CRCCP
Annual Grantee Survey
|
Section
|
Revision
|
Rationale
|
Section 1: Respondent
Information
|
No changes
|
|
Section 2: Program Management
|
Wording
changes throughout
the section related to:
formal
partnerships with health systems, insurance companies, health
networks, and other entities that provide direct health care
ability
of grantee to obtain accurate CRC screening rates
access
of screening services among priority populations
efforts
to evaluate program activities
|
Based on feedback from grantees,
CDC incorporated minor wording changes to multiple survey items to
increase clarity and understanding. Revised items do not require
grantees to compile a higher volume of information; rather, the
improved questions are expected to improve data quality.
|
Added
1
question to measure
challenges in obtaining accurate screening rate data
|
In Program Year 1, several
grantees expressed concern about obtaining high quality screening
rate data. This item is intended to assess the extent to which
grantees faced challenges in obtaining high quality screening rate
data by improving electronic health record systems.
|
Added 2
questions to
measure access to follow-up colonoscopies
|
During Program Year 1, several
grantees made CDC aware of challenges in assuring follow-up
colonoscopies for patients with positive CRC screening tests.
These items are intended to measure the extent to which grantees
faced challenges in ensuring that priority populations (e.g., un-
and underinsured) had access to follow-up colonoscopy services,
and efforts to increase access.
|
Added
3
questions to assess
evaluation activities
|
During Program Year 1, CDC had
regular communications with CRCCP evaluators. These new questions
are intended to gather additional information about the activities
mentioned in PY1 communications by assessing current evaluation
activities, including the development of data collection
instruments to conduct internal evaluation activities, and working
with internal and external evaluators for evaluation
planning/implementation.
|
Added
2
questions to assess
programmatic support for grantees’ partner health systems
and/or clinics
|
In Program Year 1, CDC found that
grantees established partnerships with entities not previously
accounted for in the survey items related to partnership
development. The revised item is intended to gather additional
information about the development/maintenance of partnerships with
different types of health agencies, including Health Center
Control Networks (HCCNs) and Regional Extension Centers (RECs).
|
|
Added 2
questions to assess
grantees’ support for partner health systems/clinics
|
In Program Year 1, CDC learned
that many grantees were providing support to grantees (e.g.,
technical assistance, resources) that were not captured in the
previous survey. These items are intended to capture sources of
support and financial resources.
|
Section 3: Implementation
Activities, Health IT, and Partnerships
|
Added
3
questions to assess
“promising” EBIs or supportive activities for future
evaluation.
|
These questions were added to
provide information about any EBIs or SAs that grantees are
implementing that may be appropriate for more rigorous evaluation
to inform future implementation.
|
Removed 1
question that
assessed any improved or newly-implemented community-clinical
activities
|
|
Removed
76
questions (total of
10 subsections) that assessed grantee activities related to
Four
EBIs (i.e., provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders,
patient reminders, reducing structural barriers), and
Six
SAs (i.e., small media, patient navigation, professional
development/provider education, quality improvement, community
health workers, workplaces)
|
This information will be
collected via the Clinic-Level Data Elements. Removal from the
survey reduces burden among grantees and avoids redundancy in the
data collected.
|
Section 4: Data Use
|
No changes
|
|
Section 5: Training and
Technical Assistance
|
Added
3
questions to assess
levels of need for TA and training related to evaluating EBIs and
SAs; improving EHRs, and improving workflow processes.
|
In Program Year 1, CDC learned
from grantees about additional TA and training needs not included
in the existing survey. Additional questions have been added to
gather information about these topic areas.
|
Added
1
question to measure
the usefulness of the newly established CRCCP Evaluation Network.
|
CDC is interested In obtaining
feedback from grantees on the extent to which a newly developed
CRCCP Evaluation Network (formed in Program Year 1) is useful for
grantees in planning/implementing their programs to inform future
program implementation.
|
Added
1
question to measure
usefulness of the Colorectal Cancer Clinical Data Elements (CCDEs)
data reviews/reports.
|
CDC is seeking feedback on the
extent to which CCDE data reviews and reports are useful for
grantees in inform future TA efforts.
|
CRCCP
Clinic-Level Data Collection
|
Section
|
Revision
|
Rationale
|
Section 1: Record
Identification Fields
|
No changes
|
|
Section 2: Partner Health
System Characteristics
|
No changes
|
|
Section 3: Clinic
Characteristics
|
Added
1
question to
determine whether clinic is newly opened.
|
In Program Year 1, CDC found that
several grantees were unable to report screening rates at baseline
due to the fact that these clinics were newly established.
In
Program Years 2-5, this item will determine whether the clinic is
newly established (i.e., operating less than one year). Analysis
will assess whether newly opened clinics observe significantly
different screening rates from established clinics.
|
Section 4: Clinic Patient
Population Characteristics
|
Removed
1
question “%
of patients, age 50-75, Non-Hispanic”
|
A similar question measures the
percent of patients age 50-75 who are Hispanic; therefore, CDC
determined that it was unnecessary to also measure the percent of
patients who were non-Hispanic as this can be calculated during
analysis.
|
Section 5: Report Period
|
Revised
1
question to
determine clinic partnership status.
|
In Program Year 1, CDC assessed
clinics’ implementation plan status to determine whether the
clinic planned to continue CRCCP activities with CDC funding;
sustain CRCCP activities without CDC funding or terminate the
partnership with the grantee. CDC found that information on CRCCP
activities irrespective of CRCCP funding was not essential to
gather.
The item has been revised so
that in Program Years 2-5, the item will instead determine whether
the grantee’s partnership with the clinic is still active.
|
Section 6: Chart Review
Screening Rate Data
|
No changes
|
|
Section 7: Electronic Health
Records (EHRs) Screening Rate Data
|
Added
2
questions to
identify and describe any problems with reported screening rate
|
In Program Year 1, CDC found that
some grantees provided low quality screening data due to
unforeseen challenges collecting screening data from clinics
(e.g., inaccurate reports from electronic health record systems),
and expressed a low level of confidence in reported screening
rates.
For Program Years 2-5, this
item will provide context to activities being implemented to
monitor and improve data.
|
Added
1
question to report
screening rate target for annual reporting
|
During Program Year 1, grantees
shared an interest in setting clinic-specific targets for
improving screening rates. This item is intended to encourage
grantees to set screening rate targets for their programs to
support them in working towards and established goal and increase
chances for success.
|
Section 8: Monitoring and
Quality Improvement
|
Added
6
questions to
measure:
frequency
of clinic screening rate monitoring and review
frequency
of implementation support for clinics
whether
screening rate was validated
existence
of CRC champion within clinic or health system
client
access to component 2 services (for grantees funded under
Component 2 only)
open
field to report optional comments
|
This section was added to assess
monitoring and evaluation efforts at the clinic level. These
questions are intended to assess program management practices,
evaluation activities, and the potential impact of having a clinic
or health systems champion. Analyses in this area will focus on
whether differences in evaluation and monitoring practices
impacted screening rates.
|
Section 9: Priority
Evidence-Based Interviews (EBIs) and Supportive Activities (SAs)
|
Removed 22
questions (two from
each of the eleven EBIs, SAs, and Other CRC Activities) that
measured:
|
In Program Year 1, many grantees
expressed difficulty in determining implementation stages across
clinics that varied greatly in their implementation activities.
These questions were replaced with 3 new questions (described
below).
|
Added
24 questions (three
to each of the eight EBIs and SAs) to measure:
whether
the EBI/SA was in place at the end of the program year
whether
planning activities were conducted for future implementation (if
applicable)
extent
to which the EBI/SA is sustainable (if applicable)
|
Intended to measure grantees’
planning activities and sustainability for those EBI/SAs that are
still active at the end of the program year. Feedback on clinics’
planning activities will help CDC better understand clinics’
planning efforts for their CRCCP activities.
|
Removed
5
questions to assess
health information technology (HIT), including:
HIT
technology in place at baseline
Use
of CRC resources to support HIT
Implementation
stage of HIT
Date
that HIT was fully implemented
Types of quality
improvement activities in place to support HIT
|
During Program Year 1, CDC
learned that grantees conduct significant HIT related support
activities in clinics. CDC determined that HIT activities involve
various interim steps and may not be a continuous strategy in
place over time. HIT activities can instead be reported under
“Other CRC activity or strategy.”
|