• Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Increasing lung cancer screening rates in HIV clinics
  • Beteiligte: Jindal, Shawn; Serrano, Maria; Baron, Sarah; Stuart, Matthew; Alexander, Mariam; Kravitz, Meryl; Fernandes, Stevyn; Mehta, Vikas; Grossberg, Robert M.; Ortiz-Morales, Hilda; Galeas, Jose Nahun; Packer, Stuart H.; Halmos, Balazs
  • Erschienen: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2020
  • Erschienen in: Journal of Clinical Oncology
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1200/jco.2020.38.29_suppl.189
  • ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
  • Schlagwörter: Cancer Research ; Oncology
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:p> 189 </jats:p><jats:p> Background: Data at our institution shows lung cancer is more prevalent and aggressive in HIV patients. A study of lung cancer patients revealed a mean age of 55.8 years in those with HIV vs. 68.0 in those without. Additionally, 67% of HIV patients had metastasis at time of diagnosis, compared to 49% in the overall population. One study found an 18.9% reduction in lung cancer mortality among HIV patients who receive NLST-recommended screening. Despite this, data from 2018 estimated only 13% of eligible HIV patients had completed screening at our institution. We pursued a quality improvement initiative to increase lung cancer screening in our HIV clinics. Methods: Our multi-disciplinary team studied charts of the 628 HIV clinic patients seen in a four-month span to identify those who had not received lung cancer screening and potential reasons why referrals were not made. We also spoke with clinic providers to identify improvement areas. Our intervention encompassed HIV patients that met CMS screening criteria (i.e. age 55-77, 30 pack-year smoking). Our process measure was new referrals to our dedicated screening coordinator, who contacts patients to arrange for CT scans. We plotted trends in appointment referrals on a run chart. Results: Areas for improvement included EMR documentation to assess screening eligibility and an occasional lack of awareness regarding criteria. Providers also cited time constraints may limit referrals. Our team identified patients that met screening criteria and generated EMR reminders for providers to refer patients to radiology. We also held sessions with providers and nursing staff to increase awareness of our screening program. Of 628 patients, 128 (20.4%) had sufficient documented smoking history to assess for screening eligibility. 81 patients (63.3%) met our criteria. Of these patients, 58 (71.6%) had not been screened or referred for screening. Through our most recent interventions, 16 (31.3%) patients have been referred to our screening coordinator, and 7 (12.1%) have received screening CT scans. Our interventions ultimately led to an increase from 23 of 81 (28.4%) patients with completed screening to a projected 46 of 81 (56.8%). Conclusions: Providing education and EMR alerts to raise awareness regarding eligibility, we substantially increased the screening rate in our clinics. Our interventions will be broadened as we return from COVID stoppages. Future interventions include increasing smoking history documentation in the EMR to allow for automated identification of screening eligibility. PDSA and interventions are ongoing with continued follow-up of efficacy. </jats:p>
  • Zugangsstatus: Freier Zugang