Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics

Amanda F. Petrik, Jennifer Coury, Jean Hiebert Larson, Brittany Badicke, Gloria D. Coronado and Melinda M. Davis
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine February 2023, 36 (1) 118-129; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2022.220216R1
Amanda F. Petrik
From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (AFP, GDC); Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, (JC, JHL, BB, MMD); and Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University (MMD).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer Coury
From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (AFP, GDC); Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, (JC, JHL, BB, MMD); and Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University (MMD).
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean Hiebert Larson
From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (AFP, GDC); Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, (JC, JHL, BB, MMD); and Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University (MMD).
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brittany Badicke
From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (AFP, GDC); Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, (JC, JHL, BB, MMD); and Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University (MMD).
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gloria D. Coronado
From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (AFP, GDC); Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, (JC, JHL, BB, MMD); and Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University (MMD).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melinda M. Davis
From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (AFP, GDC); Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, (JC, JHL, BB, MMD); and Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University (MMD).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Participating Clinic Characteristics

    Clinic CharacteristicClinics n (%)
    Total clinics29
    Rurality, defined by RUCA codesa 
     Micropolitan (RUCA codes 4 to 6)19 (66%)
     Rural (RUCA codes 7 to 10)9 (31%)
     Urban (RUCA code 2)1 (3%)
    Clinic categories
    Federal designationb 
     Rural Health Clinic12 (41%)
     Federally Qualified Health Center5 (17%)
     Tribal Health Center1 (3%)
     No Federal Designation11 (38%)
    Clinic network structureb 
     Hospital-affiliated clinic14 (48%)
     Health care network-affiliated clinic4 (14%)
     Clinic with multiple locations6 (21%)
     Individual clinic (single location)5 (17%)
    Patient-Centered Primary Care Home Program Accreditation (Oregon) 
     Tier 36 (21%)
     Tier 417 (59%)
     Tier 56 (21%)
    Electronic Health Record (EHR)
    EHR vendor 
     Epicc16 (55%)
     Greenway Intergy4 (14%)
     eClinicalWorks2 (7%)
     Athenahealth2 (7%)
     NextGen2 (7%)
     Otherd3 (10%)
    Length time with current EHR 
     3 years or less7 (24%)
     3 to 10 years13 (45%)
     More than 10 years7 (24%)
     Unknown2 (7%)
    EHR site specialist (yes)14 (48%)
     Quality systems questions
     Clinic provides providers with assessment and metrics regarding CRC  screening (agree)17 (59%)
     Clinic has a staff member or administrator who champions colorectal cancer screening initiatives (agree)13 (45%)
    EHR features to help with identifying eligible patientse (% yes) (n = 28)
     Provider reminder functionality22 (79%)
     Patient reminder functionality21 (75%)
     The ability to automate identification of patients due for CRC screening20 (71%)
     Automated identification of patients who are referred for a screening colonoscopy appointment9 (32%)
     Cancer screening summary page/dashboard11 (39%)
     Access to gastroenterology patient portals that show colonoscopy appointments4 (14%)
     Automated identification of patients with a positive FIT  result5 (18%)
     Automated identification of patients with a positive FIT who have been referred for a colonoscopy3 (11%)
    • Abbreviations: RUCA = Rural-Urban Commuting Area; FIT = fecal immunochemical test.

    • ↵aAll Oregon sites (RUCA codes 2 to 10) are classified as rural or frontier by the Oregon Office of Rural Health (ORH).

    • ↵bIndicates that research team determined categorization.

    • ↵cIncludes OCHIN EPIC (n = 4) is a national nonprofit provider of EHR systems, providing equitable health care innovations and  solutions - https://ochin.org/.

    • ↵dSingle clinics used GE Healthcare (Centricity), AdvancedMD, or RPMS.

    • ↵eOne clinic did not provide this information and are excluded from the denominator (denominator for these items: n = 28).

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Baseline Survey Data Availability

    Patient Population CharacteristicClinics Able to provide information (of responding clinics n = 28)
    Total number of patients25 (89%)
    Number of patients aged 50 to 7519 (68%)
    Number of Medicaid patients21 (75%)
    Race of the population21 (75%)
    Hispanic or Latino (ethnicity of the population)17 (61%)
    Number of patients ages 50 to 75 screened for CRC in the prior year19 (68%)
    Number of patients screened by FIT in the prior year8 (29%)
    Number of patients with an abnormal FIT, or abnormal FIT with colonoscopy completed w/in 1 year9 (32%)
    • Abbreviations: FIT = fecal immunochemical test.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Health Plan Patient Population Identification

    Patient Population CharacteristicsHealth Plan 1Health Plan 2Health Plan 3Overall n (%)
    Total Number of Eligible Patients based on Health Plan list* (n)1705187520365616
    Female55%49%53%2949 (53%)
    Age (mean)58.856.958.858.2
    Ethnicity
     Hispanic4%7%5%303 (5%)
     Unknown Ethnicity18%<1%24%799 (14%)
    Race
     White73%56%61%3519 (63%)
     Non-White5%4%5%263 (5%)
     Unknown Race22%40%34%1834 (33%)
    Language
     English95%85%96%5173 (92%)
     Non-English4%5%3%226 (4%)
     Unknown Language1%10%1%217 (4%)
    • ↵*Population includes all eligible patients.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 36 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 36, Issue 1
January/February 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics
Amanda F. Petrik, Jennifer Coury, Jean Hiebert Larson, Brittany Badicke, Gloria D. Coronado, Melinda M. Davis
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Feb 2023, 36 (1) 118-129; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2022.220216R1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics
Amanda F. Petrik, Jennifer Coury, Jean Hiebert Larson, Brittany Badicke, Gloria D. Coronado, Melinda M. Davis
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Feb 2023, 36 (1) 118-129; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2022.220216R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Background
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Family Physicians Can/Should Do: What? Where? And How?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Cancer Screening
  • Colonoscopy
  • Colorectal Cancer
  • Electronic Health Records
  • Oregon
  • Population Health Management

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire