How can people use the results?Health systems can include data on social risks to improve how well measures assess quality of care.

Colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer deaths. Federally qualified health centers serve a unique patient population that often is not screened. Knowing who in this environment is getting screened via fecal testing and via colonoscopy can assist in tailoring intervention to raise rates of colorectal cancer screening. We examined patient-level and neighborhood-level characteristics associated with being up to date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines. We also examined associations between these factors and being screened with a fecal test. We observed an increase in colorectal cancer screening rates from 2010 to 2015. Adjusted analyses revealed that the following factors were significantly associated with colorectal cancer screening: aged 65 or older, having any type of insurance, previous outpatient visits, and current or other preventive screenings. Among adults aged 50–75 who were up to date with colorectal cancer screening, factors associated with use of fecal testing, as opposed to colonoscopy, were: being younger, speaking a non-English language, being uninsured, having prior office visits, and having had a flu shot in past year. Our findings may inform clinic-based effort to raise rates of colorectal cancer screening, especially in the community clinic setting. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01742065.

BACKGROUND While electronic health records (EHRs) play a key role in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by identifying individuals who are overdue, important shortfalls remain. OBJECTIVES As part of the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer (STOP CRC) study, we assessed the accuracy of EHR codes in identifying patients eligible for CRC screening. METHODS We selected a stratified random sample of 800 study participants from 26 participating clinics, in the Pacific Northwest region of the USA. We compared data obtained through codes in the EHR to conduct a manual chart audit. A trained chart abstractor completed the abstraction of eligible and ineligible patients. RESULTS Of 520 individuals in need of CRC screening, identified via the EHR, 459 were confirmed through chart review (positive predictive value = 88%). Of 280 individuals flagged as up-to-date in their screening per EHR data, 269 were confirmed through chart review (negative predictive value = 96%). Among the 61 patients incorrectly classified as eligible, 83.6% of disagreements were due to evidence of a prior colonoscopy or referral that was not captured in recognizable fields in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS Our findings highlight importance of better capture of past screening events in the EHR. While the need for better population-based data is not unique to CRC screening, it provides an important example of the use of population-based data not only for tracking care, but also for delivering interventions.

To compare the agreement of electronic health record (EHR) data versus Medicaid claims data in documenting adult preventive care. Insurance claims are commonly used to measure care quality. EHR data could serve this purpose, but little information exists about how this source compares in service documentation. For 13 101 Medicaid-insured adult patients attending 43 Oregon community health centers, we compared documentation of 11 preventive services, based on EHR versus Medicaid claims data. Documentation was comparable for most services. Agreement was highest for influenza vaccination (κ =  0.77; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.79), cholesterol screening (κ = 0.80; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.81), and cervical cancer screening (κ = 0.71; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.73), and lowest on services commonly referred out of primary care clinics and those that usually do not generate claims. EHRs show promise for use in quality reporting. Strategies to maximize data capture in EHRs are needed to optimize the use of EHR data for service documentation.