Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improving the Follow-Up of Positive Hemoccult Screening Tests: An Electronic Intervention

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Four population-based studies of screening for CRC with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) have shown that mortality can be significantly reduced. However, nearly half of all positive screening tests are not appropriately evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated whether an electronic record intervention improved the follow-up of patients with a positive FOBT (FOBT+) result.

DESIGN

We conducted a cluster randomized trial involving four Veteran’s Affairs (VA) medical centers pair-matched by colonoscopy volume and randomized within the pair to receive the electronic intervention or usual care.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with FOBT+ results at participating facilities during a matched pre- and post-intervention time period.

INTERVENTIONS

In the two intervention sites, an electronic consult that imported relevant clinical information was automatically submitted to the gastroenterology (GI) clinic for all FOBT+ patients at the time the result was recorded in the laboratory. In both intervention and control sites (usual care), PCPs continued to be notified of FOBT+ results in the usual manner

MEASURES

Pre- and post-intervention changes in the proportion of FOBT+ patients having: (1) a GI consult or (2) a GI consult plus complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE) of the colon within 30, 90 and 180 days were compared across intervention and control sites. Log rank tests were used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

The 30-, 90- and 180-day GI consult rates improved 21–33 % (p < 0.001) among intervention sites, but did not change in the usual care sites. Thirty-, 90- and 180-day CDE rates improved 9–31% (p < 0.03) in intervention sites, but did not significantly change in the usual care sites. Time to GI consult and CDE decreased significantly over time in the intervention sites (p < 0.001), but remained unchanged in the usual care sites.

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively simple electronic intervention evaluated can significantly improve the follow-up of FOBT+ results. Interventions such as this could improve patient care and may be applicable to other practice settings, as well as other types of tests.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. Jul-Aug 2009;59(4):225-249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. May 2008;134(5):1570-1595.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. May 13 1993;328(19):1365-1371.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. Nov 30 1996;348(9040):1472-1477.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen OD, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. Nov 30 1996;348(9040):1467-1471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jorgensen OD, Kronborg O, Fenger C. A randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer using faecal occult blood testing: results after 13 years and seven biennial screening rounds. Gut. Jan 2002;50(1):29-32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Faivre J, Dancourt V, Lejeune C, et al. Reduction in colorectal cancer mortality by fecal occult blood screening in a French controlled study. Gastroenterology. Jun 2004;126(7):1674-1680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lurie JD, Welch HG. Diagnostic testing following fecal occult blood screening in the elderly. J Natl Cancer Inst. Oct 6 1999;91(19):1641-1646.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher DA, Jeffreys A, Coffman CJ, et al. Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. Jun 2006;15(6):1232-1235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rao SK, Schilling TF, Sequist TD. Challenges in the management of positive fecal occult blood tests. J Gen Intern Med. Mar 2009;24(3):356-360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Bradford SC, et al. Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization. Med Care. Sep 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S91-96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Singh H, Daci K, Petersen LA, et al. Missed opportunities to initiate endoscopic evaluation for colorectal cancer diagnosis. Am J Gastroenterol. Oct 2009;104(10):2543-2554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Myers RE, Turner B, Weinberg D, et al. Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. Apr 2004;38(4):375-381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Etzioni DA, Yano EM, Rubenstein LV, et al. Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: the importance of follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. Jul 2006;49(7):1002-1010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meza JP, Webster DS. Patient preferences for laboratory test results notification. Am J Manag Care. Dec 2000;6(12):1297-1300.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Murff HJ, Patel VL, Hripcsak G, Bates DW. Detecting adverse events for patient safety research: a review of current methodologies. J Biomed Inform. Feb-Apr 2003;36(1-2):131-143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boohaker EA, Ward RE, Uman JE, McCarthy BD. Patient notification and follow-up of abnormal test results. A physician survey. Arch Intern Med. Feb 12 1996;156(3):327-331.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 20 Tips to Help Prevent Medical Errors. Patient Fact Sheet. AHRQ Publication No. 00-PO38, February 2000. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/20tips.htm. Accessed January 10, 2011.

  19. Poon EG, Wang SJ, Gandhi TK, Bates DW, Kuperman GJ. Design and implementation of a comprehensive outpatient results manager. J Biomed Inform. Feb-Apr 2003;36(1-2):80-91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baron RJ. What’s keeping us so busy in primary care? A snapshot from one practice. N Engl J Med. Apr 29 2010;362(17):1632-1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kravitz RL, Rolph JE, Petersen L. Omission-related malpractice claims and the limits of defensive medicine. Med Care Res Rev. Dec 1997;54(4):456-471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. McDonald CJ. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. N Engl J Med. Dec 9 1976;295(24):1351-1355.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by VA HSR&D grant number CRT-02-059. This publication was made possible with support from the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (OCTRI); grant number UL1 RR024140 01 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH); and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. The funding organizations had no direct involvement in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. We are grateful for the help of Barbara Genovese, MS; Courtney Maxcy, BS; Paige Farris, MSW; David Pauly, MBA, MSW; David Lieberman, MD; Joan Ash, PhD; Robert Socherman PhD; David Douglas, MD; and Michele Freeman, MPH, in the completion of this study and manuscript. We also acknowledge the help of the many co-investigators and programming staff involved with this study at each of the participating sites.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mail code P-3-Med, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Linda L. Humphrey MD, MPH, Jackilen Shannon PhD, MPH & Mark Helfand MD, MPH, MS

  2. Department of Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, The Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Linda L. Humphrey MD, MPH & Mark Helfand MD, MPH, MS

  3. Department of Medicine, The Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Linda L. Humphrey MD, MPH & Mark Helfand MD, MPH, MS

  4. Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, The Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Linda L. Humphrey MD, MPH

  5. The Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Melissa R. Partin PhD

  6. Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Center, The Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Jean O’Malley MPH & Zunqiu Chen MS

Authors
  1. Linda L. Humphrey MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jackilen Shannon PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melissa R. Partin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean O’Malley MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zunqiu Chen MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark Helfand MD, MPH, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda L. Humphrey MD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Humphrey, L.L., Shannon, J., Partin, M.R. et al. Improving the Follow-Up of Positive Hemoccult Screening Tests: An Electronic Intervention. J GEN INTERN MED 26, 691–697 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1639-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1639-3

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation