Advertisement

Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment

Published:February 09, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2017.12.028

      Rationale and Objectives

      The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of communication practices with timely follow-up of screening mammograms read as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 0 in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium.

      Materials and Methods

      A radiology facility survey was conducted in 2015 with responses linked to screening mammograms obtained in 2011–2014. We considered timely follow-up to be within 15 days of the screening mammogram. Generalized estimating equation models were used to evaluate the association between modes of communication with patients and providers and timely follow-up, adjusting for PROSPR site, patient age, and race and ethnicity.

      Results

      The analysis included 34,680 mammography examinations with a BI-RADS 0 assessment among 28 facilities. Across facilities, 85.6% of examinations had a follow-up within 15 days. Patients in a facility where routine practice was to contact the patient by phone if follow-up imaging was recommended were more likely to have timely follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.76–7.76), whereas standard use of mail was associated with reduced timely follow-up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.75). Facilities that had standard use of electronic medical records to report the need for follow-up imaging to a provider had less timely follow-up (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35–0.90). Facilities that routinely contacted patients by mail if they missed a follow-up imaging visit were more likely to have timely follow-up (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.02–2.69).

      Conclusions

      Our findings support the value of telephone communication to patients in relation to timely follow-up. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of communication in completing the breast cancer screening episode.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siu A.L.
        • Force U.S.P.S.T.
        Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164: 279-296
        • Zapka J.G.
        • Taplin S.H.
        • Solberg L.I.
        • et al.
        A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003; 12: 4-13
        • Beaber E.F.
        • Kim J.J.
        • Schapira M.M.
        • et al.
        Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015; 107 (djv120)
        • Onega T.
        • Beaber E.F.
        • Sprague B.L.
        • et al.
        Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level.
        Cancer. 2014; 120: 2955-2964
        • Rudin R.S.
        • Bates D.W.
        Let the left hand know what the right is doing: a vision for care coordination and electronic health records.
        J Am Med Inf Assoc. 2014; 21: 13-16
        • Tosteson A.N.
        • Fryback D.G.
        • Hammond C.S.
        • et al.
        Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174: 954-961
        • Elmore J.G.
        • Nakano C.Y.
        • Linden H.M.
        • et al.
        Racial inequities in the timing of breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment.
        Med Care. 2005; 43: 141-148
        • Wujcik D.
        • Shyr Y.
        • Li M.
        • et al.
        Delay in diagnostic testing after abnormal mammography in low-income women.
        Oncol Nurs Forum. 2009; 36: 709-715
        • Press R.
        • Carrasquillo O.
        • Sciacca R.R.
        • et al.
        Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram.
        J Womens Health. 2008; 17: 923-930
        • Ashing-Giwa K.T.
        • Gonzalez P.
        • Lim J.W.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic and therapeutic delays among a multiethnic sample of breast and cervical cancer survivors.
        Cancer. 2010; 116: 3195-3204
        • Molina Y.
        • Beresford S.A.A.
        • Hayes Constant T.
        • et al.
        Conversations about abnormal mammograms on distress and timely follow-up across ethnicity.
        J Cancer Educ. 2017; 32: 320-327
        • Kerner J.F.
        • Yedidia M.
        • Padgett D.
        • et al.
        Realizing the promise of breast cancer screening: clinical follow-up after abnormal screening among Black women.
        Prev Med. 2003; 37: 92-101
        • Poon E.G.
        • Haas J.S.
        • Louise Puopolo A.
        • et al.
        Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19: 316-323
        • Marcus E.N.
        • Koru-Sengul T.
        • Miao F.
        • et al.
        How do breast imaging centers communicate results to women with limited English proficiency and other barriers to care?.
        J Immigr Minor Health. 2014; 16: 401-408
      1. What constitutes an acceptable system for notifying patients of examination results.
        (Available at) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: U.S. Food & Drug Administration)
        • Perry N.
        • Broeders M.
        • de Wolf C.
        • et al.
        European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document.
        Ann Oncol. 2008; 19: 614-622
        • Ministry of Health
        BreastScreen Aotearoa National Policy and Quality Standards. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
        (Published in December 2013 (revised December 2016) by the Ministry of Health, PO Box 5013, Wellington 6145, New Zealand; ISBN 978-0-478-41584-1)2013
      2. Breast screening: Consolidated programme standards. PHE Publications gateway number: 2016720 PDF, 492KB. Updated 15 August 2017.

      3. Report from the evaluation indicators working group. Guidelines for monitoring breast cancer screening program performance. Third Edition. Canadian partnership against cancer.
        2013
      4. BreastScreen Australia: A joint Australian State and Territory Government Program. Breastscreen Australia National Accreditation Handbook. March 2015. Endorsed by the Standard Committee on Screening 12 March 2015. Updated under the asupices of the BreastScreen Australia Accreditation Review Committee 21 September 2017.

        • Marcus E.N.
        • Sanders L.M.
        • Pereyra M.
        • et al.
        Mammography result notification letters: are they easy to read and understand?.
        J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2011; 20: 545-551
        • Karliner L.S.
        • Ma L.
        • Hofmann M.
        • et al.
        Language barriers, location of care, and delays in follow-up of abnormal mammograms.
        Med Care. 2012; 50: 171-178
        • Allen J.D.
        • Shelton R.C.
        • Harden E.
        • et al.
        Follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms among low-income ethnically diverse women: findings from a qualitative study.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 72: 283-292
        • Molina Y.
        • Hohl S.D.
        • Ko L.K.
        • et al.
        Understanding the patient-provider communication needs and experiences of latina and non-latina white women following an abnormal mammogram.
        J Cancer Educ. 2014; 29: 781-789
        • Marcus E.N.
        • Drummond D.
        • Dietz N.
        Urban women's preferences for learning of their mammogram result: a qualitative study.
        J Cancer Educ. 2012; 27: 156-164
        • Poon E.G.
        • Haas J.S.
        • Puopolo A.L.
        • et al.
        Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19: 316-323
        • Perez-Stable E.J.
        • Afable-Munsuz A.
        • Kaplan C.P.
        • et al.
        Factors influencing time to diagnosis after abnormal mammography in diverse women.
        J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2013; 22: 159-166
        • Wujcik D.
        • Fair A.M.
        Barriers to diagnostic resolution after abnormal mammography: a review of the literature.
        Cancer Nurs. 2008; 31: E16-E30
        • Sasson J.P.
        • Zand T.
        • Lown B.A.
        Communication in the diagnostic mammography suite: implications for practice and training.
        Acad Radiol. 2008; 15: 417-424
        • Stewart K.A.
        • Neumann P.J.
        • Fletcher S.W.
        • et al.
        The effect of immediate reading of screening mammograms on medical care utilization and costs after false-positive mammograms.
        Health Serv Res. 2007; 42: 1464-1482
        • Burnside E.S.
        • Park J.M.
        • Fine J.P.
        • et al.
        The use of batch reading to improve the performance of screening mammography.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185: 790-796
        • Ghate S.V.
        • Soo M.S.
        • Baker J.A.
        • et al.
        Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms.
        Radiology. 2005; 235: 31-35
        • Carney P.A.
        • Kettler M.
        • Cook A.J.
        • et al.
        An assessment of the likelihood, frequency, and content of verbal communication between radiologists and women receiving screening and diagnostic mammography.
        Acad Radiol. 2009; 16: 1056-1063
        • Neuner J.
        • Fedders M.
        • Caravella M.
        • et al.
        Meaningful use and the patient portal: patient enrollment, use, and satisfaction with patient portals at a later-adopting center.
        Am J Med Qual. 2015; 30: 105-113
        • Ip I.K.
        • Lacson R.
        • Hentel K.
        • et al.
        JOURNAL CLUB: predictors of provider response to clinical decision support: lessons learned from the Medicare imaging demonstration.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208: 351-357
        • Gregory M.E.
        • Russo E.
        • Singh H.
        Electronic health record alert-related workload as a predictor of burnout in primary care providers.
        Appl Clin Inform. 2017; 8: 686-697
        • Ancker J.S.
        • Edwards A.
        • Nosal S.
        • et al.
        Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system.
        BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017; 17: 36
        • Singh H.
        • Thomas E.J.
        • Mani S.
        • et al.
        Timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic imaging test results in an outpatient setting are electronic medical records achieving their potential?.
        Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169: 1578-1586
        • Rosenberg R.D.
        • Haneuse S.J.
        • Geller B.M.
        • et al.
        Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.
        Radiology. 2011; 261: 404-413
        • McCarthy A.M.
        • Kim J.J.
        • Beaber E.F.
        • et al.
        Follow-up of abnormal breast and colorectal cancer screening by race/ethnicity.
        Am J Prev Med. 2016; 51: 507-512
        • Anhang Price R.
        • Zapka J.
        • Edwards H.
        • et al.
        Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.
        J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 2010: 38-57