Cargando…

Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening

IMPORTANCE: Cancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improveme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo, Mullett, Timothy W., Kurtzman, Scott H., Shafir, Sarah, Harris, James B., Yao, Katharine A., Bilimoria, Karl Y., Cance, William G., Nelson, Heidi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9669819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36383381
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42354
_version_ 1784832209092345856
author Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo
Mullett, Timothy W.
Kurtzman, Scott H.
Shafir, Sarah
Harris, James B.
Yao, Katharine A.
Bilimoria, Karl Y.
Cance, William G.
Nelson, Heidi
author_facet Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo
Mullett, Timothy W.
Kurtzman, Scott H.
Shafir, Sarah
Harris, James B.
Yao, Katharine A.
Bilimoria, Karl Y.
Cance, William G.
Nelson, Heidi
author_sort Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: Cancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Accredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022. EXPOSURES: Collaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods. RESULTS: Of 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, −13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, −23.1 to −3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9669819
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96698192022-12-05 Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo Mullett, Timothy W. Kurtzman, Scott H. Shafir, Sarah Harris, James B. Yao, Katharine A. Bilimoria, Karl Y. Cance, William G. Nelson, Heidi JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: Cancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Accredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022. EXPOSURES: Collaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods. RESULTS: Of 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, −13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, −23.1 to −3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care. American Medical Association 2022-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9669819/ /pubmed/36383381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42354 Text en Copyright 2022 Joung RHS et al. JAMA Network Open. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo
Mullett, Timothy W.
Kurtzman, Scott H.
Shafir, Sarah
Harris, James B.
Yao, Katharine A.
Bilimoria, Karl Y.
Cance, William G.
Nelson, Heidi
Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening
title Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening
title_full Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening
title_fullStr Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening
title_short Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening
title_sort evaluation of a national quality improvement collaborative for improving cancer screening
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9669819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36383381
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42354
work_keys_str_mv AT joungrachelhaesoo evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT mulletttimothyw evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT kurtzmanscotth evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT shafirsarah evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT harrisjamesb evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT yaokatharinea evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT bilimoriakarly evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT cancewilliamg evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening
AT nelsonheidi evaluationofanationalqualityimprovementcollaborativeforimprovingcancerscreening