Search

Objective: To understand how to potentially improve inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates we used National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines to design and implement a Clinical Reminder Order Check (CROC) that alerts ordering providers of potentially inappropriate imaging orders in real-time based on patient features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer.Methods: We implemented the CROC at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System from April 2, 2015 to November 15, 2017. We then used VA administrative claims from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse to analyze imaging rates among men with low-risk prostate cancer at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System before and after CROC implementation. We also collected and cataloged provider responses in response to overriding the CROC in qualitative analysis. RESULTS FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT: (117/205) of Veterans before CROC installation and 73% (61/83) of Veterans post-intervention with low-risk prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care.Conclusion: While the decrease in inappropriate imaging during our study window was almost certainly due to many factors, a Computerized Patient Record System-based CROC intervention is likely associated with at least moderate improvement in guideline-concordant imaging practices for Veterans with low-risk prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To understand the informational needs during active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer from the perspectives of patients and providers. Methods We conducted seven focus groups with 37 AS patients in two urban clinical settings, and 24 semi-structured interviews with a national sample of providers. Transcripts were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and themes were organized using descriptive matrix analyses. Results We identified six themes related to informational needs during AS: 1) more information on prostate cancer (biopsy features, prognosis), 2) more information on active surveillance (difference from watchful waiting, testing protocol), 3) more information on alternative management options (complementary medicine, lifestyle modification), 4) greater variety of resources (multiple formats, targeting different audiences), 5) more social support and interaction, and 6) verified integrity of information (trusted, multidisciplinary and secure). Conclusions Patients and providers described numerous drawbacks to existing prostate cancer resources and a variety of unmet needs including information on prognosis, AS testing protocols, and lifestyle modification. They also expressed a need for different types of resources, including interaction and unbiased information. Practical implications These results are useful to inform the design of future resources for men undergoing AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]