Quality issues for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP)

Purpose: This two-part research project was undertaken as part of the planning process by Queensland Health (QH), Cancer Screening Services Unit (CSSU), Queensland Bowel Cancer Screening Program (QBCSP), in partnership with the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP), to prepare for the implementation of the NBCSP in public sector colonoscopy services in QLD in late 2006. There was no prior information available on the quality of colonoscopy services in Queensland (QLD) and no prior studies that assessed the quality of colonoscopy training in Australia. Furthermore, the NBCSP was introduced without extra funding for colonoscopy service improvement or provision for increases in colonoscopic capacity resulting from the introduction of the NBCSP. The main purpose of the research was to record baseline data on colonoscopy referral and practice in QLD and current training in colonoscopy Australia-wide. It was undertaken from a quality improvement perspective. Implementation of the NBCSP requires that all aspects of the screening pathway, in particular colonoscopy services for the assessment of positive Faecal Occult Blood Tests (FOBTs), will be effective, efficient, equitable and evidence-based. This study examined two important aspects of the continuous quality improvement framework for the NBCSP as they relate to colonoscopy services: (1) evidence-based practice, and (2) quality of colonoscopy training. The Principal Investigator was employed as Senior Project Officer (Training) in the QBCSP during the conduct of this research project. Recommendations from this research have been used to inform the development and implementation of quality improvement initiatives for provision of colonoscopy in the NBCSP, its QLD counterpart the QBCSP and colonoscopy services in QLD, in general. Methods – Part 1 Chart audit of evidence-based practice: The research was undertaken in two parts from 2005-2007. The first part of this research comprised a retrospective chart audit of 1484 colonoscopy records (some 13% of all colonoscopies conducted in public sector facilities in the year 2005) in three QLD colonoscopy services. Whilst some 70% of colonoscopies are currently conducted in the private sector, only public sector colonoscopy facilities provided colonoscopies under the NBCSP. The aim of this study was to compare colonoscopy referral and practice with explicit criteria derived from the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (1999) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal Cancer, and describe the nature of variance with the guidelines. Symptomatic presentations were the most common indication for colonoscopy (60.9%). These comprised per rectal bleeding (31.0%), change of bowel habit (22.1%), abdominal pain (19.6%), iron deficiency anaemia (16.2%), inflammatory bowel disease (8.9%) and other symptoms (11.4%). Surveillance and follow-up colonoscopies accounted for approximately one-third of the remaining colonoscopy workload across sites. Gastroenterologists (GEs) performed relatively more colonoscopies per annum (59.9%) compared to general surgeons (GS) (24.1%), colorectal surgeons (CRS) (9.4%) and general physicians (GPs) (6.5%). Guideline compliance varied with the designation of the colonoscopist. Compliance was lower for CRS (62.9%) compared to GPs (76.0%), GEs (75.0%), GSs (70.9%, p<0.05). Compliance with guideline recommendations for colonoscopic surveillance for family history of colorectal cancer (23.9%), polyps (37.0%) and a past history of bowel cancer (42.7%), was by comparison significantly lower than for symptomatic presentations (94.4%), (p<0.001). Variation with guideline recommendations occurred more frequently for polyp surveillance (earlier than guidelines recommend, 47.9%) and follow-up for past history of bowel cancer (later than recommended, 61.7%, p<0.001). Bowel cancer cases detected at colonoscopy comprised 3.6% of all audited colonoscopies. Incomplete colonoscopies occurred in 4.3% of audited colonoscopies and were more common among women (76.6%). For all colonoscopies audited, the rate of incomplete colonoscopies for GEs was 1.6% (CI 0.9-2.6), GPs 2.0% (CI 0.6-7.2), GS 7.0% (CI 4.8-10.1) and CRS 16.4% (CI 11.2-23.5). 18.6% (n=55) of patients with a documented family history of bowel cancer had colonoscopy performed against guidelines recommendations (for general (category 1) population risk, for reasons of patient request or family history of polyps, rather than for high risk status for colorectal cancer). In general, family history was inadequately documented and subsequently applied to colonoscopy referral and practice. Methods - Part 2 Surveys of quality of colonoscopy training: The second part of the research consisted of Australia-wide anonymous, self-completed surveys of colonoscopy trainers and their trainees to ascertain their opinions on the current apprenticeship model of colonoscopy in Australia and to identify any training needs. Overall, 127 surveys were received from colonoscopy trainers (estimated response rate 30.2%). Approximately 50% of trainers agreed and 27% disagreed that current numbers of training places were adequate to maintain a skilled colonoscopy workforce in preparation for the NBCSP. Approximately 70% of trainers also supported UK-style colonoscopy training within dedicated accredited training centres using a variety of training approaches including simulation. A collaborative approach with the private sector was seen as beneficial by 65% of trainers. Non-gastroenterologists (non-GEs) were more likely than GEs to be of the opinion that simulators are beneficial for colonoscopy training (χ2-test = 5.55, P = 0.026). Approximately 60% of trainers considered that the current requirements for recognition of training in colonoscopy could be insufficient for trainees to gain competence and 80% of those indicated that ≥ 200 colonoscopies were needed. GEs (73.4%) were more likely than non-GEs (36.2%) to be of the opinion that the Conjoint Committee standard is insufficient to gain competence in colonoscopy (χ2-test = 16.97, P = 0.0001). The majority of trainers did not support training either nurses (73%) or GPs in colonoscopy (71%). Only 81 (estimated response rate 17.9%) surveys were received from GS trainees (72.1%), GE trainees (26.3%) and GP trainees (1.2%). The majority were males (75.9%), with a median age 32 years and who had trained in New South Wales (41.0%) or Victoria (30%). Overall, two-thirds (60.8%) of trainees indicated that they deemed the Conjoint Committee standard sufficient to gain competency in colonoscopy. Between specialties, 75.4% of GS trainees indicated that the Conjoint Committee standard for recognition of colonoscopy was sufficient to gain competence in colonoscopy compared to only 38.5% of GE trainees. Measures of competency assessed and recorded by trainees in logbooks centred mainly on caecal intubation (94.7-100%), complications (78.9-100%) and withdrawal time (51-76.2%). Trainees described limited access to colonoscopy training lists due to the time inefficiency of the apprenticeship model and perceived monopolisation of these by GEs and their trainees. Improvements to the current training model suggested by trainees included: more use of simulation, training tools, a United Kingdom (UK)-style training course, concentration on quality indicators, increased access to training lists, accreditation of trainers and interdisciplinary colonoscopy training. Implications for the NBCSP/QBCSP: The introduction of the NBCSP/QBCSP necessitates higher quality colonoscopy services if it is to achieve its ultimate goal of decreasing the incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with bowel cancer in Australia. This will be achieved under a new paradigm for colonoscopy training and implementation of evidence-based practice across the screening pathway and specifically targeting areas highlighted in this thesis. Recommendations for improvement of NBCSP/QBCSP effectiveness and efficiency include the following: 1. Implementation of NBCSP and QBCSP health promotion activities that target men, in particular, to increase FOBT screening uptake. 2. Improved colonoscopy training for trainees and refresher courses or retraining for existing proceduralists to improve completion rates (especially for female NBCSP/QBCSP participants), and polyp and adenoma detection and removal, including newer techniques to detect flat and depressed lesions. 3. Introduction of colonoscopy training initiatives for trainees that are aligned with NBCSP/QBCSP colonoscopy quality indicators, including measurement of training outcomes using objective quality indicators such as caecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate. 4. Introduction of standardised, interdisciplinary colonoscopy training to reduce apparent differences between specialties with regard to compliance with guideline recommendations, completion rates, and quality of polypectomy. 5. Improved quality of colonoscopy training by adoption of a UK-style training program with centres of excellence, incorporating newer, more objective assessment methods, use of a variety of training tools such as simulation and rotations of trainees between metropolitan, rural, and public and private sector training facilities. 6. Incorporation of NHMRC guidelines into colonoscopy information systems to improve documentation, provide guideline recommendations at the point of care, use of gastroenterology nurse coordinators to facilitate compliance with guidelines and provision of guideline-based colonoscopy referral letters for GPs. 7. Provision of information and education about the NBCSP/QBCSP, bowel cancer risk factors, including family history and polyp surveillance guidelines, for participants, GPs and proceduralists. 8. Improved referral of NBCSP/QBCSP participants found to have a high-risk family history of bowel cancer to appropriate genetics services.

A review of prostate-specific antigen screening prevalence and risk perceptions for first-degree relatives of men with prostate cancer

First-degree relatives of men with prostate cancer have a higher risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer than men without a family history. The present review examines the prevalence and predictors of testing in first-degree relatives, perceptions of risk, prostate cancer knowledge and psychological consequences of screening. Medline, PsycInfo and Cinahl databases were searched for articles examining risk perceptions or screening practices of first-degree relatives of men with prostate cancer for the period of 1990 to August 2007. Eighteen studies were eligible for inclusion. First-degree relatives participated in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing more and perceived their risk of prostate cancer to be higher than men without a family history. Family history factors (e.g. being an unaffected son rather than an unaffected brother) were consistent predictors of PSA testing. Studies were characterized by sampling biases and a lack of longitudinal assessments. Prospective, longitudinal assessments with well-validated and comprehensive measures are needed to identify factors that cue the uptake of screening and from this develop an evidence base for decision support. Men with a family history may benefit from targeted communication about the risks and benefits of prostate cancer testing that responds to the implications of their heightened risk.

Spatial modelling of population health screening : the role of accessibility in predicting expected patient flows

This paper describes a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) approach for understanding spatial patterns of participation in population health screening, in the presence of multiple screening facilities. The models presented have dual focus, namely the prediction of expected patient flows from regions to services and relative rates of participation by region- service combination, with both outputs having meaningful implications for the monitoring of current service uptake and provision. The novelty of this paper lies with the former focus, and an approach for distributing expected participation by region based on proximity to services is proposed. The modelling of relative rates of participation is achieved through the combination of different random effects, as a means of assigning excess participation to different sources. The methodology is applied to participation data collected from a government-funded mammography program in Brisbane, Australia.

Validating a novel, low cost, automated malnutrition screening system as a predictor of nutritional risk in the Oncology Day Care Unit

Background Cancer-related malnutrition is associated with increased morbidity, poorer tolerance of treatment, decreased quality of life, increased hospital admissions, and increased health care costs (Isenring et al., 2013). This study’s aim was to determine whether a novel, automated screening system was a useful tool for nutrition screening when compared against a full nutrition assessment using the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) tool. Methods A single site, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted in an outpatient oncology day care unit within a Queensland tertiary facility, with three hundred outpatients (51.7% male, mean age 58.6 ± 13.3 years). Eligibility criteria: ≥18 years, receiving anticancer treatment, able to provide written consent. Patients completed the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST). Nutritional status was assessed using the PG-SGA. Data for the automated screening system was extracted from the pharmacy software program Charm. This included body mass index (BMI) and weight records dating back up to six months. Results The prevalence of malnutrition was 17%. Any weight loss over three to six weeks prior to the most recent weight record as identified by the automated screening system relative to malnutrition resulted in 56.52% sensitivity, 35.43% specificity, 13.68% positive predictive value, 81.82% negative predictive value. MST score 2 or greater was a stronger predictor of nutritional risk relative to PG-SGA classified malnutrition (70.59% sensitivity, 69.48% specificity, 32.14% positive predictive value, 92.02% negative predictive value). Conclusions Both the automated screening system and the MST fell short of the accepted professional standard for sensitivity (80%) or specificity (60%) when compared to the PG-SGA. However, although the MST remains a better predictor of malnutrition in this setting, uptake of this tool in the Oncology Day Care Unit remains challenging.

How does Australian diabetic foot screening rate on an international Stage?

Background From the conservative estimates of registrants with the National Diabetes Supply Scheme, we will be soon passing 1.1 Million Australians affected by all types of diabetes. The diabetes complications of foot ulceration and amputation are costly to all. These costs can be reduced with appropriate prevention strategies, starting with identifying people at risk through primary care diabetic foot screening. However, levels of diabetic foot screening in Australia are difficult to quantify. Methods This presentation reports on foot screening rates as recorded in the academic literature, national health surveys and national database reports. The focus is on type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults, and not gestational diabetes or children. Literature searches included diabetic foot screening that occurred in the primary care setting for populations over 2000 people from 2002 to 2014. Searches were performed using Medline and CINAHL as well as internet searches of OECD health databases. The primary outcome measure was foot -screening rates as a percentage of adult diabetic population. Results The lack of a national diabetes database and register hampers efforts to analyse diabetic foot screening levels. The most recent and accurate level for Australian population review was in the AUSDIAB (Australian Diabetes and lifestyle survey) from 2004. This survey reported screening in primary care to be as low as 50%. Countries such as the United Kingdom and United States of America report much higher rates of foot screening (67-88%) using national databases and web based initiatives that involve patients and clinicians. Conclusions Australian rates of diabetic foot screening in primary care centres is ambiguous. Uptake of national registers, incentives and web based systems improve levels of diabetic foot assessment which are the first steps to a healthier diabetic population.

Is there a relationship between screening for diabetes related foot complications and limb amputation?

Background From the conservative estimates of registrants with the National Diabetes Supply Scheme, we will be soon passing 1.1 Million Australians affected by all types of diabetes. The diabetes complications of foot ulceration and amputation are costly to all. These costs can be reduced with appropriate prevention strategies, starting with identifying people at risk through primary care diabetic foot screening. Yet levels of diabetic foot screening in Australia are difficult to quantify. This presentation aims to report on foot screening rates as recorded in existing academic literature, national health surveys and national database reports. Methods Literature searches included diabetic foot screening that occurred in the primary care setting for populations over 2000 people from 2002 to 2014. Searches were performed using Medline and CINAHL as well as internet searches of Organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries health databases. The focus is on type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults, and not gestational diabetes or children. The two primary outcome measures were foot -screening rates as a percentage of adult diabetic population and major lower limb amputation incidence rates from standardised OECD data. Results The most recent and accurate level for Australian population review was in the AUSDIAB (Australian Diabetes and lifestyle survey) from 2004. This survey reported screening in primary care to be as low as 50%. Countries such as the United Kingdom and United States of America have much higher reported rates of foot screening (67-86%) recorded using national databases and web based initiatives that involve patients and clinicians. By comparison major amputation rates for Australia were similar to the United Kingdom at 6.5 versus 5.1 per 100,000 population, but dis-similar to the United States of America at 17 per 100,000 population. Conclusions Australian rates of diabetic foot screening in primary care centres is ambiguous. There is no direct relationship between foot screening levels in a primary care environment and major lower limb amputation, based on national health survey's and OECD data. Uptake of national registers, incentives and web-based systems improve levels of diabetic foot assessment, which are the first steps to a healthier diabetic population.