Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.
Approximately 3.2 million persons are chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the U.S; most are not aware of their infection. Our objectives were to examine HCV testing practices to determine which patient characteristics are associated with HCV testing and positivity, and to estimate the prevalence of HCV infection in a high-risk urban population. The study subjects were all patients included in the baseline phase of the Hepatitis C Assessment and Testing Project (HepCAT), a serial cross-sectional study of HCV screening strategies. We examined all patients with a clinic visit to Montefiore Medical Center from 1/1/08 to 2/29/08. Demographic information, laboratory data and ICD-9 diagnostic codes from 3/1/97 -2/29/08 were extracted from the electronic medical record. Risk factors for HCV were defined based on birth date, ICD-9 codes and laboratory data. The prevalence of HCV infection was estimated assuming that untested subjects would test positive at the same rate as tested subjects, based on risk-factors. Of 9579 NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript subjects examined, 3803 (39.7%) had been tested for HCV and 438 (11.5%) were positive. The overall prevalence of HCV infection was estimated to be 7.7%. Risk factors associated with being tested and anti-HCV positivity included: born in the high-prevalence birth-cohort (1945-64), substance abuse, HIV infection, alcohol abuse, diagnosis of cirrhosis, end-stage renal disease, and ALT elevation. In a high-risk urban population, a significant proportion of patients were tested for HCV and the prevalence of HCV infection was high. Physicians appear to use a risk-based screening strategy to identify HCV infection.
BackgroundThe increase in opioid overdose deaths has become a national public health crisis. Naloxone is an important tool in opioid overdose prevention. Distribution of nasal naloxone has been found to be a feasible, and effective intervention in community settings and may have potential high applicability in the emergency department, which is often the initial point of care for persons at high risk of overdose. One safety net hospital introduced an innovative policy to offer take-home nasal naloxone via a standing order to ensure distribution to patients at risk for overdose. The aims of this study were to examine acceptance and uptake of the policy and assess facilitators and barriers to implementation.MethodsAfter obtaining pre-post data on naloxone distribution, we conducted a qualitative study. The PARiHS framework steered development of the qualitative guide. We used theoretical sampling in order to include the range of types of emergency department staff (50 total). The constant comparative method was initially used to code the transcripts and identify themes; the themes that emerged from the coding were then mapped back to the evidence, context and facilitation constructs of the PARiHS framework.ResultsAcceptance of the policy was good but uptake was low. Primary themes related to facilitators included: real-world driven intervention with philosophical, clinician and leadership support; basic education and training efforts; availability of resources; and ability to leave the ED with the naloxone kit in hand. Barriers fell into five general categories: protocol and policy; workflow and logistical; patient-related; staff roles and responsibilities; and education and training.ConclusionsThe actual implementation of a new innovation in healthcare delivery is largely driven by factors beyond acceptance. Despite support and resources, implementation was challenging, with low uptake. While the potential of this innovation is unknown, understanding the experience is important to improve uptake in this setting and offer possible solutions for other facilities to address the opioid overdose crisis. Use of the PARiHS framework allowed us to recognize and understand key evidence, contextual and facilitation barriers to the successful implementation of the policy and to identify areas for improvement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-016-2268-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
A brief risk screener with a paper-based clinical reminder was effective in increasing HCV testing in a primary care setting.
Introduction Little is known about whether patients and physicians perceive lung cancer screening (LCS) as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation or the degree to which physicians in “real world” settings link LCS discussions with smoking cessation counseling. We sought to characterize patient and physician perspectives of discussions about smoking cessation during LCS. Methods We conducted a qualitative study (interviews and focus groups) with 21 physicians and 28 smokers screened in four diverse hospitals. Transcripts were analyzed for characteristics of communication about smoking cessation and LCS, the perceived effect on motivation to quit smoking, the degree to which physicians leverage LCS as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, and suggestions to improve patient–physician communication about smoking cessation in the context of LCS. Results Patients reported that LCS made them more cognizant of the health consequences of smoking, priming them for a teachable moment. While physicians and patients both acknowledged that smoking cessation counseling was frequent, they described little connection between their discussions regarding LCS and smoking cessation counseling. Physicians identified several barriers to integrating discussions on smoking cessation and LCS. They volunteered communication strategies by which LCS could be leveraged to promote smoking cessation. Conclusions LCS highlights the harms of smoking to patients who are chronic, heavy smokers and thus may serve as a teachable moment for promoting smoking cessation. However, this opportunity is typically missed in clinical practice. Implications LCS highlights the harms of smoking to heavily addicted smokers. Yet both physicians and patients reported little connection between LCS and tobacco treatment discussions due to multiple barriers. On-site tobacco treatment programs and post-screening messaging tailored to the LCS results are needed to maximize the health outcomes of LCS, including smoking quit rates and longer-term smoking-related morbidity and mortality.
Objective To investigate challenges in care coordination between US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics and community providers serving rural veterans. Methods We completed qualitative interviews in 2017‐2018 with a geographically diverse sample of 57 VA and community staff. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used Rapid Qualitative Inquiry (RQI) to guide analyses. Results Results suggested 5 pivotal domains related to interorganizational care coordination at these sites: organizational mechanisms; organizational culture; relational coordination; contextual factors; and the role of the third party administrators charged with management of scheduling and reimbursement of community services through recent legislation. Across these domains, strategies to bridge gaps between organizations (eg, contracts with third party administrators, development of VA‐based community care offices, provision of boundary‐spanning staff) at times exacerbated coordination challenges. Conclusions Steps taken to improve interorganizational care coordination between VA and community clinics may inadvertently complicate an already complex process. Our findings emphasize the importance of attending to key contextual barriers in coordinating care for rural veterans, and they illustrate the value of fundamental structural and relational approaches to enhancing such care coordination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.