management, focusing on following up abnormal findings, and offering/completing CRC screening, are needed.</p

Population-based estimates of the relation between breast cancer risk, tumor subtype, and family history.

OBJECTIVE: Many studies that have estimated the breast cancer risk attributable to family history have been based on data collected within family units. Use of this study design has likely overestimated risks for the general population. We provide population-based estimates of breast cancer risk and different tumor subtypes in relation to the degree, number, and age at diagnosis of affected relatives. METHODS: Cox Proportional Hazards to calculate risks (hazard ratios; 95% confidence interval) of breast cancer and tumor subtypes for women with a family history of breast cancer relative to women without a family history among a cohort of 75,189 women age >or=40 years of whom 1,087 were diagnosed with breast cancer from June 1, 2001-December 31, 2005 (median follow-up 3.16 years). RESULTS: Breast cancer risk was highest for women with a first-degree family history (1.54; 1.34-1.77); and did not differ substantially by the affected relative's age at diagnosis or by number of affected first-degree relatives. A second-degree family history only was not associated with a significantly increased breast cancer risk (1.15; 0.98-1.35). There was a suggestion that a positive family history was associated with risk of triple positive (Estrogen+/Progesterone+/HER2+) and HER2-overexpressing tumors. CONCLUSIONS: While a family history of breast cancer in first-degree relatives is an important risk factor for breast cancer, gathering information such as the age at diagnosis of affected relatives or information on second-degree relative history may be unnecessary in assessing personal breast cancer risk among women age >or=40 years

The meaning of quality work from the general practitioner's perspective: an interview study

BACKGROUND: The quality of health care and its costs have been a subject of considerable attention and lively discussion. Various methods have been introduced to measure, assess, and improve the quality of health care. Many professionals in health care have criticized quality work and its methods as being unsuitable for health care. The aim of the study was to obtain a deeper understanding of the meaning of quality work from the general practitioner's perspective. METHODS: Fourteen general practitioners, seven women and seven men, were interviewed with the aid of a semi-structured interview guide about their experience of quality work. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data collection and analysis were guided by a phenomenological approach intended to capture the essence of the statements. RESULTS: Two fundamentally different ways to view quality work emerged from the statements: A pronounced top-down perspective with elements of control, and an intra-profession or bottom-up perspective. From the top-down perspective, quality work was described as something that infringes professional freedom. From the bottom-up perspective the statements described quality work as a self-evident duty and as a professional attitude to the medical vocation, guided by the principles of medical ethics. Follow-up with a bottom-up approach is best done in internal processes, with the profession itself designing structures and methods based on its own needs. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that general practitioners view internal follow-up as a professional obligation but external control as an imposition. This opposition entails a difficulty in achieving systematism in follow-up and quality work in health care. If the statutory standards for systematic quality work are to gain a real foothold, they must be packaged in such a way that general practitioners feel that both perspectives can be reconciled