1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic–Community Practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic–community practice.

          Methods

          Data from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence.

          Results

          The Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy.

          Conclusions

          Real-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.

          HIGHLIGHTS

          • Organized colorectal cancer screening programs can enhance stool-based testing.

          • Early institutional support is essential for program start-up and sustainment.

          • Strong cross-departmental relationships are key to successful implementation.

          • Robust data management is needed to identify, track, and analyze program outcomes.

          • Detailing implementation of cancer screening programs might increase uptake.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Cancer statistics, 2023

          Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence and outcomes using incidence data collected by central cancer registries and mortality data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2023, 1,958,310 new cancer cases and 609,820 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Cancer incidence increased for prostate cancer by 3% annually from 2014 through 2019 after two decades of decline, translating to an additional 99,000 new cases; otherwise, however, incidence trends were more favorable in men compared to women. For example, lung cancer in women decreased at one half the pace of men (1.1% vs. 2.6% annually) from 2015 through 2019, and breast and uterine corpus cancers continued to increase, as did liver cancer and melanoma, both of which stabilized in men aged 50 years and older and declined in younger men. However, a 65% drop in cervical cancer incidence during 2012 through 2019 among women in their early 20s, the first cohort to receive the human papillomavirus vaccine, foreshadows steep reductions in the burden of human papillomavirus-associated cancers, the majority of which occur in women. Despite the pandemic, and in contrast with other leading causes of death, the cancer death rate continued to decline from 2019 to 2020 (by 1.5%), contributing to a 33% overall reduction since 1991 and an estimated 3.8 million deaths averted. This progress increasingly reflects advances in treatment, which are particularly evident in the rapid declines in mortality (approximately 2% annually during 2016 through 2020) for leukemia, melanoma, and kidney cancer, despite stable/increasing incidence, and accelerated declines for lung cancer. In summary, although cancer mortality rates continue to decline, future progress may be attenuated by rising incidence for breast, prostate, and uterine corpus cancers, which also happen to have the largest racial disparities in mortality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for Colorectal Cancer : US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

            Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

              Background Effective implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) remains a significant challenge. Numerous existing models and frameworks identify key factors and processes to facilitate implementation. However, there is a need to better understand how individual models and frameworks are applied in research projects, how they can support the implementation process, and how they might advance implementation science. This systematic review examines and describes the research application of a widely used implementation framework, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify and evaluate the use of the EPIS framework in implementation efforts. Citation searches in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Social Sciences Index, and Google Scholar databases were undertaken. Data extraction included the objective, language, country, setting, sector, EBP, study design, methodology, level(s) of data collection, unit(s) of analysis, use of EPIS (i.e., purpose), implementation factors and processes, EPIS stages, implementation strategy, implementation outcomes, and overall depth of EPIS use (rated on a 1–5 scale). Results In total, 762 full-text articles were screened by four reviewers, resulting in inclusion of 67 articles, representing 49 unique research projects. All included projects were conducted in public sector settings. The majority of projects (73%) investigated the implementation of a specific EBP. The majority of projects (90%) examined inner context factors, 57% examined outer context factors, 37% examined innovation factors, and 31% bridging factors (i.e., factors that cross or link the outer system and inner organizational context). On average, projects measured EPIS factors across two of the EPIS phases (M = 2.02), with the most frequent phase being Implementation (73%). On average, the overall depth of EPIS inclusion was moderate (2.8 out of 5). Conclusion This systematic review enumerated multiple settings and ways the EPIS framework has been applied in implementation research projects, and summarized promising characteristics and strengths of the framework, illustrated with examples. Recommendations for future use include more precise operationalization of factors, increased depth and breadth of application, development of aligned measures, and broadening of user networks. Additional resources supporting the operationalization of EPIS are available. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                AJPM Focus
                AJPM Focus
                AJPM Focus
                Elsevier
                2773-0654
                07 January 2024
                April 2024
                07 January 2024
                : 3
                : 2
                : 100188
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington
                [2 ]UW Medicine Primary Care and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
                [3 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
                [4 ]Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington
                [5 ]Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to: Rachel B. Issaka, MD, MAS, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, Mail Stop M3-B232, Seattle WA 98109. rissaka@ 123456fredhutch.org
                Article
                S2773-0654(24)00007-5 100188
                10.1016/j.focus.2024.100188
                10864856
                38357554
                1bf80175-0865-428f-987c-17fe9331769a
                © 2024 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Implementation Science

                colorectal cancer,screening,fecal immunochemical test,organized screening,colonoscopy,population health

                Comments

                Comment on this article