BackgroundEvidence-based guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed colon cancers be screened for Lynch syndrome (LS). Best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have not been extensively studied.PurposeWe interviewed a range of stakeholders in an integrated health care system to identify initial factors that might promote or hinder the successful implementation of a universal (LS) screening program.MethodsWe conducted interviews with health plan leaders, managers, and staff. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis began with a grounded approach and was also guided by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM).ResultsWe completed 14 interviews with leaders/managers and staff representing involved clinical and health plan departments. While in general stakeholders supported the concept of universal screening, they identified several internal (organizational) and external (environment) factors that promote/hinder implementation. Facilitating factors included: 1) perceived benefits of screening for patients and organization; 2) collaboration between departments; and 3) availability of organizational resources. Barriers were also found, including: 1) lack of awareness of guidelines; 2) lack of guideline clarity; 3) staffing and program “ownership” concerns; and 4) cost uncertainties. Analysis also revealed nine important infrastructure-type considerations for successful implementation.ConclusionWe found that clinical, laboratory, and administrative departments supported universal tumor screening for LS. Requirements for successful implementation may include interdepartmental collaboration and communication; patient and provider/staff education; and significant infrastructure and resource support related to laboratory processing and systems for electronic ordering and tracking.

To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in participants with type 1 diabetes in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry throughout the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSDPN was assessed with the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument Questionnaire (MNSIQ) in adults with ‡5 years of type 1 diabetes duration. A score of ‡4 defined DPN. Associations of demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors with DPN were assessed. RESULTSAmong 5,936 T1D Exchange participants (mean 6 SD age 39 6 18 years, median type 1 diabetes duration 18 years [interquartile range 11, 31], 55% female, 88% non-Hispanic white, mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA 1c ] 8.1 6 1.6% [65.3 6 17.5 mmol/mol]), DPN prevalence was 11%. Compared with those without DPN, DPN participants were older, had higher HbA 1c , had longer duration of diabetes, were more likely to be female, and were less likely to have a college education and private insurance (all P < 0.001). DPN participants also were more likely to have cardiovascular disease (CVD) (P < 0.001), worse CVD risk factors of smoking (P 5 0.008), hypertriglyceridemia (P 5 0.002), higher BMI (P 5 0.009), retinopathy (P 5 0.004), reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (P 5 0.02), and Charcot neuroarthropathy (P 5 0.002). There were no differences in insulin pump or continuous glucose monitor use, although DPN participants were more likely to have had severe hypoglycemia (P 5 0.04) and/or diabetic ketoacidosis (P < 0.001) in the past 3 months. CONCLUSIONSThe prevalence of DPN in this national cohort with type 1 diabetes is lower than in prior published reports but is reflective of current clinical care practices. These data also highlight that nonglycemic risk factors, such as CVD risk factors, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower socioeconomic status, may also play a role in DPN development.Diabetic neuropathy is a prevalent complication in patients with diabetes and a major cause of morbidity and mortality (1). Among the various forms of diabetic neuropathy, distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DPN) and diabetic autonomic neuropathies are by far the most studied (1).

No abstract

BackgroundExtended smoking cessation follow-up after hospital discharge significantly increases abstinence. Hospital smoke-free policies create a period of ‘forced abstinence’ for smokers, thus providing an opportunity to integrate tobacco dependence treatment, and to support post-discharge maintenance of hospital-acquired abstinence. This study is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1U01HL1053231).Methods/DesignThe Inpatient Technology-Supported Assisted Referral study is a multi-center, randomized clinical effectiveness trial being conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) and at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) hospitals in Portland, Oregon. The study assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of linking a practical inpatient assisted referral to outpatient cessation services plus interactive voice recognition (AR + IVR) follow-up calls, compared to usual care inpatient counseling (UC). In November 2011, we began recruiting 900 hospital patients age ≥18 years who smoked ≥1 cigarettes in the past 30 days, willing to remain abstinent postdischarge, have a working phone, live within 50 miles of the hospital, speak English, and have no health-related barriers to participation. Each site will randomize 450 patients to AR + IVR or UC using a 2:1 assignment strategy. Participants in the AR + IVR arm will receive a brief inpatient cessation consult plus a referral to available outpatient cessation programs and medications, and four IVR follow-up calls over seven weeks postdischarge. Participants do not have to accept the referral. At KPNW, UC participants will receive brief inpatient counseling and encouragement to self-enroll in available outpatient services. The primary outcome is self-reported thirty-day smoking abstinence at six months postrandomization for AR + IVR participants compared to usual care. Additional outcomes include self-reported and biochemically confirmed seven-day abstinence at six months, self-reported seven-day, thirty-day, and continuous abstinence at twelve months, intervention dose response at six and twelve months for AR + IVR recipients, incremental cost-effectiveness of AR + IVR intervention compared to usual care at six and twelve months, and health-care utilization and expenditures at twelve months for AR + IVR recipients compared to UC.DiscussionThis study will provide important evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of linking hospital-based tobacco treatment specialists’ services with discharge follow-up care.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01236079

Universal screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) among all cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) could increase the diagnosis of LS and reduce morbidity and mortality of LS-associated cancers. Given universal screening includes all patients, irrespective of high risk factors such early age at onset or family history of CRC, it is important to understand perspectives of all patients and not just those at high risk. As part of a study to assess the feasibility and implementation of universal screening, 189 patients newly diagnosed with CRC were surveyed about their interest in screening for LS and communication of results with at-risk family members. Overall, participants responded positively regarding screening for LS, with most wanting to know their genetic risks in general (86%) and risk of hereditary CRC (93%). Prior to receiving screening results, most participants stated they intended to share their screening results with parents (89%), siblings (96%), and children (96%). Of the 28 participants who received a positive LS screening result, 26 (93%) reported sharing their result with at least one first-degree family member. Interest in screening for LS and communication of screening results with family members was not associated with high risk factors. This study indicates that patients are interested in being screened for LS and that sharing information on the risk of LS with at-risk family members is not a significant barrier. These findings provide novel insight into patient perspectives about screening for LS and can guide successful implementation of universal screening programs.