The IHS primary care provider最新文献

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people. Screening at recommended intervals can detect CRC in its early, most treatable stages, or prevent CRC through removal of precancerous polyps. However, CRC screening percentages remain low among AI/AN people. Reminder and tracking systems can be used to improve CRC screening percentages.

Purpose: In this study we assessed the prevalence of CRC screening reminder and tracking systems in Indian Health Service (IHS), Tribal, or Urban (I/T/U) health facilities.

Methods: A telephone survey of randomly selected small, medium and large I/T/U health facilities nationwide was conducted. Three health facilities from each of the 12 IHS areas nationwide were selected from a list of I/T/U healthcare facilities that provide CRC screening or refer patients to another facility for screening, with the goal of having one small, one medium, and one large I/T/U health facility from each IHS area.

Results: Thirty-four facilities (94%) participated in the telephone survey between April 1 and September 24, 2010. All facilities used the IHS Resource and Patient Management System to manage their patient care, and 82% used the Electronic Health Record (EHR) version. Over half of these facilities (55%) performed in-office fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) collected during a digital rectal exam, all of which reported that they also sent FOBT cards home with patients. Fifty-three percent of facilities used an opportunistic, visit-based approach to CRC screening. Nearly a third (32%) of facilities reported using a reminder system to notify patients that they were due for CRC screening. Almost two-thirds (65%) of facilities used a reminder system to notify health care providers that patients were due for CRC screening. While 73% of facilities used a system to track whether patients were due for CRC screening, only 61% used a system to track patient results for CRC screening, and 42% used a system to track patients with a personal history of polyps or CRC.

Conclusions: A majority of facilities performed in-office FOBT tests using a digital rectal exam, which is a practice that is contrary to national CRC screening recommendations. Additionally, the majority of facilities reported not using an organized system for CRC screening. Use of patient reminders was suboptimal. However, facilities did report use of provider reminders, tracking when patients were due for CRC screening, and tracking CRC screening results. As the EHR system becomes more widely used and established, I/T/U facilities could be encouraged to increase their use of the EHR tools available to aid in systematically increasing CRC screening percentages.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality in American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people, and incidence rates vary considerably among AIAN populations throughout the United States. Screening has the potential to prevent CRC deaths by detection and treatment of early disease or removal of precancerous polyps. Surveillance of CRC screening is critical to efforts to improve delivery of this preventive service, but existing CRC screening surveillance methods for AIAN are limited. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) CRC screening clinical care measure provides data on CRC screening among AIAN populations.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the GPRA measure for CRC screening (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value), determine reasons for CRC screening misclassification (procedures noted as screening when they were actually diagnostic exams), and to suggest opportunities for improving surveillance for CRC screening nationwide for AIAN populations.

Methods: Medical record reviews (paper and electronic) were compared to the GPRA-reported CRC screening status for 1,071 patients receiving care at tribal health facilities. A total of 8 tribal health facilities (2 small, 3 medium, and 3 large) participated in the study from the Pacific Coast, the Southwest, the Southern Plains, and Alaska IHS regions. Screening-eligible patients were identified using queries of the local electronic health record from January 2007 to December 2008, and medical chart reviews were completed at participating facilities from September 2008 to June 2010.

Results: Among 545 patients classified as screened by the GPRA measure, 305 (56%, CI: 52%-60%) had a false positive for screening as compared with medical record review. The overall sensitivity of the GPRA measure for CRC screening was 93% (CI=89%-95%) while specificity was 62% (CI: 59%-66%). The most common reasons for misclassification were for diagnostic or surveillance tests to be recorded as screening (67%), as well as medical record miscoding (18%) due to miscoding, charting errors, screenings performed outside the IHS, testing for a non-screening purpose, and categorization of patients as screened when a test had been ordered but not actually completed.

Conclusions: This study found that the GPRA CRC screening clinical measure overestimates the true screening rate due to the inclusion of diagnostic and surveillance exams, especially colonoscopy, as well as misclassification errors. The results of this study suggest a need to more accurately use the ICD-9 diagnostic code V76.51, which was associated with frequent coding errors. In combination with other programmatic efforts that focus on screening average- risk, asymptomatic American Indian and Alaska Native persons, improving the coding used for