背景:疾病控制和预防中心的结直肠癌控制计划的三个现任和前任获奖者推出了综合癌症筛查策略,以更好地协调多种癌症筛查(例如,乳房,子宫颈,结直肠)。通过整合策略,可以提高行政管理和提供筛查的效率,并降低成本。本文分享了这些策略的发现并描述了它们的效果。
方法:爱达荷州卫生和福利部门为六个卫生系统制定了基线评估清单,以评估有关癌症筛查的政策现状。我们分析了检查表,并报告了检查表组件完成的百分比。在罗德岛,我们和一个护士-病人导航员合作,促进癌症筛查的人,收集患者导航活动和项目成本的详细信息。然后,我们描述了该计划,并报告了总成本和每个活动的成本。在内布拉斯加州,我们描述了国家在整个结直肠管理综合合同支付模式方面的经验,乳房,以及宫颈癌筛查和报告的每人筛查费用。在所有获奖者中,我们采访了关键利益相关者。
结果:在爱达荷州,检查表的结果为综合癌症筛查策略之前的增强领域提供了指导,但是确定了挑战,包括缺乏能力,工作人员有限,和人员流动。在罗德岛,1023例患者导航活动中有76.1%仅用于结直肠癌筛查,用于乳腺癌和宫颈癌筛查的比例要小得多。尽管患者导航员发现围绕多种癌症筛查的讨论是有效的,患者并不总是愿意讨论所有的癌症筛查.内布拉斯加州与当地卫生部门将其支付系统从按服务收费改为固定成本分奖励,整合癌症筛查资金。乳腺癌和宫颈癌的筛查摄取改善,但结直肠癌筛查混合使用。
结论:案例研究的结果表明,在初级保健机构中整合增加癌症筛查的方法存在障碍和促进因素。然而,更多的研究可以进一步阐明综合癌症筛查计划的可行性和实用性.
BACKGROUND: Three current and former awardees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\'s Colorectal Cancer Control Program launched integrated cancer screening strategies to better coordinate multiple cancer screenings (e.g., breast, cervical, colorectal). By integrating the strategies, efficiencies of administration and provision of screenings can be increased and costs can be reduced. This paper shares findings from these strategies and describes their effects.
METHODS: The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare developed a Baseline Assessment Checklist for six health systems to assess the current state of policies regarding cancer screening. We analyzed the checklist and reported the percentage of checklist components completed. In Rhode Island, we collaborated with a nurse-patient navigator, who promoted cancer screening, to collect details on patient navigation activities and program costs. We then described the program and reported total costs and cost per activity. In
Nebraska, we described the experience of the state in administering an integrated contracts payment model across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening and reported cost per person screened. Across all awardees, we interviewed key stakeholders.
RESULTS: In Idaho, results from the checklist offered guidance on areas for enhancement before integrated cancer screening strategies, but identified challenges, including lack of capacity, limited staff availability, and staff turnover. In Rhode Island, 76.1% of 1023 patient navigation activities were for colorectal cancer screening only, with a much smaller proportion devoted to breast and cervical cancer screening. Although the patient navigator found the discussions around multiple cancer screening efficient, patients were not always willing to discuss all cancer screenings.
Nebraska changed its payment system from fee-for-service to fixed cost subawards with its local health departments, which integrated cancer screening funding. Screening uptake improved for breast and cervical cancer but was mixed for colorectal cancer screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The results from the
case studies show that there are barriers and facilitators to integrating approaches to increasing cancer screening among primary care facilities. However, more research could further elucidate the viability and practicality of integrated cancer screening programs.