ArticleBMJ open quality2025
PSAzing up patient care: a quality improvement project for informed cancer screening.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProstate cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the USA. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for screening remains controversial, with shared decision-making (SDM) recommended by professional guidelines to discuss screening's risks, benefits and uncertainties. Despite these recommendations, SDM is underused, with only 10% of men receiving comprehensive SDM. This quality improvement project aimed to improve SDM documentation and the implementation of PSA screening in an urban safety-net, resident-led primary care clinic.
methodsWe implemented a continuity clinic note template with a specific SDM 'dot phrase' to improve the documentation and execution of SDM conversations. Our primary aim was to increase SDM documentation for prostate cancer screening, with a secondary aim to improve follow-up on abnormal PSA values. The intervention included men aged 55-69 years. Preintervention, residents were educated on SDM and PSA screening. Postintervention, patient charts were reviewed for documentation rates and screening outcomes. Feedback was collected during dedicated sessions. Finally, comparative statistics were conducted between baseline preintervention and eligible postintervention cohorts.
resultsSDM documentation improved significantly from 7.1% preintervention to 37.2% postintervention (p<0.001). PSA screening rates increased from 31.5% to 37.8% (p=0.155), though not significantly. Notably, 49.3% of patients declined PSA testing post-SDM, and 68.5% of previously screened patients were up to date with PSA testing. Residents reported challenges with SDM implementation, including time constraints and patient acuity.
conclusionTemplated notes and dot phrases significantly improved SDM documentation, both compared with our clinic baseline rates and compared with recent reported national rates, overall enhancing standardised preventive care in primary care. Although PSA screening rates improved, challenges such as time limitations and patient no-shows impacted the intervention's effectiveness. Future cycles will address these barriers to improve outcomes further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.