SRFP076: Patient Voices Fights Colorectal Cancer: Increasing screening in underserved communities using a patient ambassador model

Jessica Leone, MPH; Laurene Tumiel-Berhalter, PhD; Darryl Somayaji, PhD, CNS, CCRC; Patrick Glasgow, MD; Amanda Ziegler

Abstract

Context: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is suboptimal, especially in underserved communities, due to lack of resources and practice staffing shortages. Patient Ambassadors (PA) assist patients in making an informed choice about the screening that is best for them, as well as follow up with patients to encourage them to complete screening and address present barriers. Objective: To examine the utility and impact of using the Patient Ambassador model (PAM) to assist patients with CRC screening in a primary care setting Study Design: Process evaluation of pilot program Setting or Dataset: 2 primary care practices located in Buffalo and Niagara Falls, NY in partnership with the Patient Voices Network and The University at Buffalo. PAs provide telephone outreach to patients from a list of patients overdue for CRC screening provided by the practices. Population Studied: Individuals 50-75 years of age (Grade A USPSTF CRC screening recommendation), who are due for CRC screening, and are patients at one of the two participating practices Intervention/Instrument: The PAM engages patients to encourage other patients to be preventively screened for cancer and has been shown to be effective in increasing mammography uptake. The PAM was adapted to improve CRC screening in response to the need for assistance in primary care. PAs provide patient outreach support, education, linkage to CRC screening options, and follow-up support. Main and Secondary Outcome Measures: Total number of patients called, total calls made, total number of patients spoken to, total number of patients linked to colorectal screening, total number of patients who completed screening Results or Anticipated Results: 2,819 patients were eligible for CRC screening. Within five months, 741 patients were contacted and 253 were spoken to. About 55% of patients spoken to were linked with CRC screening test scheduling (for colonoscopy) or mailing of at home tests (FIT or Cologuard). Conclusions: The PAM can have impact on the practice level by increasing overall CRC screening rates and at the individual level by encouraging patients to become advocates for themselves. Further data analysis is currently underway, specifically in determining how many patients completed their CRC screening. The initial results show high rates of patients linked to colorectal screening.
Leave a Comment
Jack Westfall
jwestfall@aafp.org 11/21/2021

Terrific project. Great poster and abstract. Thanks for sharing at NAPCRG

Jessica Leone
jleone3@buffalo.edu 11/22/2021

Thank you, Jack! Very much appreciated

Diane Harper
harperdi@med.umich.edu 11/22/2021

I would be very interested in knowing whether you promoted CRC screening at home as a first step and then colonoscopy as a second step for those who were positive (or the first step for those who were not average risk). So often we promote colonoscopy and it is NOT without harms. moving to a home based testing gives the patient control over when and where and in 80%+ they are normal and repeated in 3 years. Present your results in Phoenix next year! Thank you for sharing your work with NAPCRG!

Jessica Leone
jleone3@buffalo.edu 11/22/2021

Thank you, Diane! I too am interested in this process. We are hoping to receive more funding to help us dig deeper into patients who might end up with a positive result and help navigate them to colonoscopies to complete this cycle. We have noticed patients are much more receptive to the at home testing but barriers within the practices has impacted the ability for patients to receive their kits in a timely fashion. Looking forward to completing the project!

maret felzien
maret.felzien@outlook.com 11/23/2021

Such important work and the value of using patient ambassadors is important. Thanks for sharing. 

William R. Phillips
wphllps@uw.edu 11/23/2021

Great effort to try to improve the difficult problem of increasing CRC screening rates. It's not clear from the poster if you are planning to evaluate the program with an RCT design. There's a huge literature on facilitators and barriers of CRC screening across many patient populations and communities. Particularly to guide the best use of resources to improve the screening and health of vulnerable communities, I want to know if the intervention is more effective than alternative interventions. Hope you continue on this important line of inquiry. Thanks for sharing your work here at NAPCRG. - Bill Phillips

Arturo Martinez
arturo.martinez.guijosa@gmail.com 11/23/2021

Great clear poster showing what you did and your results! Are patient ambassadors reimbursed or paid for their time?

Andy Pasternak
avpiv711@sbcglobal.net 11/28/2021

Important topic- as you move foward, is the outcome going to be measured pre-intervention versus post?

Social Media

Address

NAPCRG
11400 Tomahawk Creek Parkway
Leawood, KS 66211
800.274.7928
Email: napcrgoffice@napcrg.org