A Quality Improvement Initiative: Improving Mammogram Screening Rates Among Low-income Hispanic Women in Primary Care

Abstract

BackgroundLow-income women of predominantly Hispanic ethnicity between the ages of 50–74 who receive primary care services in a South Texas region experienced a 12% disparity gap for women completing a screening mammogram in the last 2 years when compared to Hispanic women nationally.ObjectiveThe purpose of this quality improvement (QI) initiative is to design and implement interdisciplinary evidence-based interventions to improve the screening mammogram completion rates in a primary care clinical setting.MethodsFollowing a systematic review and selection of two evidence-based breast cancer risk screening tools, a pre-post intervention was conducted. The Knowledge-to-Action (KTA) framework was used to train staff and providers to implement the screening tools. The Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) provided triggers for initiating a screening mammogram.ResultsEvidence-based screenings triggered mammogram initiation resulting in a 7.21% improvement in screening mammogram completion rates over a 3-month time period.Conclusion/Implications for NursingThe outcomes discussed in this report provide guidance for new policy considerations and clinical protocol initiatives along with processes to improve mammogram completion rates.

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review

“…, 2022 ; Ruggeri et al. , 2020 ; Walker-Smith and Baldwin, 2020 ; Willemse et al. , 2022 ) (Table 3 ).…”

“…( 2015 ) reported a positive effect on cervical screening rates following the implementation of a clinical decision support system, provider education, and patient reminders. Walker-Smith and Baldwin ( 2020 ) found a positive effect on breast screening following training practice staff to implement screening tools. Frissora et al.…”

“…Twenty-two studies from the US (n = 18), Canada (n = 3) and Australia (n = 1) were multi-component non-randomized trials (Potter et al, 2011;Kaczorowski et al, 2013;Dorrington et al, 2015;Harris et al, 2015;Hills et al, 2015;Mader et al, 2016;Marx et al, 2016;Wu et al, 2016;Baxter et al, 2017;Green et al, 2017;Hountz et al, 2017;Weiner et al, 2017;Bakhai et al, 2018;Nguyen et al, 2020;Desai et al, 2021;Funes et al, 2021;Frissora et al, 2021;Hussain et al, 2021;Jones et al, 2022;Ruggeri et al, 2020;Walker-Smith and Baldwin, 2020;Willemse et al, 2022) (Table 3).…”