Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States and one of the most preventable and treatable cancers. In 2010, an estimated 142,570 newly CRC cases were diagnosed and approximately 51,370 CRC related deaths were recorded. Evidence supports a 91% treatment success rate if detected early meaning that nearly 30,000 to 44,000 lives per year could be saved if all adults 50 years and older were screened for CRC. Foreground: The impact of primary care providers on patients’ screening behavior is vital to improving the rates of CRC screening in primary care. Barriers must be identified and understood, interventions developed and implemented to attain higher CRC screening rates. EBP Framework: The Advanced Research and Clinical practice through close Collaboration (ARCC) EBP model served as framework. The Control Theory (CT) and the Cognitive Behavior Theory both form the theoretical foundation for the ARCC model which is particularly suited to organization-wide practice change, and strongly supports a patient centered approach to care delivery. Methods: With the organization’s leadership consent, the organization’s readiness for EBP was established using the Organizational Culture & Readiness for System-wide Integration of Evidence-based Practice (OCRSIEP) scale. Five primary care providers consented to participate in a pre-intervention survey about their current practice, knowledge and attitudes towards CRC screening. The participants were guided through the use of the web-based Nevada Colorectal Cancer Partnership screening tool. A chart audit was done on 60 randomly selected charts of patients seen in the 8-week period prior to intervention to establish a baseline for CRC screening at the clinic. Findings/Results: Descriptive analysis of retroactive charts review was used to examine post-intervention screening activities at the clinic. A review of data from 60 randomly selected charts of patients seen at the clinic during the 8-week intervention period revealed a comparative increase in providers’ post-intervention CRC screening activity rates of 56.25% depicted by 22.5% screening rates. Conclusions/Recommendations: Provider focused educational intervention supported by the introduction of clinical practice guidelines, informational cupports by clinic nurses, provision of informational pamphlets and scheduling assistance by the clinic clerk and staff, facilitated a change in providers’ behavior to consistently and routinely discuss CRC screening with patients during clinic visits. A plan is now in place for continuous monitoring of adherence to CRC screening activities at the clinic.
