Cancer Screening Dashboards for Primary Care Physicians

Would you like a summary of your cancer screening performance compared to your group and region and province? The Regional Cancer Program is offering this dashboard to all primary care providers within a patient enrolment model practice. Please send requests to myself, Dr. Meghan Davis, via email at dr.meghan.davis@gmail.com. We can provide individual physician dashboards only to the physician in order to protect their privacy, so please include the email of the physician in your request along with their CPSO number and office address. For groups with over five physicians, the data can be aggregated and shared to a non-physician requestor (e.g. admin or quality improvement) from the group.

A sample dashboard is shown below and answers the following questions:

  1. What are your screening rates for breast, cervix and colorectal screening compared to your group, region, and province?
  2. How many of your patients may not have had their colonoscopy after a positive FIT test? These patients are high risk as FIT is very good at detecting clinically significant lesions, with positive predictive values (PPV) ranging from 2.9% to 7.8% for colorectal cancer and 33.9% to 54% for advanced adenoma across a variety of populations1
  3. Are you signed up for physician linked correspondence so that patients see your name on the invitation to screen letter from OH (CCO)? Studies show that this increases patients’ response rates.
  4. Do you have a ONE®ID?
  5. Have you accessed your screening activity report (SAR), assigned a delegate, and/or viewed your SAR within the last six months? Using the SAR can help increase screening rates.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Meghan Davis
Regional Primary Care Lead
HNHB Region

References

  1. Robertson DJ, Lee JK, Boland RC, et al. Recommendations on fecal immunochemical testing to screen for colorectal neoplasia: A consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2017;112(1):37-53. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.492