INCa Conference: 
Intervention Research Against Cancer 
The Flu-FIT Program: 
An Effective Colorectal Cancer Screening 
Intervention 
Michael B. Potter, MD 
Director, SF Bay Area Collaborative Research Network 
University of California, San Francisco 
November 18, 2014 
Paris, France
Presentation of Overview 
• Colorectal cancer screening and the role of fecal 
occult blood testing in the USA 
• Development and pilot testing of the Flu-FIT Program 
• Testing and adaptation in diverse clinical settings 
• Dissemination and implementation activities
USA Colorectal Cancer Statistics 
CA: Cancer J Clin, 2012;62:10-29, MMWR 2011;60:884-9; and CA: Cancer J Clin,2014;64:104-117. 
• 2nd leading cause of cancer death in adults 
– >50,000 deaths per year 
• Trends in mortality and incidence 
– Mortality declined by >30% since 1976 
– Incidence declined by >30% since 2002 
– Screening has been a major contributor to this success with 
detection and removal of polyps and detection and treatment 
of early stage cancers. 
• Most screening is with colonoscopy 
• About 60% of adults aged 50-75 are up to date with 
screening - still more work to be done, especially in 
community health center settings
Fecal Occult Blood Testing has advantages 
FOBT is similarly effective to colonoscopy, if done in a well-organized 
program with evidence-based test kits, 
procedures, and follow-up. 
Advantages: 
• Inexpensive and accessible 
• Can be offered by any member of the health team 
• Can be done in privacy at home 
• Non-invasive and safer than colonoscopy 
• Only requires colonoscopy if abnormal 
• Many patients prefer it.
However, FOBT program development and 
implementation presents challenges 
• Select and invest in evidence-based fecal test kits 
• Define and identify eligible patients 
• Reach participants every 1-2 years 
• Procedures to educate patients about the importance 
of screening and how to complete the test 
• Follow-up to assure test completion 
• Assure high quality test development processes 
• Follow up abnormal results with colonoscopy
San Francisco General Hospital’s 
Family Health Center
Developing a new FOBT program 
Early CLINICAL questions (2004): 
What colorectal cancer screening program could be 
a. effective for an under-screened population? 
b. acceptable to clinicians and staff? 
c. feasible to implement with limited resources? 
d. complementary to other quality 
improvement efforts? 
e. sustainable after the researchers leave? 
f. adaptable and scalable for diverse settings?
Early RESEARCH questions (2005-6): 
1. What is the potential benefit of offering FOBT 
with flu shots as a program at SFGH, in similar 
community health centers, and across the state of 
California? 
2. Can we show that a “FLU-FOBT Program” done 
at the SFGH Family Health Center during an 
influenza vaccination clinic can work?
Pre-intervention: Potential increase in CRC 
screening for adults eligible if offered with 
influenza vaccination 
(Combines CA BRFSS and SF General Hospital Data) 
100 
90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
California CA<200% of 
Poverty Line 
SFGH 
Current 2004 
Potential 2004 
Presented at the SF Bay Area Clinical Research Symposium, 2006
Flu is Preventable! Colon Cancer is Preventable! 
•Yearly home stool tests are easy to do. 
•Yearly home stool tests could save your life. 
•All our doctors and nurses recommend Colon 
Screening for healthy men and women aged 50 to 79. 
•When you should get tested? We will tell you today. 
流感是可以預防的﹗結腸癌也是可以預防的﹗ 
每年檢查糞便一次, 簡單並容易進行。 
每年檢查糞便一次,可以保護您的生命。 
我們的醫生及護士一致推薦,50歲至79歲的健康男仕及女仕們,應接受結腸檢 
查。 
你何時需要測試? 我們就今天告訴你。 
Có Thể Ngừa Được Cúm! 
Có Thể Ngừa Được Ung Thư Ruột Giá! 
•Xét nghiệm phân hằng năm làm dễ dàng. 
•Xét nghiệm phân hằng năm có thể cứu sinh mạng quý vị. 
•Bác sĩ và y tá đề nghị làm xét nghiệm ung thư ruột gìa cho những 
người khỏe mạnh từ 50 đến 79 tuổi. 
•“Quý vi nên đi khám lúc nào ? Chúng tôi sẽ cho quý vị biết hôm 
nay!” 
¡La Gripa es prevenible! 
¡El cancer del colon es 
prevenible! 
•Es fácil hacerse exámenes 
anuales de defecación. 
•Los exámenes anuales de 
defecación le pueden salvar la 
vida. 
•Todos nuestros doctores y 
enfermeras recomiendan un 
chequeo del colon para hombres y 
mujeres en buen estado de salud 
entre los 50 y 79 anos. 
•Cuando necesita ser chequeado? 
Nosotros se lo podemos decirr 
hoy. 
Грипп можно предотвратить! Рак толстой кишки можно предотвратить!∙ 
• Проводить ежегодно анализ кала очень просто. 
•Проведение анализа кала ежегодно может спасти вам жизнь. 
• Обследование с целью предотвращения рака толстой кишки рекомедуется докторами всем женщинам и 
мужчинам в возрасте от 50 до 79 лет. 
•Когда нужно сделать тест? Мы скажем Вам об этом сегодня.
Results – San Francisco General Hospital 
6-month outcomes 
Intervention: Flu shot clinic patients offered FOBT if 
due. 
Procedures closely supervised by research team 
Patient telephone follow-up at 2 weeks and 6 weeks. 
Intent-to-treat analysis 
Flu Only Arm 
N=246 
Flu-FOBT Arm 
N=268 
CRCS Up-to-Date 
Before (Oct 2006) 
52.9% 54.5% 
CRCS Up-to-Date 
After (Mar 2007) 
57.3% 84.3% 
Change: p<0.001 +4.4 points +29.8 points 
Odds Ratio for going from unscreened to screened in Multivariate Analysis: 
11.3 (5.8-22.0) 
CRCS up to date: FOBT within 12 months, FSIG within 5 years or colonoscopy within 10 years 
Potter MB et al., Annals of Family Medicine, 2009.
The next research questions (2008-2012), in pursuit of 
external validity: 
1. Can it work without the research team? 
2. Can it be adapted to work in other community health 
center settings? 
3. Can it work in privately run managed care settings? 
4. Can it work in pharmacies? 
5. Can it be sustained and scaled up where it is 
introduced?
FLU-FOBT and FLU-FIT Projects 
• San Francisco Dept of Public Health 
– CDC R18 (2008-2011) “Translation of an Evidence-Based Colorectal 
Cancer Screening Intervention to Primary Care Settings Where 
Disparities Persist” 
• Kaiser Permanente Northern California 
– HMO Cancer Research Network (2008-2009) “Preparation for the 
FLU-FIT Program at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara” 
– ACS Research Scholars Grant (2009-2012) “Colorectal Cancer 
Screening with During Annual Flu Shot Clinics at Kaiser 
Permanente” 
• Walgreens Pharmacies 
– Alexander and Margaret Stewart Trust (2008-2009) “A Pharmacy- 
Based Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening”
RCT in 6 public clinics in ethnically diverse and medically 
underserved neighborhoods in San Francisco
Results – RCT in 6 public clinics 
“real world conditions” 
(Am J Prev Med, 2011) 
Intervention: FOBT offered whenever a nurse provided a flu 
shot, either before or after a primary care visit 
Training from research team – but not as closely supervised 
No post-intervention phone calls 
Intent-to-treat analysis (not all eligible patients were given a test) 
Data for flu shot 
recipients in 6 clinics 
Flu Only Arm 
N=677 
CRCS Up-to-Date 
before (Oct 2009) 
31.3% 32.5% 
CRCS Up-to-Date After 
(Mar 2010) 
35.6% 45.5% 
Change (p=0.02) +4.3 points +13.0 points 
Odds Ratio for going from unscreened to screened in 
Mulitivariate Analysis: 2.22 (1.24-3.95) 
Flu-FOBT Arm 
N=695 
“Up to date” = FOBT within 1yr, FSIG within 5yr,or colonoscopy within 10yr
Evidence of Lasting Benefits 
(Health Educ Research , 2012) 
Observational study of established patients aged 50-75 
Population data for 6 clinics 
that participated in the 
FLU-FOBT RCT 
Number of Flu Shot 
Recipients 
N 
CRCS Up-To-Date Among 
Flu Shot Recipients 
N (%) 
March 2008 (before) 3260 1385 (42.5%) 
March 2009 (after) 3634 1982 (54.5%) 
March 2010 (1 yr later) 4333 2440 (55.8%) 
More knowledgeable clinic teams, More engaged with colorectal cancer 
screening. Many Adaptations (e.g. adjusted work flows, switched to simpler 
to use FIT kits,and some initiated year-round standing orders for staff to offer 
screening with FIT) 
“Up to date” = FOBT within 1yr, FSIG within 5 yr, or colonoscopy within 10 yr
Flu-FIT Program at 
Kaiser Permanente
The Flu-FIT “Assembly Line”-- Used electronic health records 
to assess FIT eligibility while patients waited for flu shots 
(Am J Managed Care, 2011)
RCT at Kaiser Permanente facilities in 5 different 
California cities
Results – Kaiser Permanente RCT 
(Am J Pub Health, 2012) 
Intervention: FIT offered to eligible patients during a flu shot clinic 
Nurse-run, shortened patient education, no phone follow-up 
Intent-to-treat analysis analyses focused on flu shot recipients who 
were due for colorectal cancer screening 
Test(s) completed 
within 90 days 
Flu Only Arm 
N= 2884 
Flu-FIT Arm 
N=3351 
P value 
FIT 336 (11.7%) 900 (26.9%) <0.001 
Sigmoidoscopy 68 (2.4%) 62 (1.9%) 0.16 
Colonoscopy 61 (2.1%) 86 (2.6%) 0.24 
Any Test 438 (15.2%) 996 (29.7%) <0.001 
Odds Ratio: 2.77 (2.41-3.18) 
Outcomes similar for all demographic subgroups in stratified analyses. 
In Flu-FIT Arm, only about half of eligible patients were given FIT by clinic staff. 
35.4% of eligible patients given FIT while in line for their flu shots completed FIT 
within 3 months.
2011 Dissemination and Implementation Study Targeting 
All KPNC Facility Flu Shot Clinic Sites (Evaluation in Process) 
Endorsed but not required by 
KPNC Regional Leadership 
Regional Flu Shot Clinic 
Coordinators Managed the 
implementation 
Hands-on, centralized staff 
training 
Webinar for new and 
experienced flu shot clinic sites 
and those unable to attend in 
person trainings 
Internal KPNC website with 
KPNC-specific procedures and 
downloadable materials created
Walgreens Pharmacy Pilot Study 
moving Flu-FIT into community pharmacies
Results comparing Flu-FIT vs. 
Flu plus Education/Referral for Screening 
(J Am Pharm Assoc 2010;50:181-7) 
Phone Interviews 3-6 months after the 
Intervention 
FIT 
Provided 
N=86 
Education/ 
Referral 
N=28 
P value 
Discussed Screening with Physician 20% 50% <0.01 
Completed Screening Test 59% 15% <0.01 
Scheduled Screening Test 0% 19% <0.01 
Said “Pharmacies should educate” 94% 86% 0.22 
Said “Pharmacies should offer FIT” 91% 82% 0.30 
Pharmacists could play a positive role in colorectal cancer screening: 
educating, referring, and/or providing FIT to eligible patients during flu shot 
activities. 
Challenges to address: methods to assess eligibility, closing the loop with 
primary care, and providing incentives for pharmacies to offer these services.
Answers to external validity research questions: 
1. Can it be implemented without the researchers? -- often 
2. Can it be adapted to work in other primary care in public 
health clinics? -- yes 
3. Can it work in private health care settings? -- yes 
4. Can it work in pharmacies? -- maybe 
5. Can it be sustained and scaled up where it is introduced? 
-- often 
7 published studies in diverse clinical, prevention, and public 
health journals, cited over 75 times in the literature, plus 
thousands of FIT completed research sites 
What about delivering the FLU-FIT Program to New Settings?
Website developed with research funds 
Public Website with Sample Program Materials: http://flufobt.org
Description of Key Program Components 
CORE FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT: Standing orders 
for clinic staff to offer flu shots and FOBT together for 
patients aged 50-75 seen during flu shot season 
TARGET CLINICAL SETTINGS AND POPULATIONS: 
CHCs where flu shots are provided and where FOBT 
is the primary test for average risk CRCS 
Training/Advertising Daily Operations Tracking Test Completion Results Follow-up 
• Designated clinic-based 
program 
leader 
• Program leader 
training 
• Program leader 
assigns clinic staff to 
participate 
• Clinic staff completes 
formal training 
• Clinic team approves 
program plans 
• Advertise with 
posters, and 
postcards 
• Daily supervision 
by program leader. 
• Program offered 
by staff daily 
during flu shot 
season. 
• EHR used to 
assess CRCS 
eligibility 
• FOBT provided 
immediately 
before flu shots. 
• FOBTkits pre-packaged 
with 
program materials 
FOBT not 
Completed 
• Postcards and 
Phone calls 
Normal Results 
• Notify patient and 
primary care 
provider 
• Reminder to 
repeat FOBT in 
one year 
Abnormal 
Results 
• Notify patient 
and primary care 
provider 
• Arrange 
colonoscopy 
GOAL: Increase CRCS rates by offering home FOBT to eligible patients during annual flu shot activities. 
• Flu shots 
and FOBT 
dispensed 
are recorded 
together at 
the same 
time for 
tracking 
purposes 
FOBT 
Completed 
• Competed 
tests mailed to 
lab for 
processing 
• Clinic checks 
for results 
Program Materials 
Patient flow algorithm Pre-addressed mailing pouches 
Patient eligibility algorithm Pre-stamped mailing pouches 
Script to explain FOBT to patients during flu shot visits FOBT tracking and follow-up logsheets 
Visual aids to explain FOBT Mailed FLU-FOBT Program announcements 
Multilingual clinic video to explain FOBT FLU-FOBT Program clinic posters 
Multilingual patient instructions on FOBT completion Multilingual materials explaining the importance of FOBT
Dissemination 
• US-NCI Research Tested Interventions (RTIPs) web listing 
Independent review and validation of results 
– “5.0” Rating for Dissemination Capacity 
– A source for both researchers and practitioners 
• US-CDC promotes FluFIT to state cancer programs 
• American Cancer Society branding and their own FluFIT 
web page with active field support for implementation in 
community health centers across the USA since 2013 
• US National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable and National 
Association of Community Health Centers promotes 
FluFIT Program through its “80% by 2018” Campaign.
Implementation 
• Webinars and consultations for healthcare 
organizations that are implementing FluFIT (e.g. from 
groups in Northern CA, Washington, Iowa, Montana, 
South Dakota, and Texas in 2014 alone) 
• Spontaneous implementation in several health care 
organizations across the US.(e.g. public health and 
community health center activities in Arizona, Colorado, 
Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, 
West Virginia) and recently in Ontario, Canada
Signs of Spontaneous Interest 
• Flufit.org google analytics: April-September 2014 
– >2100 website visits (average of 3 min/session) 
– >1400 unique users (65% of visits) 
– >5000 page views (average 2-3 pages/session); 
– 54% bounce rate (about half of visitors spent some 
time exploring the website) 
– Wide geographic distribution: 
• 596 different cities, 47 countries, 87% from US 
• US cities with > 30 visits: San Antonio, Austin, Houston, St 
Paul, King of Prussia (PA), New York, Dalton (GA), San 
Francisco, Boston, Portland (OR)
Summary 
• 1. Annual influenza vaccination campaigns represent 
an underutilized opportunity to offer FIT. 
• 2. FluFIT Programs engage clinical teams in offering 
colorectal cancer screening during annual influenza 
vaccination campaigns, encouraging and supporting 
annual colorectal cancer screening of average risk 
patients not reached by other interventions. 
• 3. FluFIT Programs can be adapted, implemented, and 
sustained in diverse clinical settings serving diverse 
patient populations.
Summary 
• 4. Keys to success 
– Identify an important clinical need 
– Involve end-users in the early development of the 
intervention 
– Define core components that are easy to understand, 
adopt, implement, scale, and sustain 
– Develop training materials and tools to aid with adaptation 
and implementation in diverse clinical settings 
– Engage with the health community, advocacy 
organizations, research community, and policy makers on 
multiple levels to get the word out
Collaborators in Flu-FIT Program 
Development, Evaluation, and Dissemination
THANK YOU! 
michael.potter@ucsf.edu 
http://flufit.org

Colloque RI 2014 : Intervention de Michael B. POTTER, MD, (University of California, San Francisco)

  • 1.
    INCa Conference: InterventionResearch Against Cancer The Flu-FIT Program: An Effective Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Michael B. Potter, MD Director, SF Bay Area Collaborative Research Network University of California, San Francisco November 18, 2014 Paris, France
  • 2.
    Presentation of Overview • Colorectal cancer screening and the role of fecal occult blood testing in the USA • Development and pilot testing of the Flu-FIT Program • Testing and adaptation in diverse clinical settings • Dissemination and implementation activities
  • 3.
    USA Colorectal CancerStatistics CA: Cancer J Clin, 2012;62:10-29, MMWR 2011;60:884-9; and CA: Cancer J Clin,2014;64:104-117. • 2nd leading cause of cancer death in adults – >50,000 deaths per year • Trends in mortality and incidence – Mortality declined by >30% since 1976 – Incidence declined by >30% since 2002 – Screening has been a major contributor to this success with detection and removal of polyps and detection and treatment of early stage cancers. • Most screening is with colonoscopy • About 60% of adults aged 50-75 are up to date with screening - still more work to be done, especially in community health center settings
  • 4.
    Fecal Occult BloodTesting has advantages FOBT is similarly effective to colonoscopy, if done in a well-organized program with evidence-based test kits, procedures, and follow-up. Advantages: • Inexpensive and accessible • Can be offered by any member of the health team • Can be done in privacy at home • Non-invasive and safer than colonoscopy • Only requires colonoscopy if abnormal • Many patients prefer it.
  • 5.
    However, FOBT programdevelopment and implementation presents challenges • Select and invest in evidence-based fecal test kits • Define and identify eligible patients • Reach participants every 1-2 years • Procedures to educate patients about the importance of screening and how to complete the test • Follow-up to assure test completion • Assure high quality test development processes • Follow up abnormal results with colonoscopy
  • 6.
    San Francisco GeneralHospital’s Family Health Center
  • 7.
    Developing a newFOBT program Early CLINICAL questions (2004): What colorectal cancer screening program could be a. effective for an under-screened population? b. acceptable to clinicians and staff? c. feasible to implement with limited resources? d. complementary to other quality improvement efforts? e. sustainable after the researchers leave? f. adaptable and scalable for diverse settings?
  • 8.
    Early RESEARCH questions(2005-6): 1. What is the potential benefit of offering FOBT with flu shots as a program at SFGH, in similar community health centers, and across the state of California? 2. Can we show that a “FLU-FOBT Program” done at the SFGH Family Health Center during an influenza vaccination clinic can work?
  • 9.
    Pre-intervention: Potential increasein CRC screening for adults eligible if offered with influenza vaccination (Combines CA BRFSS and SF General Hospital Data) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 California CA<200% of Poverty Line SFGH Current 2004 Potential 2004 Presented at the SF Bay Area Clinical Research Symposium, 2006
  • 10.
    Flu is Preventable!Colon Cancer is Preventable! •Yearly home stool tests are easy to do. •Yearly home stool tests could save your life. •All our doctors and nurses recommend Colon Screening for healthy men and women aged 50 to 79. •When you should get tested? We will tell you today. 流感是可以預防的﹗結腸癌也是可以預防的﹗ 每年檢查糞便一次, 簡單並容易進行。 每年檢查糞便一次,可以保護您的生命。 我們的醫生及護士一致推薦,50歲至79歲的健康男仕及女仕們,應接受結腸檢 查。 你何時需要測試? 我們就今天告訴你。 Có Thể Ngừa Được Cúm! Có Thể Ngừa Được Ung Thư Ruột Giá! •Xét nghiệm phân hằng năm làm dễ dàng. •Xét nghiệm phân hằng năm có thể cứu sinh mạng quý vị. •Bác sĩ và y tá đề nghị làm xét nghiệm ung thư ruột gìa cho những người khỏe mạnh từ 50 đến 79 tuổi. •“Quý vi nên đi khám lúc nào ? Chúng tôi sẽ cho quý vị biết hôm nay!” ¡La Gripa es prevenible! ¡El cancer del colon es prevenible! •Es fácil hacerse exámenes anuales de defecación. •Los exámenes anuales de defecación le pueden salvar la vida. •Todos nuestros doctores y enfermeras recomiendan un chequeo del colon para hombres y mujeres en buen estado de salud entre los 50 y 79 anos. •Cuando necesita ser chequeado? Nosotros se lo podemos decirr hoy. Грипп можно предотвратить! Рак толстой кишки можно предотвратить!∙ • Проводить ежегодно анализ кала очень просто. •Проведение анализа кала ежегодно может спасти вам жизнь. • Обследование с целью предотвращения рака толстой кишки рекомедуется докторами всем женщинам и мужчинам в возрасте от 50 до 79 лет. •Когда нужно сделать тест? Мы скажем Вам об этом сегодня.
  • 12.
    Results – SanFrancisco General Hospital 6-month outcomes Intervention: Flu shot clinic patients offered FOBT if due. Procedures closely supervised by research team Patient telephone follow-up at 2 weeks and 6 weeks. Intent-to-treat analysis Flu Only Arm N=246 Flu-FOBT Arm N=268 CRCS Up-to-Date Before (Oct 2006) 52.9% 54.5% CRCS Up-to-Date After (Mar 2007) 57.3% 84.3% Change: p<0.001 +4.4 points +29.8 points Odds Ratio for going from unscreened to screened in Multivariate Analysis: 11.3 (5.8-22.0) CRCS up to date: FOBT within 12 months, FSIG within 5 years or colonoscopy within 10 years Potter MB et al., Annals of Family Medicine, 2009.
  • 13.
    The next researchquestions (2008-2012), in pursuit of external validity: 1. Can it work without the research team? 2. Can it be adapted to work in other community health center settings? 3. Can it work in privately run managed care settings? 4. Can it work in pharmacies? 5. Can it be sustained and scaled up where it is introduced?
  • 14.
    FLU-FOBT and FLU-FITProjects • San Francisco Dept of Public Health – CDC R18 (2008-2011) “Translation of an Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention to Primary Care Settings Where Disparities Persist” • Kaiser Permanente Northern California – HMO Cancer Research Network (2008-2009) “Preparation for the FLU-FIT Program at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara” – ACS Research Scholars Grant (2009-2012) “Colorectal Cancer Screening with During Annual Flu Shot Clinics at Kaiser Permanente” • Walgreens Pharmacies – Alexander and Margaret Stewart Trust (2008-2009) “A Pharmacy- Based Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening”
  • 15.
    RCT in 6public clinics in ethnically diverse and medically underserved neighborhoods in San Francisco
  • 16.
    Results – RCTin 6 public clinics “real world conditions” (Am J Prev Med, 2011) Intervention: FOBT offered whenever a nurse provided a flu shot, either before or after a primary care visit Training from research team – but not as closely supervised No post-intervention phone calls Intent-to-treat analysis (not all eligible patients were given a test) Data for flu shot recipients in 6 clinics Flu Only Arm N=677 CRCS Up-to-Date before (Oct 2009) 31.3% 32.5% CRCS Up-to-Date After (Mar 2010) 35.6% 45.5% Change (p=0.02) +4.3 points +13.0 points Odds Ratio for going from unscreened to screened in Mulitivariate Analysis: 2.22 (1.24-3.95) Flu-FOBT Arm N=695 “Up to date” = FOBT within 1yr, FSIG within 5yr,or colonoscopy within 10yr
  • 17.
    Evidence of LastingBenefits (Health Educ Research , 2012) Observational study of established patients aged 50-75 Population data for 6 clinics that participated in the FLU-FOBT RCT Number of Flu Shot Recipients N CRCS Up-To-Date Among Flu Shot Recipients N (%) March 2008 (before) 3260 1385 (42.5%) March 2009 (after) 3634 1982 (54.5%) March 2010 (1 yr later) 4333 2440 (55.8%) More knowledgeable clinic teams, More engaged with colorectal cancer screening. Many Adaptations (e.g. adjusted work flows, switched to simpler to use FIT kits,and some initiated year-round standing orders for staff to offer screening with FIT) “Up to date” = FOBT within 1yr, FSIG within 5 yr, or colonoscopy within 10 yr
  • 18.
    Flu-FIT Program at Kaiser Permanente
  • 19.
    The Flu-FIT “AssemblyLine”-- Used electronic health records to assess FIT eligibility while patients waited for flu shots (Am J Managed Care, 2011)
  • 20.
    RCT at KaiserPermanente facilities in 5 different California cities
  • 21.
    Results – KaiserPermanente RCT (Am J Pub Health, 2012) Intervention: FIT offered to eligible patients during a flu shot clinic Nurse-run, shortened patient education, no phone follow-up Intent-to-treat analysis analyses focused on flu shot recipients who were due for colorectal cancer screening Test(s) completed within 90 days Flu Only Arm N= 2884 Flu-FIT Arm N=3351 P value FIT 336 (11.7%) 900 (26.9%) <0.001 Sigmoidoscopy 68 (2.4%) 62 (1.9%) 0.16 Colonoscopy 61 (2.1%) 86 (2.6%) 0.24 Any Test 438 (15.2%) 996 (29.7%) <0.001 Odds Ratio: 2.77 (2.41-3.18) Outcomes similar for all demographic subgroups in stratified analyses. In Flu-FIT Arm, only about half of eligible patients were given FIT by clinic staff. 35.4% of eligible patients given FIT while in line for their flu shots completed FIT within 3 months.
  • 22.
    2011 Dissemination andImplementation Study Targeting All KPNC Facility Flu Shot Clinic Sites (Evaluation in Process) Endorsed but not required by KPNC Regional Leadership Regional Flu Shot Clinic Coordinators Managed the implementation Hands-on, centralized staff training Webinar for new and experienced flu shot clinic sites and those unable to attend in person trainings Internal KPNC website with KPNC-specific procedures and downloadable materials created
  • 23.
    Walgreens Pharmacy PilotStudy moving Flu-FIT into community pharmacies
  • 24.
    Results comparing Flu-FITvs. Flu plus Education/Referral for Screening (J Am Pharm Assoc 2010;50:181-7) Phone Interviews 3-6 months after the Intervention FIT Provided N=86 Education/ Referral N=28 P value Discussed Screening with Physician 20% 50% <0.01 Completed Screening Test 59% 15% <0.01 Scheduled Screening Test 0% 19% <0.01 Said “Pharmacies should educate” 94% 86% 0.22 Said “Pharmacies should offer FIT” 91% 82% 0.30 Pharmacists could play a positive role in colorectal cancer screening: educating, referring, and/or providing FIT to eligible patients during flu shot activities. Challenges to address: methods to assess eligibility, closing the loop with primary care, and providing incentives for pharmacies to offer these services.
  • 25.
    Answers to externalvalidity research questions: 1. Can it be implemented without the researchers? -- often 2. Can it be adapted to work in other primary care in public health clinics? -- yes 3. Can it work in private health care settings? -- yes 4. Can it work in pharmacies? -- maybe 5. Can it be sustained and scaled up where it is introduced? -- often 7 published studies in diverse clinical, prevention, and public health journals, cited over 75 times in the literature, plus thousands of FIT completed research sites What about delivering the FLU-FIT Program to New Settings?
  • 26.
    Website developed withresearch funds Public Website with Sample Program Materials: http://flufobt.org
  • 27.
    Description of KeyProgram Components CORE FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT: Standing orders for clinic staff to offer flu shots and FOBT together for patients aged 50-75 seen during flu shot season TARGET CLINICAL SETTINGS AND POPULATIONS: CHCs where flu shots are provided and where FOBT is the primary test for average risk CRCS Training/Advertising Daily Operations Tracking Test Completion Results Follow-up • Designated clinic-based program leader • Program leader training • Program leader assigns clinic staff to participate • Clinic staff completes formal training • Clinic team approves program plans • Advertise with posters, and postcards • Daily supervision by program leader. • Program offered by staff daily during flu shot season. • EHR used to assess CRCS eligibility • FOBT provided immediately before flu shots. • FOBTkits pre-packaged with program materials FOBT not Completed • Postcards and Phone calls Normal Results • Notify patient and primary care provider • Reminder to repeat FOBT in one year Abnormal Results • Notify patient and primary care provider • Arrange colonoscopy GOAL: Increase CRCS rates by offering home FOBT to eligible patients during annual flu shot activities. • Flu shots and FOBT dispensed are recorded together at the same time for tracking purposes FOBT Completed • Competed tests mailed to lab for processing • Clinic checks for results Program Materials Patient flow algorithm Pre-addressed mailing pouches Patient eligibility algorithm Pre-stamped mailing pouches Script to explain FOBT to patients during flu shot visits FOBT tracking and follow-up logsheets Visual aids to explain FOBT Mailed FLU-FOBT Program announcements Multilingual clinic video to explain FOBT FLU-FOBT Program clinic posters Multilingual patient instructions on FOBT completion Multilingual materials explaining the importance of FOBT
  • 28.
    Dissemination • US-NCIResearch Tested Interventions (RTIPs) web listing Independent review and validation of results – “5.0” Rating for Dissemination Capacity – A source for both researchers and practitioners • US-CDC promotes FluFIT to state cancer programs • American Cancer Society branding and their own FluFIT web page with active field support for implementation in community health centers across the USA since 2013 • US National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable and National Association of Community Health Centers promotes FluFIT Program through its “80% by 2018” Campaign.
  • 29.
    Implementation • Webinarsand consultations for healthcare organizations that are implementing FluFIT (e.g. from groups in Northern CA, Washington, Iowa, Montana, South Dakota, and Texas in 2014 alone) • Spontaneous implementation in several health care organizations across the US.(e.g. public health and community health center activities in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia) and recently in Ontario, Canada
  • 30.
    Signs of SpontaneousInterest • Flufit.org google analytics: April-September 2014 – >2100 website visits (average of 3 min/session) – >1400 unique users (65% of visits) – >5000 page views (average 2-3 pages/session); – 54% bounce rate (about half of visitors spent some time exploring the website) – Wide geographic distribution: • 596 different cities, 47 countries, 87% from US • US cities with > 30 visits: San Antonio, Austin, Houston, St Paul, King of Prussia (PA), New York, Dalton (GA), San Francisco, Boston, Portland (OR)
  • 31.
    Summary • 1.Annual influenza vaccination campaigns represent an underutilized opportunity to offer FIT. • 2. FluFIT Programs engage clinical teams in offering colorectal cancer screening during annual influenza vaccination campaigns, encouraging and supporting annual colorectal cancer screening of average risk patients not reached by other interventions. • 3. FluFIT Programs can be adapted, implemented, and sustained in diverse clinical settings serving diverse patient populations.
  • 32.
    Summary • 4.Keys to success – Identify an important clinical need – Involve end-users in the early development of the intervention – Define core components that are easy to understand, adopt, implement, scale, and sustain – Develop training materials and tools to aid with adaptation and implementation in diverse clinical settings – Engage with the health community, advocacy organizations, research community, and policy makers on multiple levels to get the word out
  • 33.
    Collaborators in Flu-FITProgram Development, Evaluation, and Dissemination
  • 34.

Editor's Notes

  • #7 We chose to do our efficacy work at the SFGH Family Health Center because they had a successful nurse run flu shot campaign, but no nurse-driven colorectal cancer screening activities. They also had an interest in collaborating with us and an extremely diverse, multilingual patient population to work with.
  • #8 Begin with meaningful clinical questions and search for answers with dissemination and implementation in mind. Too often, interventions are designed with so little potential return on investment that, if effective, no one would try to replicate them. If you can come up with an intervention for which you can plausibly imagine answering “yes” to all 5 of these questions, you are probably on the right track.
  • #9 Here is the idea we came up with. Many clinics already gear up for an annual flu shot campaigns. Fecal Occult Blood Tests are the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening tests used in safety net settings, and they are recommended annually. We felt this could be an easy opportunity to engage clinic staff in a campaign to reach a lot of patients who are due for colorectal cancer screening. We placed our idea into the context of a theoretical model – The General Model of the Determinants of Behavior Change – to generate hypotheses about mechanisms by which this intervention could be transformative for participating clinical sites.
  • #10 Do some reality checking before you proceed. What is the potential that your intervention will can make a difference? The red bar shows the current rates of CRC screening in 2004, and the purple bar shows what the CRC screening rate would have been if all flu shot recipient were also to become up to date with screening. We discovered that the potential for the intervention to make a difference in diverse populations, especially among the poor who may receive care in public health settings.
  • #11 The patient population at the SFGH Family Health Center is approximately 50% Asian, 30% Latino, 7% White, 6% African American, with the remainder being other or unknown. Over 70% speak a language other than English as their primary language. So we had to develop tools to address these populations at the efficacy stage. This was an advantage to us in later stages of our research.
  • #14 But we also implemented the study with quite a bit of oversight by the research team. This left us with several questions, some relating to effectiveness, and others relating to translation into other settings. We also wondered what it would take for the intervention to be sustained after the research was completed.
  • #15 In 2007 we developed a series of successful research proposals to explore these questions.
  • #16 RCT was done after 1 year of pilot testing in Chinatown Public Health Center…
  • #25 24
  • #26 Here are one word answers for those of you who don’t have time to read our papers.
  • #27 We developed a publicly available website (accessible through http://flufobt.org and http://flufit.org).