Cited by 10Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionHealthcare cost, quality, practicesHealth Policy Implementation Science

A “Sludge Audit” for Health System Colorectal Cancer Screening Services

Open access
Michelle S. Rockwell·2023·The American Journal of Managed Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: "Sludge," or the frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to attain what they want or need, is an unexplored health care delivery factor that may contribute to deficiencies in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We piloted a method to identify and quantify sludge in a southeastern US health system's delivery of CRC screening services. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods sludge audit. METHODS: We collected and analyzed quantitative (insurance claims, electronic health record, and administrative files) and qualitative (stakeholder interviews and process observations) data associated with CRC screening for instances of sludge. Because they contribute to sludge and reduce system capacity for high-value screening, we also evaluated low-value CRC screening processes. RESULTS: Although specific results were likely amplified by effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sludge audit revealed important areas for improvement. A 60.4% screening rate was observed. Approximately half of screening orders were not completed. The following categories of sludge were identified: communication, time, technology, administrative tasks, paperwork, and low-value care. For example, wait times for screening colonoscopy were substantial, duplicate orders were common, and some results were not accessible in the electronic health record. Of completed screenings, 32% were low-value and 38% were associated with low-value preoperative testing. There was evidence of a differential negative impact of sludge to vulnerable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our sludge audit method identified and quantified multiple instances of sludge in a health system's CRC screening processes. Sludge audits can help organizations to systematically evaluate and reduce sludge for more effective and equitable CRC screening.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.37765/ajmc.2023.89402

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Delay discounting bias is often exacerbated by sludge or the frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to achieve what they want or need.

    “This bias is often exacerbated by “sludge” or the frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to achieve what they want or need [28,112].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Take-Away Points define sludge as frictions or administrative burdens that make it difficult for people to attain what they want or need. The Discussion says sludge may influence decision-making and deter colorectal cancer screening, but the paper does not establish that it often exacerbates delay discounting bias. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 10

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965-1977. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6238 [PubMed: 34003218] · DOI
  2. Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):250-281. doi:10.3322/caac.21457 [PubMed: 29846947] · DOI · Paper page
  3. Patel SG, May FP, Anderson JC, et al. Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(1):285-299. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.007 [PubMed: 34794816] · DOI
  4. Carmichael H, Cowan M, McIntyre R, Velopulos C. Disparities in colorectal cancer mortality for rural populations in the United States: Does screening matter? Am J Surg. 2020;219(6):988-992. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.027 [PubMed: 31604486] · DOI
  5. Dougherty MK, Brenner AT, Crockett SD, et al. Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1645-1658. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637 [PubMed: 30326005] · DOI · Paper page
  6. Issaka RB, Avila P, Whitaker E, Bent S, Somsouk M. Population Health Interventions to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening by Fecal Immunochemical Tests: A Systematic Review. Prev Med. 2019;118:113-121. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.021 [PubMed: 30367972] · DOI
  7. Inadomi JM, Issaka RB, Green BB. What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;19(4):633-645. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.016 [PubMed: 31887438] · DOI
  8. Mog AC, Liang PS, Donovan LM, et al. Timely Colonoscopy After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Assessment of Current Practice and Perceived Barriers. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. Published online January 19, 2022. doi:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000438 · DOI
  9. Sunstein CR. Sludge: What Stops Us from Getting Things Done and What to Do about It. MIT Press; 2021.
  10. Sundaram S, Olson S, Sharma P, Rajendra S. A Review of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening: Implications and Solutions. Pathogens. 2021;10(11):1508. doi:10.3390/pathogens10111508 [PubMed: 34832663] · DOI
  11. Williams PA, Zaidi SK, Sengupta R. AACR Report on the Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Research and Patient Care. Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28(4):609-610. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0192 [PubMed: 35140125] · DOI
  12. Zoellner J, Porter K, Thatcher E, et al. A Multilevel Approach to Understand the Context and Potential Solutions for Low Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Rates in Rural Appalachia Clinics. J Rural Health Off J Am Rural Health Assoc Natl Rural Health Care Assoc. 2021;37(3):585-601. doi:10.1111/jrh.12522 · DOI
  13. Fraiman J, Brownlee S, Stoto MA, Lin KW, Huffstetler AN. An Estimate of the US Rate of Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review. J Gen Intern Med. Published online February 25, 2022. doi:10.1007/s11606-021-07263-w · DOI
  14. Sunstein CR. Sludge Audits. Behav Public Policy. Published online January 6, 2020:1-20. doi:10.1017/bpp.2019.32 · DOI
  15. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(7):1016-1030. doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.174 [PubMed: 28555630] · DOI
  16. Mafi JN, Reid RO, Baseman LH, et al. Trends in Low-Value Health Service Use and Spending in the US Medicare Fee-for-Service Program, 2014-2018. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2037328. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37328 [PubMed: 33591365] · DOI
  17. Ganguli I, Morden NE, Yang CWW, Crawford M, Colla CH. Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(11):1490-1500. doi:10.1001/ jamainternmed.2021.5531 [PubMed: 34570170] · DOI
  18. Reid RO, Mafi JN, Baseman LH, Fendrick AM, Damberg CL. Waste in the Medicare Program: a National Cross-Sectional Analysis of 2017 Low-Value Service Use and Spending. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(8):2478-2482. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06061-0 [PubMed: 32728953] · DOI
  19. Milkman K, Beshears J, Choi J, Laibson D, Madrian BC. Planning Prompts as a Means of Increasing Preventive Screening Rates. Prev Med. 2013;56(1):92-93. doi:10.1016/ j.ypmed.2012.10.021 [PubMed: 23123859] · DOI
  20. Hsiang EY, Mehta SJ, Small DS, et al. Association of an Active Choice Intervention in the Electronic Health Record Directed to Medical Assistants With Clinician Ordering and Patient Completion of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11):e1915619. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15619 [PubMed: 31730186] · DOI
  21. Chen RC, Haynes K, Du S, Barron J, Katz AJ. Association of Cancer Screening Deficit in the United States With the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(6):878-884. doi:10.1001/ jamaoncol.2021.0884 [PubMed: 33914015] · DOI
  22. Balzora S, Issaka RB, Anyane-Yeboa A, Gray DM, May FP. Impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer disparities and the way forward. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(4):946-950. doi:10.1016/ j.gie.2020.06.042 [PubMed: 32574570] · DOI
  23. Bakouny Z, Paciotti M, Schmidt AL, Lipsitz SR, Choueiri TK, Trinh QD. Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(3):458-460. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7600 [PubMed: 33443549] · DOI
  24. Piscitello A, Edwards DK. Estimating the Screening-Eligible Population Size, Ages 45-74, at Average Risk to Develop Colorectal Cancer in the United States. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa). 2020;13(5):443-448. doi:10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0527 · DOI
  25. Haas JS, Brawarsky P, Iyer A, et al. Association of Local Capacity for Endoscopy with Individual Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Stage at Diagnosis. Cancer. 2010;116(12):2922. doi:10.1002/cncr.25093 [PubMed: 20564398] · DOI
  26. Burgess DJ. Are providers more likely to contribute to healthcare disparities under high levels of cognitive load? How features of the healthcare setting may lead to biases in medical decision making. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(2):246-257. doi:10.1177/0272989X09341751 · DOI · Paper page
  27. de Bruijn EJ, Antonides G. Poverty and economic decision making: a review of scarcity theory. Theory Decis. 2022;92(1):5-37. doi:10.1007/s11238-021-09802-7 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Thaler RH. Nudge, not sludge. Science. 2018;361(6401):431-431. doi:10.1126/science.aau9241 [PubMed: 30072515] · DOI
  29. Eber MR, Sunstein CR, Hammitt JK, Yeh JM. The Modest Effects of Fact Boxes on Cancer Screening. J Risk Uncertain. 2021;62(1):29-54. doi:10.1007/s11166-021-09344-x [PubMed: 34385760] · DOI
  30. Last BS, Buttenheim AM, Timon CE, Mitra N, Beidas RS. Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e048801. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2021-048801 · DOI
  31. Courtlandt CD, Noonan L, Feld LG. Model for Improvement -Part 1: A Framework for Health Care Quality. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2009;56(4):757-778. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2009.06.002 [PubMed: 19660626] · DOI
  32. Walsh-Bailey C, Tsai E, Tabak RG, et al. A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models. Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):100. doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01173-5 [PubMed: 34819122] · DOI
  33. Norton WE, Chambers DA. Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):2. doi:10.1186/s13012-019-0960-9 [PubMed: 31915032] · DOI
  34. Cliff BQ, Avanceña ALV, Hirth RA, Lee SYD. The Impact of Choosing Wisely Interventions on Low-Value Medical Services: A Systematic Review. Milbank Q. 2021;99(4):1024-1058. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12531 [PubMed: 34402553] · DOI

Authors
Rockwell, M. S.
Affiliations
Carilion Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Michelle S. Rockwell
Venue
The American Journal of Managed Care
Published
2023-07-27
Volume
29
Issue
7
Pages
e222-e228
ISSN
  • 1088-0224 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2692
OpenAlex
W4385324714
Cited by
10
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The American Journal of Managed Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Carilion Clinic
  • National Institutes of Health (KL2TR003016, UL1TR003015)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
sludge, colorectal cancer screening, health care delivery, administrative burden, low-value care, screening colonoscopy, waiting time, vulnerable populations, health equity, healthcare quality improvement
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Southeastern United States, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review