PTU-097 Leicester city CCG experience: do direct phone calls to non-responders improve BCSP uptake?

IntroductionBowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) has shown to be associated with a substantial stage shift in colorectal cancer diagnosis. In 2015/16, the overall percentage uptake for gFOBt bowel screening nationally was 56.4%. There was a lower uptake across Leicester City CCG of 45.8%. The aim...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gut 2019-06, Vol.68 (Suppl 2), p.A238
Hauptverfasser: Lee, Hui Lin, Fenton, Racheal, Mellor, Shelley, Emery-Downing, Karen, Robinson, Richard
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue Suppl 2
container_start_page A238
container_title Gut
container_volume 68
creator Lee, Hui Lin
Fenton, Racheal
Mellor, Shelley
Emery-Downing, Karen
Robinson, Richard
description IntroductionBowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) has shown to be associated with a substantial stage shift in colorectal cancer diagnosis. In 2015/16, the overall percentage uptake for gFOBt bowel screening nationally was 56.4%. There was a lower uptake across Leicester City CCG of 45.8%. The aim of this project was to assess if direct phone calls to non-responders towards gFOBt bowel screening improve BCSP uptake locally. MethodsWe identified individuals from 8 local GP surgeries who had not returned their BCSP gFOBt kit between September and October 2016. These individuals were all phoned by a nurse specialist. During the telephone call encounter, we discussed the importance of bowel cancer screening, checked if each subject had received the 1st gFOBt kit, identified if there was any language barrier, offered further information (written/picture booklets) and enquired if subjects would like another kit sent out again.ResultsA total of 412 (202 females, 210 males) non-responders were identified. The mean and median age of the subjects was 60 years and 64 years respectively. A total of 580 phone calls were made with an average of 8.2 minutes per phone call. 170 (41.2%) subjects were not contactable.Of the ones we managed to contact, 225 (54.6%) subjects remembered receiving their 1st gFOBt kit but had chosen not to respond. 187 (45.4%) subjects claimed never to have received a kit. Reasons include: incorrect contact details, being out of the country or a significant language barrier. In total, 58 (14%) subjects requested a repeat kit but only 28 (6.79%) subjects actually completed screening after receiving a direct phone call.ConclusionOur experience demonstrated that direct phone calls to non-responders are time consuming and not an effective intervention to increase BCSP uptake. This intervention is not recommended, and alternate methods should be advocated such as GP endorsed invitations or enhanced reminder letters.ReferencesBenton SC, Butler P, Allen K, et al. GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project. Br J Cancer. 2017 Jun 6;116 (12):155–Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster- randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2016; 387: 751–9
doi_str_mv 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-BSGAbstracts.456
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_bmj_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2241254394</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2241254394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1306-289d75d66c79957760a7cceee66a8ec11eb55fe28e34d2cc84defd4c118ba0093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpN0LtOwzAUBmALgUQpvIMlWA124vjCgtoIClIlKrWdrcQ5hYQ0CbaD6MbCi_IkpCoD0xnOr3P5ELpi9JqxWNy89KFqahJRpsl0OZvkPrjMBn_NE3GERowLReJIqWM0opRJkkiuT9GZ9xWlVCnNRggWqzWhWv58fc-htOADOGzLsMNpOsPw2YErobFwi4sWF6UDG3D32jaAbVbXHocWN21DHPiubQpwHpfbzrUfgKfpcoH7LmRvcHeOTjZZ7eHir47R-uF-lT6S-fPsKZ3MSc5iKkikdCGTQggrtU6kFDST1gKAEJkCyxjkSbKBSEHMi8haxQvYFHxoqDyjVMdjdHmYO5zw3g_PmKrtXTOsNFHEWZTwWPMhJQ-pfFuZzpXbzO0Mo2Zvag6mZm9q_puawTT-BWy0cLk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2241254394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>PTU-097 Leicester city CCG experience: do direct phone calls to non-responders improve BCSP uptake?</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Lee, Hui Lin ; Fenton, Racheal ; Mellor, Shelley ; Emery-Downing, Karen ; Robinson, Richard</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, Hui Lin ; Fenton, Racheal ; Mellor, Shelley ; Emery-Downing, Karen ; Robinson, Richard</creatorcontrib><description>IntroductionBowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) has shown to be associated with a substantial stage shift in colorectal cancer diagnosis. In 2015/16, the overall percentage uptake for gFOBt bowel screening nationally was 56.4%. There was a lower uptake across Leicester City CCG of 45.8%. The aim of this project was to assess if direct phone calls to non-responders towards gFOBt bowel screening improve BCSP uptake locally. MethodsWe identified individuals from 8 local GP surgeries who had not returned their BCSP gFOBt kit between September and October 2016. These individuals were all phoned by a nurse specialist. During the telephone call encounter, we discussed the importance of bowel cancer screening, checked if each subject had received the 1st gFOBt kit, identified if there was any language barrier, offered further information (written/picture booklets) and enquired if subjects would like another kit sent out again.ResultsA total of 412 (202 females, 210 males) non-responders were identified. The mean and median age of the subjects was 60 years and 64 years respectively. A total of 580 phone calls were made with an average of 8.2 minutes per phone call. 170 (41.2%) subjects were not contactable.Of the ones we managed to contact, 225 (54.6%) subjects remembered receiving their 1st gFOBt kit but had chosen not to respond. 187 (45.4%) subjects claimed never to have received a kit. Reasons include: incorrect contact details, being out of the country or a significant language barrier. In total, 58 (14%) subjects requested a repeat kit but only 28 (6.79%) subjects actually completed screening after receiving a direct phone call.ConclusionOur experience demonstrated that direct phone calls to non-responders are time consuming and not an effective intervention to increase BCSP uptake. This intervention is not recommended, and alternate methods should be advocated such as GP endorsed invitations or enhanced reminder letters.ReferencesBenton SC, Butler P, Allen K, et al. GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project. Br J Cancer. 2017 Jun 6;116 (12):155–Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster- randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2016; 387: 751–9</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-5749</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3288</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-BSGAbstracts.456</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Cancer screening ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal carcinoma ; Intestine ; Language ; Medical screening ; Telemedicine</subject><ispartof>Gut, 2019-06, Vol.68 (Suppl 2), p.A238</ispartof><rights>2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2019 2019, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, Hui Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fenton, Racheal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellor, Shelley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emery-Downing, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Richard</creatorcontrib><title>PTU-097 Leicester city CCG experience: do direct phone calls to non-responders improve BCSP uptake?</title><title>Gut</title><description>IntroductionBowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) has shown to be associated with a substantial stage shift in colorectal cancer diagnosis. In 2015/16, the overall percentage uptake for gFOBt bowel screening nationally was 56.4%. There was a lower uptake across Leicester City CCG of 45.8%. The aim of this project was to assess if direct phone calls to non-responders towards gFOBt bowel screening improve BCSP uptake locally. MethodsWe identified individuals from 8 local GP surgeries who had not returned their BCSP gFOBt kit between September and October 2016. These individuals were all phoned by a nurse specialist. During the telephone call encounter, we discussed the importance of bowel cancer screening, checked if each subject had received the 1st gFOBt kit, identified if there was any language barrier, offered further information (written/picture booklets) and enquired if subjects would like another kit sent out again.ResultsA total of 412 (202 females, 210 males) non-responders were identified. The mean and median age of the subjects was 60 years and 64 years respectively. A total of 580 phone calls were made with an average of 8.2 minutes per phone call. 170 (41.2%) subjects were not contactable.Of the ones we managed to contact, 225 (54.6%) subjects remembered receiving their 1st gFOBt kit but had chosen not to respond. 187 (45.4%) subjects claimed never to have received a kit. Reasons include: incorrect contact details, being out of the country or a significant language barrier. In total, 58 (14%) subjects requested a repeat kit but only 28 (6.79%) subjects actually completed screening after receiving a direct phone call.ConclusionOur experience demonstrated that direct phone calls to non-responders are time consuming and not an effective intervention to increase BCSP uptake. This intervention is not recommended, and alternate methods should be advocated such as GP endorsed invitations or enhanced reminder letters.ReferencesBenton SC, Butler P, Allen K, et al. GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project. Br J Cancer. 2017 Jun 6;116 (12):155–Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster- randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2016; 387: 751–9</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer screening</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal carcinoma</subject><subject>Intestine</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Telemedicine</subject><issn>0017-5749</issn><issn>1468-3288</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpN0LtOwzAUBmALgUQpvIMlWA124vjCgtoIClIlKrWdrcQ5hYQ0CbaD6MbCi_IkpCoD0xnOr3P5ELpi9JqxWNy89KFqahJRpsl0OZvkPrjMBn_NE3GERowLReJIqWM0opRJkkiuT9GZ9xWlVCnNRggWqzWhWv58fc-htOADOGzLsMNpOsPw2YErobFwi4sWF6UDG3D32jaAbVbXHocWN21DHPiubQpwHpfbzrUfgKfpcoH7LmRvcHeOTjZZ7eHir47R-uF-lT6S-fPsKZ3MSc5iKkikdCGTQggrtU6kFDST1gKAEJkCyxjkSbKBSEHMi8haxQvYFHxoqDyjVMdjdHmYO5zw3g_PmKrtXTOsNFHEWZTwWPMhJQ-pfFuZzpXbzO0Mo2Zvag6mZm9q_puawTT-BWy0cLk</recordid><startdate>201906</startdate><enddate>201906</enddate><creator>Lee, Hui Lin</creator><creator>Fenton, Racheal</creator><creator>Mellor, Shelley</creator><creator>Emery-Downing, Karen</creator><creator>Robinson, Richard</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201906</creationdate><title>PTU-097 Leicester city CCG experience: do direct phone calls to non-responders improve BCSP uptake?</title><author>Lee, Hui Lin ; Fenton, Racheal ; Mellor, Shelley ; Emery-Downing, Karen ; Robinson, Richard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1306-289d75d66c79957760a7cceee66a8ec11eb55fe28e34d2cc84defd4c118ba0093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer screening</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal carcinoma</topic><topic>Intestine</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Telemedicine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, Hui Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fenton, Racheal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mellor, Shelley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Emery-Downing, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Richard</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Gut</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, Hui Lin</au><au>Fenton, Racheal</au><au>Mellor, Shelley</au><au>Emery-Downing, Karen</au><au>Robinson, Richard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>PTU-097 Leicester city CCG experience: do direct phone calls to non-responders improve BCSP uptake?</atitle><jtitle>Gut</jtitle><date>2019-06</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>Suppl 2</issue><spage>A238</spage><pages>A238-</pages><issn>0017-5749</issn><eissn>1468-3288</eissn><abstract>IntroductionBowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) has shown to be associated with a substantial stage shift in colorectal cancer diagnosis. In 2015/16, the overall percentage uptake for gFOBt bowel screening nationally was 56.4%. There was a lower uptake across Leicester City CCG of 45.8%. The aim of this project was to assess if direct phone calls to non-responders towards gFOBt bowel screening improve BCSP uptake locally. MethodsWe identified individuals from 8 local GP surgeries who had not returned their BCSP gFOBt kit between September and October 2016. These individuals were all phoned by a nurse specialist. During the telephone call encounter, we discussed the importance of bowel cancer screening, checked if each subject had received the 1st gFOBt kit, identified if there was any language barrier, offered further information (written/picture booklets) and enquired if subjects would like another kit sent out again.ResultsA total of 412 (202 females, 210 males) non-responders were identified. The mean and median age of the subjects was 60 years and 64 years respectively. A total of 580 phone calls were made with an average of 8.2 minutes per phone call. 170 (41.2%) subjects were not contactable.Of the ones we managed to contact, 225 (54.6%) subjects remembered receiving their 1st gFOBt kit but had chosen not to respond. 187 (45.4%) subjects claimed never to have received a kit. Reasons include: incorrect contact details, being out of the country or a significant language barrier. In total, 58 (14%) subjects requested a repeat kit but only 28 (6.79%) subjects actually completed screening after receiving a direct phone call.ConclusionOur experience demonstrated that direct phone calls to non-responders are time consuming and not an effective intervention to increase BCSP uptake. This intervention is not recommended, and alternate methods should be advocated such as GP endorsed invitations or enhanced reminder letters.ReferencesBenton SC, Butler P, Allen K, et al. GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project. Br J Cancer. 2017 Jun 6;116 (12):155–Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, et al. Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster- randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2016; 387: 751–9</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/gutjnl-2019-BSGAbstracts.456</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0017-5749
ispartof Gut, 2019-06, Vol.68 (Suppl 2), p.A238
issn 0017-5749
1468-3288
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2241254394
source PubMed Central
subjects Cancer
Cancer screening
Colorectal cancer
Colorectal carcinoma
Intestine
Language
Medical screening
Telemedicine
title PTU-097 Leicester city CCG experience: do direct phone calls to non-responders improve BCSP uptake?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T13%3A53%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_bmj_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PTU-097%E2%80%85Leicester%20city%20CCG%20experience:%20do%20direct%20phone%20calls%20to%20non-responders%20improve%20BCSP%20uptake?&rft.jtitle=Gut&rft.au=Lee,%20Hui%20Lin&rft.date=2019-06&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=Suppl%202&rft.spage=A238&rft.pages=A238-&rft.issn=0017-5749&rft.eissn=1468-3288&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-BSGAbstracts.456&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_bmj_p%3E2241254394%3C/proquest_bmj_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2241254394&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true