Operationalizing a Rideshare Intervention for Colonoscopy Completion: Barriers, Facilitators, and Process Recommendations

IntroductionTransportation is a common barrier to colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The study aims to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process recommendations to implement a rideshare non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) intervention following colonoscopy completion within a safety-net healthcare setting.MethodsWe used informal stakeholder engagement, story boards—a novel user-centered design technique, listening sessions and the nominal group technique to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process to implementing a rideshare NEMT program following colonoscopy completion in a large safety-net healthcare system.ResultsBarriers to implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention for colonoscopy completion included: inability to expand an existing NEMT program beyond Medicaid patients and lack of patient chaperones with rideshare NEMT programs. Facilitators included: commercially available rideshare NEMT platforms that were lower cost and had shorter wait times than the alternative of taxis. Operationalizing and implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention in our healthcare system required the following steps: 1) identifying key stakeholders, 2) engaging stakeholder groups in discussion to identify barriers and solutions, 3) obtaining institutional sign-off, 4) developing a process for reviewing and selecting a rideshare NEMT program, 5) executing contracts, 6) developing a standard operating procedure and 7) training clinic staff to use the rideshare platform.DiscussionRideshare NEMT after procedural sedation is administered may improve colonoscopy completion rates and provide one solution to inadequate CRC screening. If successful, our rideshare model could be broadly applicable to other safety-net health systems, populations with high social needs, and settings where procedural sedation is administered.

Do patient-reported outcome measures measure up? A qualitative study to examine perceptions and experiences with heart failure proms among diverse, low-income patients

Background The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) used to evaluate the health status of patients with heart failure (HF) but has predominantly been tested in settings serving predominately white, male, and economically well-resourced populations. We sought to examine the acceptability of the shorter version of the KCCQ (KCCQ-12) among racially and ethnically diverse patients receiving care in an urban, safety-net setting. Methods We conducted cognitive interviews with a diverse population of patients with heart failure in a safety net system to assess their perceptions of the KCCQ-12. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data then mapped themes to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behavior framework. Results We interviewed 18 patients with heart failure and found that patients broadly endorsed the concepts of the KCCQ-12 with minor suggestions to improve the instrument’s content and appearance. Although patients accepted the KCCQ-12, we found that the instrument did not adequately measure aspects of health care and quality of life that patients identified as being important components of managing their heart failure. Patient-important factors of heart failure management coalesced into three main themes: social support, health care environment, and mental health. Conclusions Patients from this diverse, low-income, majority non-white population experience unique challenges and circumstances that impact their ability to manage disease. In this study, patients were receptive to the KCCQ-12 as a tool but perceived that it did not adequately capture key health components such as mental health and social relationships that deeply impact their ability to manage HF. Further study on the incorporation of social determinants of health into PROMs could make them more useful tools in evaluating and managing HF in diverse, underserved populations.

Patients´ experiences in a newly established clinic for late complications after colorectal and anal cancer treatment: a qualitative study

Purpose Treatment of late complications is not systematically provided in Denmark. We therefore established a clinic to treat patients´ late complications. With this study we wanted to explore patients´ experiences with treatment and care in the clinic, including their recommendations for the future organization and structure of the clinic. Methods We conducted a qualitative semi-structured interview study with patients who had attended our late complication clinic after treatment for colorectal or anal cancer. Results We included 14 patients. We found two main categories: 1: benefitting from the late complication clinic and 2: preparation and delivery of the consultations. Patients benefitted from attending the late complication clinic and some experienced complete relief from symptoms. Others did not, but they gained hope that they might be able to receive treatment in the future. Patients wished for more information about late complications, preferring that the most common symptoms were described along with patient-friendly treatment options. The patients were satisfied with telephone consultations, as they were easy to fit into a daily schedule, and patients found it easy to express themselves openly. Conclusions Patients were satisfied with the late complication clinic as they felt it gave them a safety net. For the future, patients recommended provision of more information about late complications and possible treatments.

Emergency department utilization for substance use disorders and mental health conditions during COVID-19

Background As the emergency department (ED) has evolved into the de-facto site of care for a variety of substance use disorder (SUD) presentations, trends in ED utilization are an essential public health surveillance tool. Changes in ED visit patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic may reflect changes in access to outpatient treatment, changes in SUD incidence, or the unintended effects of public policy to mitigate COVID-19. We use a national emergency medicine registry to describe and characterize trends in ED visitation for SUDs since 2019. Methods We included all ED visits identified in a national emergency medicine clinical quality registry, which included 174 sites across 33 states with data from January 2019 through June 2021. We defined SUD using ED visit diagnosis codes including: opioid overdose and opioid use disorder (OUD), alcohol use disorders (AUD), and other SUD. To characterize changes in ED utilization, we plotted the 3-week moving average ratio of visit counts in 2020 and 2021 as compared to visit counts in 2019. Findings While overall ED visits declined in the early pandemic period and had not returned to 2019 baseline by June 2021, ED visit counts for SUD demonstrated smaller declines in March and April of 2020, so that the proportion of overall ED visits that were for SUD increased. Furthermore, in the second half of 2020, ED visits for SUD returned to baseline, and increased above baseline for OUD ever since May 2020. Conclusions We observe distinct patterns in ED visitation for SUDs over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for OUD for which ED visitation barely declined and now exceeds previous baselines. These trends likely demonstrate the essential role of hospital-based EDs in providing 24/7/365 care for people with SUDs and mental health conditions. Allocation of resources must be directed towards the ED as a de-facto safety net for populations in crisis.

Why the World Should Not Follow the Failed United States Model of Fighting Domestic Hunger

Many industrialized nations have followed the lead of the United States (US) in reducing workers’ wages and cutting government safety nets, while giving their populaces the false impression that non-governmental organizations can meet the food and basic survival needs of their low-income residents. The history of the last 50 years and the global COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate why that is a mistake, leading to vastly increased household food insecurity, poverty, and hunger. This paper takes a close look at US data to help to better understand the significant impact US federal government policy measures had on limiting hunger throughout the pandemic and how we can learn from these outcomes to finally end hunger in America and other developed nations. The top three policy prescriptions vital in ending household food insecurity in the US and industrialized countries are as follows: (1) to create jobs; raise wages; make high quality healthcare and prescription medicine free; and ensure that high quality childcare, education, transportation, and broad-band access are affordable to all; (2) to enact a comprehensive “Assets Empowerment Agenda” to help low-income people move from owing to owning in order to develop middle-class wealth; and (3) when the above two steps are inadequate, ensure a robust government safety net for struggling residents that provides cash, food, and housing assistance.

Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: A Real-World Comparison of Therapy Access and Outcomes by Hospital Setting

Background This study analyzes sociodemographic barriers for primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) treatment and outcomes at a public safety-net hospital versus a private tertiary academic institution. We hypothesized that these barriers would lead to access disparities and poorer outcomes in the safety-net population. Methods We reviewed records of PCNSL patients from 2007-2020 (n = 95) at a public safety-net hospital (n = 33) and a private academic center (n = 62) staffed by the same university. Demographics, treatment patterns, and outcomes were analyzed. Results Patients at the safety-net hospital were significantly younger, more commonly Black or Hispanic, and had a higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS. They were significantly less likely to receive induction chemotherapy (67% vs 86%, p = 0.003) or consolidation autologous stem cell transplantation (0% vs. 44%, p = 0.001), but received more whole-brain radiation therapy (35% vs 15%, p = 0.001). Younger age and receiving any consolidation therapy were associated with improved progression-free (PFS, p = 0.001) and overall survival (OS, p = 0.001). Hospital location had no statistical impact on PFS (p = 0.725) or OS (p = 0.226) on an age-adjusted analysis. Conclusions Our study shows significant differences in treatment patterns for PCNSL between a public safety-net hospital and an academic cancer center. A significant survival difference was not demonstrated, which is likely multifactorial, but likely was positively impacted by the shared multidisciplinary care delivery between the institutions. As personalized therapies for PCNSL are being developed, equitable access including clinical trials should be advocated for resource-limited settings.