Fecal occult blood testing beliefs and practices of U.S. primary care physicians: serious deviations from evidence-based recommendations.

Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS K55, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.28). 04/2010; 25(8):833-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1328-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is an important option for colorectal cancer screening that should be available in order to achieve high population screening coverage. However, results from a national survey of clinical practice in 1999-2000 indicated that many primary care physicians used inadequate methods to implement FOBT screening and follow-up.
To determine whether methods to screen for fecal occult blood have improved, including the use of newer more sensitive stool tests.
Cross-sectional national survey of primary care physicians.
Participants consisted of 1,134 primary care physicians who reported ordering or performing FOBT in the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Cancer Screening.
Self-reported data on details of FOBT implementation and follow-up of positive results.
Most physicians report using standard guaiac tests; higher sensitivity guaiac tests and immunochemical tests were reported by only 22.0% and 8.9%, respectively. In-office testing, that is, testing of a single specimen collected during a digital rectal examination in the office, is still widely used although inappropriate for screening: 24.9% of physicians report using only in-office tests and another 52.9% report using both in-office and home tests. Recommendations improved for follow-up after a positive test: fewer physicians recommend repeating the FOBT (17.8%) or using tests other than colonoscopy for the diagnostic work-up (6.6%). Only 44.3% of physicians who use home tests have reminder systems to ensure test completion and return.
Many physicians continue to use inappropriate methods to screen for fecal occult blood. Intensified efforts to inform physicians of recommended technique and promote the use of tracking systems are needed.

  • Preventive Medicine 01/2014; · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fostering partnerships was critical to the success of the Colon Health Program (CHP) in Greater Seattle. The CHP was built on the Breast and Cervical Health Program (BCHP) framework. A replicable system to provide quality colorectal screening services for individuals with limited incomes and no health insurance was developed. Partners were recruited and engaged during 3 programmatic phases: 1) development and start-up, 2) implementation, and 3) sustainability planning. Several tactics were used to develop trust and build bridges among the partners and to create an effective work group. The partners were critical to developing clinic policies, procedures, and systems to increase colorectal screening and improve follow-up; expanding access to colonoscopies; and initiating statewide dissemination of training and systems as well as policy change. The fecal occult blood test completion rate was 61%, and the colonoscopy completion rate was 78%. The colonoscopy navigation system was effective with a low "no show" rate (8%). The partners were instrumental in helping Washington State obtain funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to continue the CHP statewide. During implementation, key elements for success included: building the project on the successful BCHP framework, meticulous training of clinic staff about colorectal cancer and screening methods, frequent consultation to identify and solve problems, active support of the clinic administration, and the presence of a CHP champion in the clinic. Institutionalization of the CHP depended on: assessing progress after the first year, documenting experience with the program, disseminating lessons learned, engaging new partners, and determining steps to expand the program. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2884-93. © 2013 American Cancer Society.
    Cancer 08/2013; 119 Suppl 15:2884-93. · 5.20 Impact Factor
  • CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment 03/2014; · 14.07 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 1, 2014