Open access endoscopy

Open-Access Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy as an Effective and Safe Strategy for Patients With Non-alarming Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Open-access oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OAO) is defined as the performance of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) requested by referring physicians without a prior specialist consultation. With the increasing demand for specialist appointments, the use of OAO has helped to reduce healthcare utilization by decreasing prior clinic visits. This also allows endoscopies to be scheduled and performed earlier. This study aims to evaluate our experience in providing OAO services to patients with non-alarming dyspepsia symptoms under the age of 60.

METHODS

The records of patients scheduled for OAO from January 2019 to December 2022 at Singapore General Hospital (SGH) Department of Gastroenterology were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-nine patients were scheduled for OAO, and 436 patients underwent the procedure. The mean age of patients was 45.7 (SD=10.9) years old. Thirty-six percent were males, and there were 80.8% Chinese, 5.3% Malay, 8.6% Indian, and 5.3% others. The median waiting time for endoscopy was 23 days (IQR 16-36), and no major adverse events were reported. Over half of the endoscopies were unremarkable (n=231, 53%). There were 25 (5.7%) patients with major findings; three had upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma (one oesophageal and two gastric), one had oesophageal varices, and 21 had peptic ulcer disease (10 gastric and 11 duodenal ulcers). A rapid urease test was conducted on 409 patients, and 55 (13.4%) were positive.

CONCLUSION

OAO is a safe and effective strategy for providing timely diagnostic OGD to normal-risk patients at our center. Primary care physicians are encouraged to refer non-alarming dyspepsia symptoms patients under 60 years for OAO over the conventional route.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.

Evaluating screening colonoscopy quality in an uninsured urban population following patient navigation

Patient navigation (PN) increases screening colonoscopy completion in minority and uninsured populations. However, colonoscopy quality is under-reported in the setting of PN and quality indicators have often failed to meet benchmark standards. This study investigated screening colonoscopy quality indicators after year-one of a PN initiative targeting the medically uninsured. This was a retrospective analysis of 296 outpatient screening colonoscopies. Patients were 45 to 75 years of age with no history of bowel cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, or colorectal surgery. The screening colonoscopy quality indicators: adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and bowel preparation quality were compared in 89 uninsured Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) patients who received PN and 207 University Hospital patients who received usual care. The FQHC PN and University Hospital cohorts were similar in female sex (69% vs. 70%; p = 0.861) and African American race (61% vs. 61%; p = 0.920). The FQHC PN cohort was younger (57 years vs. 60 years; p < 0.001). There was no difference in ADR (33% vs. 32%; p = 0.971) or CIR (96% vs. 95%; p = 0.900) comparing the FQHC PN and University Hospital cohorts. The FQHC PN patients had a greater likelihood of an optimal bowel preparation on multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio 4.17; 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 16.20). Uninsured FQHC patients who received PN were observed to have intra-procedure quality indicators that exceeded bench-mark standards for high-quality screening colonoscopy and were equivalent to those observed in an insured University Hospital patient population.

Screening Colonoscopy among Uninsured and Underinsured Urban Minorities

Background/Aims

Uninsured individuals have lower rates of screening colonoscopy (SC), and little is known regarding the pathology results obtained when they undergo colonoscopies. Since 2004, we have participated in a program that offers SC to uninsured New Yorkers; herein, we report our findings.

Methods

Uninsured, average-risk patients who were at least 50 years of age underwent SC at our institution between April 2004 and June 2011. We analyzed polyp pathology, location, size, incidence of adenomas, and incidence of adenomas with advanced pathology (AAP) with respect to ethnicity, gender, and age.

Results

Out of 493 referrals, 222 patients completed the colonoscopies. Polyps were identified in 21.2% of all patients; 14% had adenomas, and 4.5% had AAP. The rates of adenomas among African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites were 24.3%, 12.1%, and 11.6%, respectively, and the corresponding rates of AAP were 10.8%, 3.5%, and 2.3%. Differences in the polyp type, location, and AAP did not reach statistical significance with respect to ethnicity or gender. Patients aged 60 and older were found to have a higher rate of advanced adenomas compared with younger patients (8.6% vs 2.6%, p=0.047).

Conclusions

Further efforts to fund screening colonoscopies for uninsured individuals will likely result in the identification of advanced lesions of the colon before they progress to colorectal cancer.

Open-access endoscopy

OAE is commonly used. The majority of patients referred for OAE are considered appropriate for endoscopy according to ASGE guidelines. Most patients undergoing OAE procedures are knowledgeable about the study and are satisfied with the experience. Several potential problems have been identified, including inappropriate referrals, communication errors, and inadequately prepared or informed patients. OAE can be safely used if preprocedure assessment, informed consent, information transfer, patient safety, and satisfaction are addressed in all cases.

Multicenter Study Assessing Physician Recommendations Regarding the Continuation of Aspirin and/or NSAIDs Prior to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

In 2009 the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines advised that both aspirin and NSAIDs be continued prior to low-risk gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. We sought to determine physician knowledge regarding these guidelines.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire was developed based on the ASGE guidelines. Physicians were queried about whether they would continue/stop aspirin in a patient with cardiac disease and in a patient taking NSAIDs for arthritis whether they would continue/stop NSAIDs prior to endoscopy. The survey was administered at three academic medical centers. Demographic information: level of training, board certification, teaching trainees, percentage of time in clinical practice, year of medical school graduation, and location of medical school were all reviewed. The primary outcome was number of questions answered correctly and predictors of correct responses.

RESULTS

The survey was administered to 941 participants with 12 declining to participate, while 80% (740/929) of the subjects completed the survey; 20% (150/740) respondents answered both questions correctly and 42% (310/740) answered one question correctly. There was no significant difference between institutions (p = 0.6) or between attendings and trainees (p = 0.75). Multivariate predictors of correct answers were self-reported familiarity with the guideline (-0.029; 95% CI -0.003 to -0.056, p < 0.031), level of training (0.050; 95% CI 0.012-0.088, p = 0.010), and specialty (0.108; 95% CI 0.058-0.159, p < 0.0001). Finally, there was an inverse, linear relationship between postgraduate year and percent questions correct.

CONCLUSION

Physician knowledge of guidelines regarding the use of aspirin and NSAIDs prior to endoscopy is suboptimal. Interventions are necessary to improve knowledge of the current pre-procedure guidelines.

Knowledge of Polyp History and Recommended Follow-Up Among a Predominately African American Patient Population and the Impact of Patient Navigation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal screening (CRS) rates in minority and uninsured populations have increased through patient navigation (PN) interventions. However, patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations has not been described in an African American (AA) population or following PN. Our objectives were to determine patient knowledge of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations within an AA patient population and to compare post-colonoscopy knowledge among patients who received either PN or usual care.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study of patients who completed a screening colonoscopy in 2014. A semi-structured telephone survey was completed by 96 participants (69 % AA, 78 % female, and mean age 63 years). The survey assessed patient recall of polyp results and follow-up recommendations. Responses were compared with the medical record.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients surveyed (response rate, 68 %), 83 % accurately reported if polyps were detected and 66 % accurately reported their recommended follow-up. The identification of adenomatous polyps on colonoscopy was a predictor of accurate recall of colonoscopy results and follow-up recommendations. Uninsured patients who completed PN (18 of 96) were more likely to accurately report polyp results (100 vs. 80 %; P = 0.036), but the rates of accurate follow-up recall were not statistically significant (44 vs. 71 %; P = 0.053) when compared to usual care patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In an AA population, post-colonoscopy polyp recall rates were similar to those described in white populations. Uninsured patients who completed PN were more likely than insured usual care patients to accurately report the presence of polyps on colonoscopy.

Current knowledge of antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines regarding GI open-access endoscopic procedures is inadequate

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines from 2007 and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines from 2008 recommended against antibiotic prophylaxis before GI endoscopic procedures to prevent bacterial endocarditis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine physician knowledge regarding these guidelines and to identify physician subgroups for which knowledge was suboptimal.

DESIGN

A survey questionnaire was developed based on AHA and ASGE guidelines regarding antibiotics before endoscopy. Physicians were queried about 10 theoretical scenarios as to whether or not they would recommend before-procedure antibiotics.

SETTING

The survey was administered at 3 academic medical centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Attending physicians and trainees in primary care and subspecialties.

INTERVENTIONS

Survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of the survey questions answered correctly and predictors of correct response.

RESULTS

The survey was administered to 941 participants of whom 12 declined to participate. Eighty percent (n=740/929) of participants completed the survey. The median number of correct answers was 70% (interquartile range [IQR] 50%-90%) and was similar at each institution (P=.6). A total of 7.3% (n=54) of respondents answered all questions correctly. There was no significant difference in correct responses between attending physicians and trainees or between study centers (median 7, IQR 5-9; P=.75). Gastroenterologists were more likely to answer questions correctly than other subspecialists or primary care physicians (P<.0001). On multivariate analysis, physician knowledge correlated directly with self-reported familiarity with guidelines (0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.34; P=.002) and specialty (0.56; 95% CI, 0.30-0.82; P<.001) and inversely with year of medical school graduation (0.22; 95% CI, 0.07-0.37; P=.005).

LIMITATIONS

Survey study that used theoretical scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Physician knowledge of guidelines regarding antibiotic use before endoscopy is suboptimal. Further interventions are needed to improve the knowledge of before-procedure guidelines.

Satisfaction in open access versus traditional referral for upper endoscopy in children

OBJECTIVES

In traditional access endoscopy (TAE), patients are booked for endoscopy following a gastroenterology clinic assessment. In contrast, open access endoscopy (OAE) patients are seen for the first time on the day of the procedure, providing same day procedural consent. Controversy exists over the use of OAE in adults, both with the consent process and with patient satisfaction. No literature exists describing satisfaction with OAE in pediatrics. We therefore aimed to assess pediatric patient and caregiver satisfaction in OAE compared with TAE.

METHODS

Consecutive pediatric patients, and their caregivers, undergoing elective upper endoscopy from May to December 2012 at the Stollery Children's Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) were consented for a cross-sectional survey. Seven preprocedure and 5 postprocedure questions were completed regarding mood and satisfaction with the wait time and the information provided. Group demographics and endoscopy wait times were collected.

RESULTS

Median wait time with OAE was less compared with TAE (57 days vs 196 days, P < 0.001). OAE patients reported worse mood preprocedure than TAE patients (35.3% vs 10.7%, P = 0.046). OAE caregivers and patients reported more mood disturbance if required to wait longer for endoscopy by attending clinic preprocedure (OAE caregivers 62.2%, OAE patients 64.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

OAE is associated with worse preendoscopy patient mood; however, children and caregivers seem concerned about longer wait times associated with TAE. Given the significantly shorter wait times in OAE, identifying methods to minimize present limitations of OAE will be useful to improve clinical practices in pediatric gastroenterology.

Results of a fast-track referral system for urgent outpatient hepatology visits

OBJECTIVE

In 2011, our regional district adopted an experimental system for fast referral (within 72 h) by general practitioners to several outpatient specialist evaluations including hepatology. The aim of this study was to assess the characteristics and appropriateness of urgent hepatology visits.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Hospital-based study in Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 192 subjects referred to our outpatient hepatology clinic classified as 'urgent' were compared with 397 patients evaluated with standard referral. A comparison with 200 patients visited just before the adoption of the new system was also included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' features and appropriateness of referral in urgent and non-urgent groups using the new system.

RESULTS

Increase in liver enzymes was the main factor that leads to specialist hepatology consultation and was more frequent in the urgent group (37% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001). Liver malignancies were identified in 2.6% of patients in the urgent group, whereas this percentage was 10 times lower in the non-urgent group (P = 0.01). Urgent patients required inpatient admission more frequently compared with non-urgent patients (4.2% vs. 0.5%; P = 0.003). Inappropriate referral was recorded in 41% of cases in the urgent group (no reason for urgency 27%; condition not attributable to liver 13.5%). In the non-urgent group, consultations were inappropriate in 20.1% of cases (condition not attributable to liver). In comparison with the old system, the new one allocated >85% of patients with serious illness to urgent group.

CONCLUSIONS

This strategy is helpful in selecting patients with more serious hepatic conditions. Appropriateness of referral represents a crucial issue.

Open-access colonoscopy on Ontario: associated factors and quality

BACKGROUND

Open-access (OA) colonoscopy may increase efficiency and decrease wait times; however, because the patient is seen for the first time at the endoscopy appointment, previous processes, such as information about the procedure, preparation and appropriate triage, may be suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with OA colonoscopy and to determine the relationship between OA colonoscopy and an important quality measure, incomplete colonoscopy.

METHODS

A population-based analysis of all adult outpatients undergoing a first-time colonoscopy between 1997 and 2007 in Ontario was performed. Colonoscopy was considered to be OA if there were no visits in the preceding five years with the physician performing the colonoscopy. Using logistic regression, patient, physician and institution factors associated with OA colonoscopy were identified. Using propensity score matching, the relationship between OA colonoscopy and incomplete colonoscopy in 2006 was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 1,079,259 colonoscopies were performed. Of these, 14% were OA in 1997 compared with 26% in 2007. Patients 50 to 69 years of age, those from higher-income neighbourhoods and those with less comorbidity were more likely to undergo OA colonoscopy. The odds of receiving OA colonoscopy were six times greater in a nonhospital clinic compared with a community hospital. Colonoscopy was more likely to be complete if the procedure was OA (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.4]; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of OA colonoscopy have increased substantially since 1997. Institution type was most strongly associated with OA colonoscopy. Colonoscopy completeness, a recognized quality indicator, does not appear to be compromised by OA colonoscopy.

Patient and parent satisfaction with a dietitian- and nurse- led celiac disease clinic for children at the Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient and parent satisfaction with a primarily nurse- and dietitian-led celiac disease clinic in a tertiary pediatric centre.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to families and patients attending the Stollery Children's Hospital's Multidisciplinary Pediatric Celiac Clinic (Edmonton, Alberta) since 2007. The survey focused on clinic attendance, satisfaction with clinic structure, processes, and education and preference for alternatives to the current process. Respondents were asked to rank satisfaction or preference on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being lowest and 5 being highest.

RESULTS

Most satisfaction related to follow-up with serology (4.6) and with a dietitian (4.3). The most preferred changes included either meeting the entire multidisciplinary team after the biopsy (4.7), or meeting with only the dietitian and nurse after the biopsy (4.4). The preferred education resources were the Internet (4.3) and the dietitian (4.2). The mean overall satisfaction score of the Multidisciplinary Pediatric Celiac Clinic was 4.0.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of the present survey suggested that patients and families value a multidisciplinary follow-up clinic for children with celiac disease. In particular, feedback based on repeat blood work and regular contact with a dietitian were highly valued. The present survey, outlining the most valued aspects of the clinic, may be useful for service delivery in other regions. In addition, it provides information on how to better support pediatric patients with celiac disease.

Preprocedural considerations in gastrointestinal endoscopy

The current practice of open-access endoscopy allows primary care and other non-gastroenterology physicians to directly refer patients for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Open-access endoscopy is considered to be more cost-effective and time efficient than the traditional practice of referring patients for preprocedural consultation with a gastrointestinal endoscopist. Several studies have evaluated the performance of endoscopic procedures in an open-access environment and the utility of structured referral mechanisms to ensure safe and appropriately indicated procedures. This review focuses on 4 common preprocedural issues in gastrointestinal endoscopy encountered by primary care physicians: management of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, indication for prophylactic antibiotic drug therapy, need for anesthesia-assisted sedation, and management of poor bowel preparation. We summarize the current guidelines that address these 4 common preprocedural issues to facilitate safe and clinically appropriate procedures in open-access endoscopy.

Appropriate use and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a tertiary referral hospital

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

This is a prospective, descriptive, hospital-based study to evaluate the appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract endoscopy referrals to Soba University Hospital endoscopy unit using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients referred to Soba University Hospital for upper GI endoscopy during the study period were enrolled in the study after giving an informed consent. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program to calculate frequencies and the X(2) test; P value was taken as significant at a level of less than 0.05.

RESULTS

Overall, 220 patients were prospectively enrolled in the study, of which 126 (57%) were males, with a mean age of 46.5 ± 17.9 years. A total of 190 patients (86%) were appropriately referred and the overall diagnostic yield was 46.8%. Those with appropriate referral had a higher diagnostic yield (50%) when compared to those with inappropriate referral (23%).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy was higher when patients were referred appropriately indicating that detection of relevant finding is greatly enhanced by the utilisation of standard guidelines.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for appropriate use of colonoscopy: are they suitable for African patients?

This study investigates the appropriateness and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy referrals in an African setting using the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines: a prospective, descriptive, cross-sectional hospital-based study. A total of 311 patients were included in the study; 228 referrals (73.3%) were considered appropriate and clinically significant pathology was found in 157 patients, giving an overall diagnostic yield of 50.5%. Diagnostic yield in those with appropriate referrals was 58.8% and 27.7% (P = 0.004) in those with inappropriate referrals. In our setting these guidelines are useful in improving diagnostic yield and reducing the rate of inappropriate referrals for colonoscopy. However, patients above the age of 50 presenting with lower gastrointestinal symptoms should undergo a colonoscopy even if the indication was inappropriate, especially in countries which are not implementing colorectal cancer screening programmes for average risk patients.

[Management of open access gastrointestinal endoscopy and quality of care: collaboration between an improvement team and primary care]

OBJECTIVE

To create an improvement team within a healthcare quality improvement project of the Government of Aragon (Spain), aimed at increasing the quality of care and suitability of the indications of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the open access endoscopy system of a secondary hospital in Aragon.

DESIGN

The team developed a consensus document indicating how to use oral endoscopy and colonoscopy correctly, and held information and training sessions with all the primary care physicians involved in this area.

LOCATION

Sector I health centers and Royo Villanova Hospital, in Zaragoza.

PARTICIPANTS

The team consisted of a gastroenterologist and three primary care physicians and, from the outset received the support of the primary care administration and management in the health area.

RESULTS

Inappropriate use of endoscopy, particularly colonoscopy, was reduced from 20% to 11.6%. Significant savings were achieved in health costs. The endoscopy waiting list was reduced. The quality of care and the safety of patients undergoing these examinations improved. Training of primary care physicians in these procedures was enhanced, and coordination between primary and specialized was implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

To ensure efficient running of an open access gastrointestinal endoscopy system, an interdisciplinary improvement team and the full involvement of the primary care staff managing this resource are required.

Diagnostic Yield of Microscopic Colitis in Open Access Endoscopy Center

Background

The diagnostic yield in open access endoscopy has been evaluated which generally support the effectiveness and efficiency of open access endoscopy. With a few exceptions, diagnostic yield studies have not been performed in open access endoscopy for more specific conditions. Therefore, we conducted a study to determine the efficiency of open access endoscopy in the detection of microscopic colitis as compared to traditional referral via a gastroenterologist.

Methods

A retrospective search of the pathology database at the University of Missouri for specimens from a local open access endoscopy center was conducted via SNOMED code using the terms: “microscopic”, “lymphocytic”, “collagenous”, “spirochetosis”, “focal active colitis”, “melanosis coli” and “histopathologic” in the diagnosis line for the time period between January 1, 2004 and May 25, 2006. Specimens and colonoscopy reports were reviewed by a single pathologist.

Results

Of 266 consecutive patients with chronic diarrhea and normal colonoscopies, the number of patients with microscopic disease are as follows: Lymphocytic colitis (n = 12, 4.5%), collagenous colitis (n = 17, 6.4%), focal active colitis (n = 15, 5.6%), and spirochetosis (n = 2, 0.4%).

Conclusions

The diagnostic yield of microscopic colitis in this study of an open access endoscopy center does not differ significantly from that seen in major medical centers. In terms of diagnostic yield, open access endoscopy appears to be as effective in diagnosing microscopic colitis.

A nine-year audit of open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: results and experience of a single centre

BACKGROUND

The appropriateness and safety of open-access endoscopy are very important issues as its use continues to increase.

OBJECTIVE

To present a review of a nine-year experience with open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with respect to indications, diagnostic efficacy, safety and diseases diagnosed.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational case series of all patients who underwent open-access endoscopy between January 2000 and December 2008 was conducted. Indications were classified as appropriate or not appropriate according to American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. Endoscopic diagnoses were based on widely accepted criteria. Major complication rates were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 20,620 patients with a mean age of 58 years were assessed, of whom 11,589 (56.2%) were women and 9031 (43.8%) were men. Adherence to ASGE indications led to statistically significant, clinically relevant findings. The most common indications in patients older than age 45 years of age were dyspepsia (28.5%) and anemia (19.7%) in the ASGE-appropriate group, and dyspepsia in patients younger than 45 years of age without therapy trial (6.6%) in the nonappropriate group. Of the examinations, 38.57% were normal. Hiatal hernia and nonerosive gastritis were the most common findings. Important diagnoses such as malignancies and duodenal ulcers would have been missed if endoscopies were performed only according to appropriateness. There were only two major complications and no mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is a safe and effective system. More relevant findings were found when adhering to the ASGE guidelines. However, using these guidelines as the sole determining factor in whether to perform an endoscopy is not advisable because many clinically relevant diagnoses may be overlooked.

Identification of patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer in an open access endoscopy center

GOALS

To determine whether patients referred for open access endoscopy (OAE) are being appropriately identified as "increased risk" or "average risk" for colorectal cancer (CRC) by referring physicians.

BACKGROUND

OAE allows nongastroenterologists to schedule elective endoscopies without prior consultation with a gastroenterologist. It is unknown how accurately referring physicians identify CRC risk of such patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of outpatients referred to a single OAE center for screening or surveillance colonoscopy from July 1, 2001 to November 8, 2002. Before colonoscopy, a 3-question tool was used to stratify each patient as average risk or increased risk for CRC. CRC risk assessment was compared with the referring physician's indication for colonoscopy. Chi-square testing was used to compare the incidence of neoplastic polyps between average risk and increased risk patients.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Referring physicians accurately identified 61% of 126 increased risk patients, including 13 of 19 patients (68%) with a personal history of CRC, 29 of 61 patients (48%) with a family history of CRC, 47 of 61 patients (77%) with a personal history of colonic polyps, and 0 of 8 patients (0%) who met clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Adenomatous polyps were found in 24% of average risk patients compared with 41% of increased risk patients (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In an OAE system, referring physicians often fail to correctly identify patients at increased risk for CRC. Our 3-question tool for risk assessment helps to better identify patients at increased risk of CRC and can be used by gastroenterologists to stratify patients referred for OAE.

A program to enhance completion of screening colonoscopy among urban minorities

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although colonoscopy is becoming the preferred screening test for colorectal cancer, screening rates, particularly among minorities, are low. Little is known about the uptake of screening colonoscopy or the factors that predict colonoscopy completion among minorities. This study investigated the use of patient navigation within an open-access referral system and its effects on colonoscopy completion rates among urban minorities.

METHODS

This was a cohort study that took place at a teaching hospital in New York. Participants were mostly African Americans and Hispanics directly referred for screening colonoscopy by primary care clinics from November 2003 to May 2006. Once referred, a bilingual Hispanic female patient navigator facilitated the colonoscopy completion. Completion rates, demographic factors associated with completing colonoscopy, endoscopic findings, and patient satisfaction were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 1169 referrals, 688 patients qualified for and 532 underwent navigation. Two thirds (66%) of navigated patients completed screening colonoscopies, 16% had adenomas, and only 5% had inadequate bowel preps. Women were 1.31 times more likely to complete the colonoscopy than men (P = .014). Hispanics were 1.67 times more likely to complete the colonoscopy than African Americans (P = .013). Hispanic women were 1.50 times more likely to complete the colonoscopy than Hispanic men (P = .009). Patient satisfaction was 98% overall, with 66% reporting that they definitely or probably would not have completed their colonoscopy without navigation.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a patient navigator, the majority of urban minorities successfully completed their colonoscopies, clinically significant pathology was detected, and patient satisfaction was enhanced. This approach may help increase adherence with screening colonoscopy efforts in other clinical settings.

Factors contributing to patient nonattendance at open-access endoscopy

Patients who miss endoscopy appointments cause inefficient utilization of medical resources. Because national nonattendance rates are as high as 27% and reasons for nonattendance have not been well studied, we sought to quantitate nonattendance at our tertiary care institution. We conducted a retrospective records review of the institutional database to identify patients who did not attend a scheduled endoscopy appointment between January 2000 and December 2003. Nonattendance was defined as either not showing up for an appointment or canceling it on the day it was scheduled. At our institution, patient care assistants contact such patients to document their reasons in the database. Of 36,480 patients scheduled for outpatient endoscopy, 1,490 (4.1%) did not show up because of either facility-related (44.3%; e.g., scheduling errors) or patient-related (55.7%; e.g., noncancellation, illness, or hospitalization) reasons. Our 4.1% nonattendance rate over 4 years is considerably lower than that reported by other endoscopy centers.