Dougan, Brian M.

Background/Objectives: Multi-cancer detection (MCD) tests have emerged as a promising tool to redefine the landscape of early cancer detection. Implementation of this novel technology will likely fall to primary care clinicians (PCC). The purpose of this study is to characterize and explore differences in PCCs perceptions and preferences towards MCD testing. Methods: Between March and May of 2023, this cross-sectional survey was administered to 281 PCCs, including physicians and advanced care providers practicing within an integrated healthcare system spanning five states. The survey collected data on self-reported characteristics, perceptions of MCD testing, and preferences for learning about MCD testing. Analysis was limited to those with no prior experience with MCD testing (N = 181, response rate 22.8%). Descriptive statistics summarized key variables and chi-square tests assessed differences in perceptions and preferences by key characteristics. Results: Most PCCs were interested in MCD testing (66.3%), but limited knowledge/awareness of MCD testing and confidence to manage patients with a positive test were observed, along with concerns around cost (76.7%) and misuse/poor implementation. The primary preferences for learning about MCD testing were online courses or classroom instruction (64.5%). Significant differences in perceptions and preferences for learning were observed by location, degree, and years in practice. Conclusions: PCCs in our study held positive views towards MCD testing, but gaps and variation in knowledge and confidence towards MCD testing and concerns around the cost and misuse/poor implementation were observed. While efforts to train and educate all PCCs on MCD testing is a critical first step, more research is needed to understand how best to support implementation tailored to individual and system-level needs and characteristics.

Objective: Multicancer Detection (MCD) tests, such as the GRAIL Galleri, offer a novel approach to cancer screening by detecting cancer-specific methylation patterns in cell-free DNA through a single blood sample. This study evaluated an 18-month implementation of MCD testing in a tertiary ambulatory internal medicine clinic. Patients and Methods: Between June 2022 and November 2023, 2244 asymptomatic (without symptoms attributed to cancer) patients underwent MCD testing. The study focused on operational workflows, patient and physician education, and diagnostic follow-up of positive results. Standardized materials, including electronic health record (EHR) workflows, FAQs, and diagnostic pathways, were developed to facilitate implementation. Challenges included managing false positives, patient anxiety, costs, and ethical considerations. Results: Of the 2244 patients tested, 17 (0.76%) had positive results, and 15 underwent further diagnostic evaluation. Cancer was confirmed in 11 (73.3%) patients, including cases of breast, colon, esophageal, lymphoma, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. Four patients had no identifiable malignancy despite comprehensive work-up. Conclusions: MCD testing is feasible in routine clinical workflows, with 73% of positive cases yielding cancer diagnoses. While promising, further research is required to assess long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and optimal implementation strategies of cancer interception in broader healthcare settings.

AbstractPurposeThe hospitalist model of inpatient care has rapidly expanded, but little is known about hospitalist care in critical access hospitals (CAHs). We aimed to determine the impact of a hospitalist model of care on staff satisfaction, patient volumes, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and care quality in a CAH.MethodsWe initiated a hybrid rotating hospitalist program in September 2008 at Winneshiek Medical Center (Decorah, Iowa), a 25‐bed rural CAH. We reviewed patient volumes, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core quality measures, acute length of stay, and staff satisfaction for primary care—hospitalist physicians and inpatient and clinic nurses. Patient volume and length of stay were compared with CAH data reported by the Iowa Hospital Association.FindingsPatient volumes (acute, skilled, and observation) increased by 15% compared with a 17% decrease for statewide CAHs. Length of stay decreased from 2.88 to 2.75 days and remained lower than the average stay for Iowa CAHs (3.05 days). In the year after implementation, we observed no deterioration in core quality measures (range, 93%‐100%) or patient satisfaction (86th percentile). Inpatient nurse satisfaction and primary care‐hospitalist satisfaction improved. Early clinic nurse skepticism showed improved satisfaction at the 5‐year review.ConclusionsHospitalist care contributed to ongoing delivery of high‐quality care and satisfactory patient experiences while supporting the mission of a CAH in rural Iowa. Implementation required careful consideration of its effects on the outpatient practice. Broader implementation of this model in CAHs may be warranted.