Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Leveraging six sigma instruments to optimize cancer screening in an urban community hospital

Date

09 Oct 2016

Session

Poster display

Presenters

Uri Goldberg

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 462-468. 10.1093/annonc/mdw385

Authors

U. Goldberg, M. Kalavar, V. Patel, R. Mukherji, K. Kodroff, N. Pasco

Author affiliations

  • Internal Medicine, Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center, 11203 - Brooklyn/US
More

Resources

Abstract 840

Background

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services implemented a quality improvement initiative known as “Healthy People 2020” designed to improve outcomes across a broad array of illnesses by 2020. Within the category of cancer, the initiative's goals include improving screening rates. As poor socioeconomic status has long been associated with lower screening and higher mortality rates, and given the low socioeconomic status of much of our patient population, our institution has implemented Six Sigma techniques designed to decrease variability in cancer screening measures, reduce healthcare disparities, and improve screening outcomes.

Methods

Beginning in the 4th quarter of 2013, our hospital's Ambulatory Care department implemented a bimonthly rapid cycle evaluation of physicians designed to analyze a variety of patient care metrics including breast and colorectal cancer screening rates within each physician's respective patient panel. Data for each quarter was systematically distributed to each physician and a care navigation team was assembled to ensure screening compliance via patient outreach in the form of phone calls and certified mail.

Results

Data from the 1st quarter of 2014 until the 2nd quarter of 2015 were collected from two sites affiliated with our institution's outpatient service. During that timeframe, the rate of colorectal screening—which includes colonoscopy and serial fecal occult blood testing—increased at Site 1 from 79.1% to 84.4% and at Site 2 from 70.8% and 75%. With respect to breast cancer screening, the rate at Site 1 remained virtually unchanged (90.4% and 90.1%) while the rate at Site 2 increased from 80.7% to 86.0%.

Conclusions

As our intervention has demonstrated, cancer screening may be optimized by the use of a low-cost, easily implementable, and easily replicable intervention leveraging Six Sigma instruments. In light of the challenges affecting our institution's predominately African-American and Latino populations—particularly as they relate to access to care and timely cancer diagnoses—our intervention may go a long way toward reducing disparities and improving outcomes in these increasingly disadvantaged populations.

Clinical trial identification

N/A

Legal entity responsible for the study

Uri Goldberg

Funding

N/A

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings