scholarly journals P2.11-24 The First Comprehensive Primary Care Provider Training for Lung Cancer Care in the U.S. - An Innovative Online Course

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. S801-S802
Author(s):  
C. Worth ◽  
M. Jones ◽  
R. Mattingly ◽  
S. Sthapit-Gaines ◽  
C. Sorrell
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Online Course ◽  
Provider Training ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals B41 Translating Lung Cancer Research into Primary Care Provider Training: An Innovative Online Course

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. S38-S39
Author(s):  
C.T. Worth ◽  
S. Sthapit-Gaines ◽  
K.F. Coombs ◽  
M. Jones ◽  
C.L. Sorrell
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Research ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Online Course ◽  
Provider Training

Primary Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening. A Qualitative Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 1977-1982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeti M. Kanodra ◽  
Charlene Pope ◽  
Chanita H. Halbert ◽  
Gerard A. Silvestri ◽  
LaShanta J. Rice ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Patient Perspectives

Performance of a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening program: Findings from a registry study.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 304-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernardo Goulart ◽  
David Madtes ◽  
Lisel Koepl ◽  
Andrew Karnopp ◽  
Judy Ann Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Registry Study

304 Background: Many centers are establishing LDCT lung cancer screening programs after the 2013 grade B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Uncertainty remains regarding the extent to which new programs will adhere to recommended selection criteria, as well as screening program performance. We analyzed adherence to selection criteria, rate of positive screens, and prevalence of incidental findings in a single-center LDCT screening registry study. Methods: We established a prospective, longitudinal registry study of patients undergoing LDCT screening at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Baseline data include socio-demographic characteristics and eligibility for LDCT screening. We conduct chart reviews at 6 and 12 months to determine screening results (based on NLST definitions); lung cancer diagnosis; and incidental findings. Results: From August 2012 to April 2014, 62 out of 105 (59%) screened patients enrolled in the registry. Mean age is 62 years; 38 (61%) are male; 52 (84%) are white; mean household income is $97,363; 31 (50%) are current smokers; and 39 (63%) have a smoking history ≥ 30 pack-years. A total of 28 (45%), 31 (50%), and 31 (50%) of patients were eligible for screening based on criteria used in the NLST or recommended by the NCCN or USPSTF guidelines, respectively. Sixteen patients (26%) were not eligible for screening based on any of these criteria. For fourteen (88%) of these patients, LDCT screening was ordered by a primary care provider as opposed to a lung cancer specialist. Initial screening results were positive in 7 (13%) patients, with 1 patient diagnosed with lung cancer. At least one incidental finding was reported in 40 (74%) patients, including cardiac and pulmonary abnormalities in 28 (70%) and 25 (63%) patients. Conclusions: About one quarter of patients undergoing LDCT screening do not meet recommended criteria, with primary care providers most commonly ordering the LDCT screen for these patients. Primary care provider education may improve adherence to screening guidelines. Incidental findings were more frequently reported than in the NLST; their impact on healthcare outcomes and costs deserves further investigation.

Primary Care Provider Training in Screening, Assessment, and Treatment of Adolescent Depression

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise M. Fallucco ◽  
Robbin D. Seago ◽  
Steven P. Cuffe ◽  
Dale F. Kraemer ◽  
Tim Wysocki
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Adolescent Depression ◽  
Provider Training ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Screening Assessment

scholarly journals Integrating Genomic Screening into Primary Care: Provider Experiences Caring for Latino Patients at a Community-Based Health Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110002
Author(s):  
Tarika Srinivasan ◽  
Erica J. Sutton ◽  
Annika T. Beck ◽  
Idali Cuellar ◽  
Valentina Hernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Health Center ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Primary Care Provider ◽  
Genomic Sequencing ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Genomic Screening

Introduction: Minority communities have had limited access to advances in genomic medicine. Mayo Clinic and Mountain Park Health Center, a Federally Qualified Health Center in Phoenix, Arizona, partnered to assess the feasibility of offering genomic screening to Latino patients receiving care at a community-based health center. We examined primary care provider (PCP) experiences reporting genomic screening results and integrating those results into patient care. Methods: We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and other members of the health care team charged with supporting patients who received positive genomic screening results. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Results: Of the 500 patients who pursued genomic screening, 10 received results indicating a genetic variant that warranted clinical management. PCPs felt genomic screening was valuable to patients and their families, and that genomic research should strive to include underrepresented minorities. Providers identified multiple challenges integrating genomic sequencing into patient care, including difficulties maintaining patient contact over time; arranging follow-up medical care; and managing results in an environment with limited genetics expertise. Providers also reflected on the ethics of offering genomic sequencing to patients who may not be able to pursue diagnostic testing or follow-up care due to financial constraints. Conclusions: Our results highlight the potential benefits and challenges of bringing advances in precision medicine to community-based health centers serving under-resourced populations. By proactively considering patient support needs, and identifying financial assistance programs and patient-referral mechanisms to support patients who may need specialized medical care, PCPs and other health care providers can help to ensure that precision medicine lives up to its full potential as a tool for improving patient care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document