Smoking cessation services and shared decision‐making practices among lung cancer screening facilities: A cross‐sectional study

• Published in: Cancer Vol. 128; no. 10; pp. 1967 - 1975
• Main Authors: Lowenstein, Lisa M., Nishi, Shawn P. E., Lopez‐Olivo, Maria A., Crocker, Laura Covarrubias, Choi, Noah, Kim, Bumyang, Shih, Ya‐Chen “Tina”, Volk, Robert J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 15-05-2022
• Subjects: Aged; Cancer screening; Cigarette smoking; Clinical decision making; Computed tomography; Counseling; Cross-Sectional Studies; Decision making; Drug addiction; early detection; Early Detection of Cancer - methods; Government programs; health care delivery; Humans; Lung cancer; lung neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Lung nodules; Medical screening; Medicare; Nodules; Oncology; Radiology; Sampling; shared decision‐making; Smoking; Smoking cessation; Smoking Cessation - methods; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; United States - epidemiology; United States; health care delivery; early detection; lung neoplasms; smoking cessation; shared decision-making
• ISSN: 0008-543X; 1097-0142
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34145

Background
Little is known about how screening facilities are meeting the requirements for the reimbursement of lung cancer screening from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including 1) the collection and submission of data to the CMS‐approved registry (American College of Radiology [ACR] Lung Cancer Screening Registry), 2) the verification of a counseling and shared decision‐making (SDM) visit having occurred as part of the written order for lung cancer screening with low‐dose computed tomography, and 3) the offering of smoking cessation interventions.
Methods
The authors identified facilities in a southwestern state that were listed by either the ACR Lung Cancer Screening Registry or the GO2 Foundation Centers of Excellence. To select facilities, they used 2 purposive sampling approaches: maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling. They surveyed facilities from February to November 2019.
Results
There were 87 facilities contacted, and a total of 63 facilities representing 32 counties across Texas completed the survey. Nearly all facilities used Lung‐RADS to classify nodules (92%; n = 58) and submitted data to a CMS‐approved registry (92%; n = 57). Most facilities verified that the counseling and SDM visit had occurred (86%; n = 54). Although slightly more than half of the facilities reported always providing self‐help cessation materials (68%; n = 42), similar or higher proportions of facilities reported that they never referred smokers to onsite cessation services (68%; n = 42) or quitlines (77%; n = 47), provided cessation counseling (81%; n = 50), or recommended medications (85%; n = 52).
Conclusions
In general, screening facilities are meeting CMS requirements for screening, but they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self‐help materials.
Lung cancer screening facilities are meeting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements for screening, including verifying that a shared decision‐making visit has occurred. However, they are struggling to offer smoking cessation interventions other than providing self‐help materials.