BACKGROUND The results of the National Lung Screening Trial showed a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality and a 6.7% reduction in all‐cause mortality when high‐risk patients were screened with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus chest x‐ray (CXR). The US Preventive Services Task Force has issued a grade B recommendation for LDCT screening, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private insurers now cover the screening cost under certain conditions. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of, attitudes toward, and use of LDCT screening for lung cancer among family physicians. METHODS A 32‐item questionnaire was distributed to members of the South Carolina Academy of Family Physicians in 2015. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS There were 101 respondents, and most had incorrect knowledge about which organizations recommended screening. Many physicians continued to recommend CXR for lung cancer screening. Most felt that LDCT screening increased the odds of detecting disease at earlier stages (98%) and that the benefits outweighed the harms (75%). Concerns included unnecessary procedures (88%), stress/anxiety (52%), and radiation exposure (50%). Most physicians discussed the risks/benefits of screening with their patients in some capacity (76%); however, more than 50% reported making 1 or no screening recommendations in the past year. CONCLUSIONS Most family physicians report discussing LDCT with patients at high risk for lung cancer; however, referrals remain low. There are gaps in physician knowledge about screening guidelines and reimbursement, and this indicates a need for further educational outreach. The development of decision aids may facilitate shared decision‐making discussions about screening, and targeted interventions may improve knowledge gaps. Cancer 2016;122:2324–2331. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Soon after the National Lung Screening Trial, organizations began to endorse low-dose computed tomography (LCDT) screening for lung cancer in high-risk patients. Concerns about the risks versus benefits of screening, as well as the logistics of identifying and referring eligible patients, remained among physicians. This study aimed to examine primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes, referral practices, and associated barriers regarding LDCT screening. We administered a national survey of primary care physicians in the United States between September 2016 and April 2017. Physicians received up to 3 mailings, 1 follow-up email, and received varying incentives to complete the survey. Overall, 293 physicians participated, for a response rate of 13%. We used weighted descriptive statistics to characterize participants and their responses. Over half of the respondents correctly reported that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends LDCT screening for high-risk patients. Screening recommendations for patients not meeting high-risk criteria varied. Although 75% agreed that the benefits of LDCT screening outweigh the risks, fewer agreed that there is substantial evidence that screening reduces mortality (50%). The most commonly reported barriers to ordering screening included prior authorization requirements (57%), lack of insurance coverage (53%), and coverage denials (31%). The most frequently cited barrier to conducting LDCT screening shared decision making was patients' competing health priorities (42%). Given the impact of physician recommendations on cancer screening utilization, further understanding of physicians' LDCT screening attitudes and shared decision-making practices is needed. Clinical practice and policy changes are also needed to engage more patients in screening discussions.

No abstract

BackgroundHospital length of stay (HLOS) is a commonly used measure of hospital quality and is influenced by clinical and non-clinical factors. To reduce HLOS, it is key to identify factors placing patients at increased risk of lengthy HLOS and discharge delays.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of patients age ≥ 18 admitted to four level 1 trauma centers between 1/1/2015 and 3/31/2018 with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The primary outcome was discharge delay, defined as discharge ≥24 h after case management notes indicated the patient was ready for discharge. The independent variables of interest were primary insurance provider and discharge destination. Chi-square, Fisher exact, and unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between discharge delay and the two primary independent variables, as well as other patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Complications developing during the delay period were also examined.ResultsA total of 1543 patients with TBI were included. The median age was 61 years, and the median HLOS was 5 days. Approximately half of patients were discharged home (54%). The most common insurance providers were Medicare (35%) and commercial/private (35%). Two-hundred ten (14%) patients experienced a discharge delay. The median delay period was 3 days, and the most common reasons for delay were insurance authorization (52%) and lack of accepting bed (41%). Compared to being discharged home, patients discharged to a skilled nursing facility (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 10.35) or intermediate care facility (AOR = 10.64) had the highest odds of discharge delay. Compared to Medicare patients, uninsured/self-pay patients (AOR = 2.98) and those with Medicaid (AOR = 2.83) or commercial/private insurance (AOR = 2.22) had higher odds of delay. Thirty-two patients (15% of those delayed) experienced at least one complication during the delay, some of which were clinically severe.ConclusionsA substantial portion of TBI patients in this study experienced discharge delays, and discharge destination and primary insurance provider were significant drivers of these delays. Evaluation of a facility’s quality of care should consider the specific causes of these delays.

BackgroundCancer screening‐related decisions require patients to evaluate complex medical information in short time frames, often with primary care providers (PCPs) they do not know. PCPs play an essential role in facilitating comprehensive shared decision making (SDM).ObjectiveTo develop and test a decision aid (DA) and SDM strategy for PCPs and high‐risk patients.DesignThe DA was tested with 20 dyads. Each dyad consisted of one PCP and one patient eligible for screening. A prospective, one‐group, mixed‐method study design measured fidelity, patient values, screening intention, acceptability and satisfaction.ResultsFour PCPs and 20 patients were recruited from an urban academic medical centre. Most patients were female (n = 14, 70%), most had completed high school (n = 15, 75%), and their average age was 65 years old. Half were African American. Patients and PCPs rated the DA as helpful, easy to read and use and acceptable in terms of time frame (observed t = 11.6 minutes, SD 2.7). Most patients (n = 16, 80%) indicated their intent to be screened. PCPs recommended screening for most patients (n = 17, 85%).ConclusionsEvidence supports the value of lung cancer screening with LDCT for select high‐risk patients. Guidelines endorse engaging patients and their PCPs in SDM discussions. Our findings suggest that using a brief, interactive, plain‐language, culturally sensitive, theory‐based DA and SDM strategy is feasible, acceptable and may be essential to effectively translate and sustain the adoption of LDCT screening recommendations into the clinic setting.