Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effectiveness of a Provider Reminder on Fecal Occult Blood Test Follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose To determine the impact of an electronic reminder upon the timeliness and proportion of patients referred for evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test and receipt of colonoscopy. Methods Outpatients (468) with a positive occult blood test were prospectively identified and had a note entered into their electronic medical record prompting their provider to act upon this result. The results were compared to 634 control patients from the prior year. Results The intervention was associated with a 20.3% absolute increase in gastroenterology consultation within 14 days (P < 0.001) and significantly prompter consultation. The median time to colonoscopy decreased by 38 days during the intervention (P = <0.0001). A multivariable model found that the intervention was significantly associated with shorter time to consultation and colonoscopy. Conclusion A simple electronic reminder is associated with a significant improvement in the proportion of patients referred for, and timeliness of, evaluation of a positive FOBT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(2):71–96. doi:10.3322/CA.2007.0010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al. The effect of fecal occult-blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1603–1607. doi:10.1056/NEJM200011303432203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomized controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–1477. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03386-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomized study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467–1471. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)03430-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Etzioni DA, Yano EM, Rubenstein LV, et al. Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: the importance of follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:1–9. doi:10.1007/s10350-006-0533-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:132–141.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Myers RE, Turner B, Weinberg D, et al. Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 2004;38:375–381. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Levin B, Murphy GP. Revision in American Cancer Society recommendations for the early detection of colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 1992;42:297–299. doi:10.3322/canjclin.42.5.296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Gastrointestinal consortium panel: gastrointestinal consortium panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:544–560. doi:10.1053/gast.2003.50044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lurie JD, Welch HG. Diagnostic testing following fecal occult blood screening in the elderly. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1641–1646. doi:10.1093/jnci/91.19.1641.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Shields HM, Weiner MS, Henry DR, et al. Factors that influence the decision to do an adequate evaluation of a patient with a positive stool for occult blood. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:196–203. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03475.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yabroff KR, Washington KS, Leader A, Neilson E, Mandelblatt J. Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results. Med Care Res Rev. 2003;60:294–331. doi:10.1177/1077558703254698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turner B, Myers RE, Hyslop T, et al. Physician and patient factors associated with ordering a colon evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:357–363. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20525.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sharma VK, Vasudeva R, Howden CW. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance practices by primary care physicians: results of a national survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1551–1556. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.02093.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Myers RE, Hyslop T, Gerrity M, et al. Physician intention to recommend complete diagnostic evaluation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:587–593.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baig N, Myers RE, Turner BJ, et al. Physician-reported reasons for limited follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test screening result. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2078–2081. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07575.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration: Colorectal Cancer Screening. VHA Directive 2007-004. January 12, 2007.

  18. El-Serag HB, Petersen L, Hampel H, Richardson P, Cooper G. The use of screening colonoscopy for patients cared for by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:2202–2208. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.20.2202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weaver FM, Smith B, LaVela S, et al. Interventions to increase influenza vaccinations rates in veterans with spinal cord injuries and diseases. J Spinal Cord Med. 2007;30:10–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–619. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nadel MR, Shapiro JA, Klabunde CN, et al. A national survey of primary care physicians’ methods for screening for fecal occult blood. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:86–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Balas EA, Weingarten S, Garb CT, Blumenthal D, Austin Boren S, Brown GD. Improving preventive care by prompting physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:301–308. doi:10.1001/archinte.160.3.301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferreira MR, Dolan NC, Fitzgibbon ML, et al. A health-care provider-directed intervention of increase colorectal cancer screening among veterans: result of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1548–1554. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.07.049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Selinger RR, Norman S, Dominitz JA. Failure of health care professionals to interpret fecal occult blood tests accurately. Am J Med. 2003;114:64–67. doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01350-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Paul Nichol M.D., Toan D. Nguyen M.D., Molly Aldassy R.N., and Mauri Miner for their participation in the quality improvement program that prompted this study and to David Weinberg, M.D., MSc, for his thoughtful review and comments. Jason Dominitz is supported by an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Endoscopic Career Development Award. This material is the result of work supported by resources from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA

    Meaghan F. Larson

  2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1660 S. Columbian Way, Seattle, WA, 98108, USA

    Cynthia W. Ko & Jason A. Dominitz

  3. Northwest Center for Outcomes Research in Older Adults, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA

    Jason A. Dominitz

Authors
  1. Meaghan F. Larson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cynthia W. Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason A. Dominitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason A. Dominitz.

Additional information

The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the Department of Veterans Affairs. This study was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board on September 26, 2006.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Larson, M.F., Ko, C.W. & Dominitz, J.A. Effectiveness of a Provider Reminder on Fecal Occult Blood Test Follow-up. Dig Dis Sci 54, 1991–1996 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-0751-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-009-0751-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation