Implementing physician education to increase lung cancer screening compliance.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18282-e18282
Author(s):  
Coral Olazagasti ◽  
Devi Sampat ◽  
Adam Rothman ◽  
Nagashree Seetharamu ◽  
David Steiger
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Physician Education ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Internal Medicine Clinic

e18282 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The USPSTF recommends annual low-dose CT chest (LDCT) for lung cancer screening in adults who meet the appropriate criteria: age 55-80, current smokers or former smokers who quit within 15years, with a 30 pack-year smoking history. Even with these recommendations, screening rates in these patients remain low. We created a study to assess compliance in an outpatient Internal Medicine clinic to assess the barriers for obtaining LDCT. We hypothesized that by providing an educational program, overall compliance would increase. Methods: The study was divided in two arms: a pre-intervention arm and a post-intervention assessment. Initially, 35 physicians completed a questionnaire on their attitudes to LDCT screening and their reasons for not screening high risk patients. We created a lung cancer screening education program, which consisted of lectures provided to physicians. Following the lectures, consecutive patient visits were reviewed to assess compliance with screening. Results: In the first arm, 678 visits were reviewed. 115 patients met USPSTF criteria of whom only 26% underwent screening with LDCT. The most common reasons for not ordering LDCT scans in patients meeting criteria included: poor knowledge of criteria (22%), failure to determine if patients qualified (13%), patient refusal (8%). Following the education, 208 patients out of the 955 visits reviewed met USPSTF criteria, of which 78% underwent LDCT. Our study showed how after education, physicians were ten times more likely to screen patients for lung cancer (Odds ratio 9.98, 95% CI 5.87-16.94, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: We confirmed there was suboptimal adherence to established LDCT lung cancer screening guidelines, mainly due to unfamiliarity with the screening criteria. By providing educational lectures, compliance improved significantly. We concluded that educating physicians about lung cancer screening guidelines increased LDCT screening tenfold, and therefore benefit patients that are at high risk for developing lung cancer.

Post-intervention lung cancer screening compliance among internal medicine resident physicians at a primary care clinic in Hartford, Connecticut.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6569-6569
Author(s):  
Nerea Lopetegui-Lia ◽  
Daniel Condit ◽  
Gian Carlo Castor Lima ◽  
Dimitrios Drekolias ◽  
Jasmin Hundal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Insurance Approval

6569 Background: Lung cancer (ca) screening has shown to reduce mortality by up to 20%.Despite this, only 4% of eligible patients in the US undergo screening. Our initial analysis revealed that 18.3% of patients who met screening criteria had an appropriately ordered LDCT scan, with an 8.7% completion rate. The aim of this study was to improve lung ca screening compliance following the USPSTF guidelines among residents from the University of Connecticut Internal Medicine (IM) residency program at a Clinic in Hartford, Connecticut. Methods: Care provided to patients by an IM resident at the Gengras Clinic were included. After initial data was gathered, we implemented an intervention to improve screening compliance between October 2019 and March 2020, when SARS-CoV-2 pandemic occurred and routine services were interrupted. USPSTF screening guidelines were emailed monthly to residents and attendings; they were reminded of the importance of lung ca screening; updating the pack-year smoking history; as well as instructions on correctly ordering LDCT and documenting shared decision making, which is needed for insurance approval. In-person reminders also occurred at the clinic. Results: Post-intervention, 601 charts were reviewed. 168/601 (27%) patients met screening criteria. 433 patients were excluded due to unclear pack-year, did not meet screening criteria, were deceased or last seen at the clinic prior to the intervention. 63/168 (37.5%) met the criteria and had an appropriately ordered LDCT; 51/168 (30.35%) had a completed LDCT in chart. The remaining 12/168 (7.14%) with an appropriately ordered LDCT, had it scheduled at the time of data collection or it had been cancelled for unclear reasons. 20 patients’ LDCT was ordered by their pulmonologist. 94 (62.5%) who met screening criteria did not have a LDCT ordered. 11 patients with a smoking history, who did not meet screening criteria had a LDCT ordered because of clinical suspicion for cancer. Lastly, 4/168 (2.4%) had a diagnosis of personal history of lung ca. Conclusions: After our educational intervention, patients who qualified had an increase of LDCT being ordered (37.5% from 18.3%) and completed (30.3% from 8.7%). This is, to our knowledge, the first study of its kind. We identified areas of improvement that were key to achieving higher screening rates: educating all residents and attendings on lung ca screening guidelines; educating patients on the importance of undergoing screening tests; creating a best practice advisory in the electronic medical record system that reminds provider to input pack-year smoking history and if the criteria for screening is met, a pop-up prompting the provider to order LDCT; obtaining insurance approval; and lastly, stressing the importance on screening and overall outcomes.

Socio-demographic variations in lung cancer screening before and after USPSTF recommendation: Results from national health interview surveys (NHIS).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1563-1563
Author(s):  
Qian Wang ◽  
Changchuan Jiang ◽  
Lei Deng ◽  
Yaning Zhang ◽  
Gabriel Albert Sara
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Household Income ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Screening Rate ◽  
The Past ◽  
Before And After

1563 Background: In 2013, USPSTF recommended low-dose CT screening (LCS) for lung cancer in high-risk adults. The change in real-world practice is largely unknown, as well as the association with socio-demographic factors. Methods: Data were extracted from the population-based 2010 and 2015 NHIS. LCS was defined as a chest CT to check for lung cancer within the past year. We included adults aged 55 to 80 years who 1) have 30+ pack-year smoking history; 2) are currently smokers or have quitted within the past 15 years. We excluded adults who 1) have lung cancer; 2) had not seen a physician in the past year. We used weighted analyses to estimate national lung cancer screening rates. Results: A total of 874 and 1041 high-risk smokers responded to the LCS questions for lung cancer in 2010 and 2015, respectively. The screening rate more than doubled from 4.1% to 9.1% (P < 0.01) in all respondents. The increase was greater in women (2.9% to 9.5%, p < 0.01) than men (5.2% to 8.8%, p = 0.03) and in age 65-80 (4.7% to 12.3%, p < 0.01) than age 55-64 (3.8% to 6.3%, p = 0.16). White saw the largest increase and highest rate in 2015 (4.0% to 9.3%, p = < 0.01). Those with some college or above education had the highest rate in 2010, but the lowest in 2015. Household income above 75,000 dollars was associated with the lowest rate in both 2010 and 2015. Conclusions: Since the recommendation of USPSTF, LCS rate for lung cancer has doubled but remains less than 10%. Higher education and household income are associated with lower screening rate, in contrast to studies of other cancers. [Table: see text]

Increasing lung cancer screening rates in HIV clinics.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 189-189
Author(s):  
Shawn Jindal ◽  
Maria Serrano ◽  
Sarah Baron ◽  
Matthew Stuart ◽  
Mariam Alexander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Mortality ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Hiv Patients ◽  
Screening Criteria

189 Background: Data at our institution shows lung cancer is more prevalent and aggressive in HIV patients. A study of lung cancer patients revealed a mean age of 55.8 years in those with HIV vs. 68.0 in those without. Additionally, 67% of HIV patients had metastasis at time of diagnosis, compared to 49% in the overall population. One study found an 18.9% reduction in lung cancer mortality among HIV patients who receive NLST-recommended screening. Despite this, data from 2018 estimated only 13% of eligible HIV patients had completed screening at our institution. We pursued a quality improvement initiative to increase lung cancer screening in our HIV clinics. Methods: Our multi-disciplinary team studied charts of the 628 HIV clinic patients seen in a four-month span to identify those who had not received lung cancer screening and potential reasons why referrals were not made. We also spoke with clinic providers to identify improvement areas. Our intervention encompassed HIV patients that met CMS screening criteria (i.e. age 55-77, 30 pack-year smoking). Our process measure was new referrals to our dedicated screening coordinator, who contacts patients to arrange for CT scans. We plotted trends in appointment referrals on a run chart. Results: Areas for improvement included EMR documentation to assess screening eligibility and an occasional lack of awareness regarding criteria. Providers also cited time constraints may limit referrals. Our team identified patients that met screening criteria and generated EMR reminders for providers to refer patients to radiology. We also held sessions with providers and nursing staff to increase awareness of our screening program. Of 628 patients, 128 (20.4%) had sufficient documented smoking history to assess for screening eligibility. 81 patients (63.3%) met our criteria. Of these patients, 58 (71.6%) had not been screened or referred for screening. Through our most recent interventions, 16 (31.3%) patients have been referred to our screening coordinator, and 7 (12.1%) have received screening CT scans. Our interventions ultimately led to an increase from 23 of 81 (28.4%) patients with completed screening to a projected 46 of 81 (56.8%). Conclusions: Providing education and EMR alerts to raise awareness regarding eligibility, we substantially increased the screening rate in our clinics. Our interventions will be broadened as we return from COVID stoppages. Future interventions include increasing smoking history documentation in the EMR to allow for automated identification of screening eligibility. PDSA and interventions are ongoing with continued follow-up of efficacy.

scholarly journals Attitudes towards Lung Cancer Screening in an Australian High-Risk Population

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra E. Flynn ◽  
Matthew J. Peters ◽  
Lucy C. Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Cancer Screening Test

Objectives. To determine whether persons at high risk of lung cancer would participate in lung cancer screening test if available in Australia and to elicit general attitudes towards cancer screening and factors that might affect participation in a screening program. Methods. We developed a 20-item written questionnaire, based on two published telephone interview scripts, addressing attitudes towards cancer screening, perceived risk of lung cancer, and willingness to be screened for lung cancer and to undertake surgery if lung cancer were detected. The questionnaire was given to 102 current and former smokers attending the respiratory clinic and pulmonary rehabilitation programmes. Results. We gained 90 eligible responses (M:F, 69:21). Mean [SD] age was 63 [11] and smoking history was 32 [21] pack years. 95% of subjects would participate in a lung cancer screening test, and 91% of these would consider surgery if lung cancer was detected. 44% of subjects considered that they were at risk of lung cancer. This was lower in ex-smokers than in current smokers. Conclusions. There is high willingness for lung cancer screening and surgical treatment. There is underrecognition of risk among ex-smokers. This misperception could be a barrier to a successful screening or case-finding programme in Australia.

Assessing risk-based LDCT screening strategies versus the current USPSTF lung cancer screening recommendations at an institutional setting.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13572-e13572
Author(s):  
Carol Velez Martinez ◽  
Aswani Thurlapati ◽  
Samina Hirani ◽  
Constance Larea Cole ◽  
Jade Abad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Individual Risk Assessment

e13572 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in men and women with 1.76 million deaths worldwide in 2018 [1]. Given its high prevalence and mortality, trials were developed to improve screening strategies. National-Lung-Screening-Trial showed a 20% relative-risk-reduction in mortality in people screened with annual low-dose-CT-scan [2] leading to the implementation of current USPSTF guidelines. We used USPSTF screening criteria to estimate the proportion of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that would have been screening-eligible at our institution.Upon chart review 33% of overall lung cancer patients at our institution did not meet the screening guidelines. We decided to investigate the need to modify the current screening guidelines of our institution based on individual risk assessment. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of the new diagnoses at Louisiana-State-University-Shreveport from 2011-2015. Patients were categorized into high-risk (groups 1 and 2), moderate risk, and low risk according to 2018 NCCN Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Version 1.2020 [3]. To differentiate between high-risk group 2 and moderate risk, the Tammemagi lung cancer risk calculator was employed, considering 1.3% threshold of lung cancer risk over 6-year time frame [4]. According to NCCN, high-risk group 1 and 2 are eligible for annual low-dose-CT-scan. Results: 33% of overall lung cancer patients at our institution did not meet the screening guidelines criteria, among the 33% ineligible for screening, only 12.5% fell under the high-risk category based on the Tammemagi calculator. Conclusions: Despite using individual risk assessment based on Tammemagi calculator, 87.5% of lung cancer patients ineligible to current USPSTF guidelines are still missing the eligibility for screening at our institution. We believe more efficient risk prediction models have to be developed to improve selection of individuals for lung cancer screening.

Extent of implementation of low-dose CT in lung cancer screening.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19177-e19177
Author(s):  
Merin Jose ◽  
Rajesh Desai
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Community Clinic ◽  
Low Dose Ct ◽  
The Impact

e19177 Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States with only 15% alive 5 years after diagnosis. In 2013, USPSTF recommended annual screening for LDCT in high risk individuals. Studies had shown a 20% lower mortality (NELSON trial showed significantly lower lung cancer mortality) with LDCT screening. We aimed to assess the extent to which the guideline for lung cancer screening is being adopted in a community clinic. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical record of patients aged 55-80 years with no history of lung cancer who visited a primary care provider in a community clinic in New Jersey from October 2014- December 2019 was done. All records with any form of documentation of smoking were identified electronically. The records of those meeting the criteria (30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoking or have quit within the past 15 years) were reviewed manually to check 1) whether they are eligible for screening, 2) if eligible whether low dose CT has been recommended by the provider and 3) once recommended has it been done and followed by the patients. Results: 359 individuals with documented smoking history were identified. Of those 38.8 % (139/359) had a proper documentation (includes both PPD and number of years of smoking) of smoking history based on which high risk individuals could be identified. Of those 37 individuals met the criteria for lung cancer screening. 62% (23/37) had CT chest ordered at some point of time (16.2% for a different indication and the rest for lung cancer screening). Only 52.2% (12/23) of the patients followed the recommendations and got a LDCT done. Among those 50% (6/12) had follow up CT, 50 % (3/6) of those did it on a regular annual basis while the rest 50% (3/6) did it irregularly. 3 patients followed the annual CT screening for lung cancer. Conclusions: Based on these we note that almost half a decade since the recommendation has been established only a small proportion received the care and a still smaller minority followed it. It reflects the dearth of information regarding the guideline among providers and the lack of awareness of the need to follow among patients. This puts forward need for further interventions for implementation of the guidelines at all levels of care for lung cancer prevention. Measures include analyzing the areas of deficiency through questionnaires for patients and providers. Creating awareness on the need for accurate documentation of smoking history and the impact it can have on care delivered. Educating patients about the benefits in health outcome by following the recommendations.

Closing the gap in health care disparities by improving the rate of lung cancer screening in an intercity hospital.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 195-195
Author(s):  
Anika Bhargava ◽  
Akshay Kohli ◽  
Irina Veytsman
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Care Disparities ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Clinical Reminder ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Pdsa Cycle ◽  
Number Of Patients

195 Background: The National Lung Cancer Screening Trial showed reduced lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening. Although LDCT is generally covered by private and government insurance, the rate of LDCT screening has been reported to be very low (2-3%) in previous studies. One of the main barriers in adequate screening was assessment of smoking history to identify eligible populations. Purpose: To increase the rate of lung cancer screening in Medstar Washington Hospital Center Internal Medicine (WHCIM) clinics from a baseline rate of 2.88% by 50% over a 3-month period. Methods: Retrospective baseline data was collected over a 2-week period 01/06/2020–01/17/2020 from patients visits at WHCIM to assess the rate of lung cancer screening. A session was held with physicians and nursing staff to find the barriers in identifying eligible patients for lung cancer screening and to create a fishbone diagram. The first plan-do-study act cycle (PDSA) was initiated from 02/24/2020–03/13/2020 where we piloted a clinical reminder in the form of a print-out filled out by the medical assistants at check in and then given to physicians. The form included the patient's age and simple smoking questionnaire according to the lung cancer screening guidelines. Data was collected during this time period which included documentation of patient’s smoking history, lung cancer screening eligibility and referral to LDCT. Results: By retrospective analysis from the time period of 01/06/2020-01/17/2020 providers documented a smoking history in only 16% of patients seen and only 2.88% of all patients seen over the age of 55 were referred for lung cancer screening. Post intervention for the time period of 02/24/2020-03/13/2020 increased the amount of documented smoking history by providers to 26% and number of patients sent for lung cancer screening to 6.0%. Of patients who met the criteria for lung cancer screening, prior to the intervention only 42% of patients were referred. However, after the clinical reminder has been initiated, 86% of patients who did meet the criteria were sent for screening. Conclusions: The clinical reminder has increased documentation of smoking history by 62% and lung cancer screening for those who meet the criteria according to the guidelines by a relative increase of 105%. We are currently working on PDSA cycle 2 to incorporate education materials in the encounter room and PDSA cycle 3 to incorporate this clinical reminder into the electronic medical record and to implement hospital wide.

One size does not fit all: Evaluating disparities in lung cancer screening eligibility amongst Hispanic/LatinX and African Americans.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6538-6538
Author(s):  
Coral Olazagasti ◽  
Matthew Ehrlich ◽  
Nina Kohn ◽  
Nagashree Seetharamu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
Screening Guidelines

6538 Background: Lung cancer (LC) is the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanic men. African Americans (AA) have the highest LC mortality rate in the United States (US). We sought to identify the tendencies for screening eligibility amongst Hispanic/LatinX (H/L) and AA prior to their LC diagnosis according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and The United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. Methods: We conducted an observational study in patients diagnosed with LC from 2016 to 2019. Current and former smokers were included in the analysis. Charts were reviewed for demographics, smoking history, family history, personal history of other malignancy, and prior exposures to assess screening their eligibility prior to LC. The chi-square test was used to examine the association between race and ethnicity with each screening criteria. Results: A total of 530 subjects were reviewed, of which 428 were included in the analysis. One hundred and fifty three and 245 subjects were ineligible for NCCN and USPSTF screening criteria prior to their LC diagnosis. Twenty-eight of the subjects failing to meet NCCN criteria identified as AA and 12 as H/L. Forty and 20 of the USPSTF ineligible subjects identified as AA and H/L. There was a significant association between ethnicity and individual screening eligibility, where 52% of H/L met NCCN eligibility compared to 20% of H/L who met USPSTF eligibility (p = 0.0010). There was a significant association between ethnicity and USPSTF criteria (p = 0.0166), as 80% of H/L subjects were screening ineligible under USPSTF criteria compared to 56% of non-Hispanic or other [Table]. Conclusions: In our study, H/L had significant lower tendencies of meeting the USPSTF LC screening eligibility criteria than non-H/L or other. Notably, there was a profound association between ethnicity and eligibility of screening criteria, where a proportionally higher number of H/L who were ineligible under USPSTF criteria met NCCN criteria. These findings suggest that leniency in the screening criteria can possibly lead to earlier detection of lung cancer in high-risk individuals. Our study is in line with developing data that minority individuals at high-risk for lung cancer can be missed, mainly if current USPSTF criteria was to be applied. Recently, USPSTF has modify their criteria which may benefit more of these individuals. To improve rates of screening and overall mortality of minorities, organizations should continue to re-evaluate and liberalize their screening guidelines.[Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document