Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cancer screening results have increased in complexity over the past two decades. Little is known about how patient-, clinician-, and organization-level factors influence implementation when guidelines change. Process mapping may offer insights into organizational processes and facilitate visualization for potential intervention opportunities. Methods: We conducted an iterative multimodal qualitative assessment to compare abnormal cervical cancer screening management between two health systems: a safety-net institution and an integrated health system. We interviewed clinicians and staff to generate (phase I, May 2019–March 2021) and validate (phase II, July–Oct 2022) process maps at both systems. We conducted a rapid and thematic content analysis and engaged clinical and nonclinical stakeholders during interpretation. Results: At both health systems, process maps informed by phase I participants (n = 31) identified a gap in care during patients’ transition back to primary care following resolution of abnormal tests by gynecologists. In phase II, participants (n = 21) validated and revised maps, noting guideline updates and quality improvement initiatives. Although each system deployed unique strategies to address gaps in care, strategies in common included creating electronic health record–based clinical decision support tools, enabling gynecologists to provide real-time e-consults to primary care clinicians, and engaging patients via the portal. Conclusions: The complexity of cervical cancer screening management guidelines elevates the importance of identifying system-level tools to support clinician decision-making and coordinate between primary and specialty care teams. Impact: Process maps are valuable in generating cross-system comparisons by documenting clinical workflows, identifying care gaps, and engaging participants in formulating potential interventions.
Funding Information
  • National Cancer Institute (UM1CA221940)
  • American Cancer Society (CRP-22-080-01-CTPS)

This publication has 42 references indexed in Scilit: