Improving Lung Cancer Screening at an Academic Medical Center
Rattachement africain : nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer ranks as the third most prevalent cancer in the United States. The use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening significantly reduces mortality from this disease. Unfortunately, Texas lags in completing lung cancer screening (LCS) for high-risk patients, ranking 48th among all states. It is crucial to implement quality improvement (QI) initiatives in Texas. In collaboration with the American Cancer Society, the primary care center (PCC) at our institution led a multidisciplinary QI project aimed at enhancing LCS through LDCT for eligible PCC patients. METHODS: The study included patients eligible for screening and who fall into the following categories: established patients with Medicaid, low-income or uninsured established patients, and established patients with either Medicare or commercial insurance. Enhancements to electronic medical records, education for clinical staff and patients, and a coordinated, multidisciplinary effort were implemented. RESULTS: The study revealed a substantial 40.2% improvement in LCS rates. CONCLUSION: The US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines rely on an accurate history of patient's tobacco use to identify patients eligible for LCS. This QI project achieved success in improving the thoroughness of tobacco use history documentation and surpassed our target for increasing LCS by more than 10%.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Improving Lung Cancer Screening at an Academic Medical Center
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2024
- Éditeur
- Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.