Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byKailey Addison Modified over 9 years ago
1
Individual Health vs. Public Health If you’re the 1/1000, it’s a 100% for you What absolute level of risk will society/an individual tolerate? Population-based approach should account for safety, cost, availability
2
Medicare 1998 - 2001 Average Risk FOBT Annually Flex Sig q 4 yrs Screening Colonoscopy q 10 yrs High Risk 1st degree relative w/adenoma or CA FAP, HNPCC Personal hx adenoma or CA or IBD Colonoscopy q 2 yrs Uncertainty in 50-64 age group
3
Prevalence of FOBT/Sigmoidoscopy - 1997 AGE 50 FOBT - 1 YearFS/Procto - 5 Years TotalMFTotalMF 19.818.421.030.635.226.8 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Ries L, Cancer 2000;88:2398
4
Risk Appropriate Screening Provider Endorsement/Education Public Acceptance Cost/Efficiency Help Physicians
5
Risk Appropriate Screening Provider Endorsement/Education Public Acceptance Cost/Efficiency Help Physicians
6
Sigmoidoscopy Use in 1 o Care Physicians in Allegheny County Surveyed 400 physicians - 70% response rate Median age 44; most full time clinicians Training:44% rigid; 28% flexible Proficiency:32% rigid; 22% flexible Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, Kuller LH; Preventive Medicine 1995 49% equipment available Regularly refers or schedules pts: 34% Of those: 50% 5 pts/month
7
Sigmoidoscopy Use in 1 o Care Physicians in Allegheny County - Attitudes 83% sigmoidoscopy impt 88% agree with ACS rec’s Factors that influence decision to recommend: Cost - 62% Low prob finding a lesion - 52% Patient discomfort - 48%
8
ACES:Physician Knowledge of Reimbursement for Screening FSG (N=95) - 1999
9
Provider Endorsement Medical services are not baseball stadiums: “Build it and they will come” does NOT Apply
10
Altering Physician Behavior - CRC Screening Media Effect Liability
12
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette May 20, 2000
13
Risk Appropriate Screening Provider Endorsement/Education Public Acceptance Cost/Efficiency Help Physicians
14
Satisfaction with Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (N=1221) General% Strongly Agree Very Satisfied with care97.6 Pain/Discomfort (Didn’t) have a lot of pain96.2 More comfortable than expected68.5 (Didn’t) cause me great discomfort78.1 Enthusiasm Willing to have another93.1 Sigmoidoscopy will benefit my health91.1 Strongly recommend to friends74.9 Schoen. Arch Intl Med 2000;160:1790
15
Risk Appropriate Screening Provider Endorsement/Education Public Acceptance Cost/Efficient Delivery Help Physicians
16
NP’s and Sigmoidoscopy Back to Back FSG, N = 249 Per Polyp Missed Adenomas Missed Adenomas 1 cm Per Patient No polyp FS #1, Polyp FS #2 No adenoma FS #1, Adenoma FS #2 GI 20% (6/30) 2/10 21% (3/14) 0/4.91 NPP Schoenfeld. Gastro 1999;117:312 12% 3% 6% 2%.12.43
17
10,164 Available T3 Visit 1,360 Did not complete T3 FSG 8,804 (86.4%) Completed T3 FSG Adherence with T3 Flexible Sigmoidoscopy 688 Had T3 Visit 672 No T3 Visit Weissfeld. Cancer 2002 (in press)
18
Sigmoidoscopy & Mammography Need training for proficiency Need Consistent Experience to Maintain Proficiency Need Current Technology Infection Control High Through-Put Standardize Reporting/Terminology Follow outcome
19
Risk Appropriate Screening Provider Endorsement/Education Public Acceptance Cost/Efficiency Help Physicians
20
Systems Approach to Prevention GAPS Put Prevention Into Practice (AHRQ) G oal setting regarding preventive care A ssessment of existing routines P lanning to modify existing routines S tarting and maintaining improved preventive care system Deitrich. Arch Family Med 1994;3:126 PPP
21
Goals Help physicians assess risk Help physicians recommend action Create visible, high quality, high volume, efficient delivery Affordable Accessible
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.