Effectiveness and patient satisfaction with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy performed by registered nurses

The effect of nurse assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rates: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Adenoma's detection rates have been reported to vary with the participation status of endoscopic nurses during colonoscopy. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether the participation of endoscopy nurses during colonoscopy contributed to the improved detection rate of polyps and adenomas.

METHODS

We retrieved English original research from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases and Chinese original research from the CNKI Data database. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of participation of endoscopy nurses during colonoscopy of colorectal polyps and adenomas on polyp detection rates to that of nonparticipation. RevMan5.4 software was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials involving 8278 patients. The results showed no significant difference between colonoscopies performed by nurses and endoscopists, but colonoscopies performed by two nurses significantly improved the detection rate of polyps and adenomas. In the random effects model, there was a significant difference in PDR between the single-observation and dual-observation groups (RR, 1.27; 95%CI, 1.05, 1.54; Z = 2.51; P = 0.01). The ADR difference between the single observation group and the double observation group was statistically significant (RR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.05, 1.26; Z = 2.91; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy nurses' participation in colonoscopy can improve the detection rate of polyps and adenomas, However, more research is needed to confirm the results.

Nurse's Roles in Colorectal Cancer Prevention: A Narrative Review

The objective of this paper is to investigate the different roles of nurses as members of healthcare teams at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of colorectal cancer prevention. The research team conducted a narrative review of studies involving the role of nurses at different levels of colorectal cancer prevention, which included a variety of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Magiran, the Scientific Information Database (SID), Noormags, and the Islamic Science Citation (ISC) databases from ab initio until 2021. A total of 117 studies were reviewed. Nurses' roles were classified into three levels of prevention. At the primary level, the most important role related to educating people to prevent cancer and reduce risk factors. At the secondary level, the roles consisted of genetic counseling, stool testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, biopsy and screening test follow-ups, and chemotherapy intervention, while at the tertiary level, their roles were made up of pre-and post-operative care to prevent further complications, rehabilitation, and palliative care. Nurses at various levels of prevention care also act as educators, coordinators, performers of screening tests, follow-up, and provision of palliative and end-of-life care. If these roles are not fulfilled at some levels of colorectal cancer, it is generally due to the lack of knowledge and competence of nurses or the lack of instruction and legal support for them. Nurses need sufficient clinical knowledge and experience to perform these roles at all levels.

Accelerated non-medical endoscopy training: one trust's experience

Endoscopy services are under considerable pressure to meet the increasing demand expected by 2020. A large hospital foundation trust was offered the opportunity to develop its endoscopy workforce by two of its endoscopy nurses obtaining a place on Health Education England's accelerated non-medical endoscopy training programme. The training took place over a period of 7 months and combined comprehensive endoscopy training supported by a robust academic component. A thematic analysis was carried out on the trainees' reflective journals kept during the course, and this highlighted the frequently occurring themes. The trust has benefited greatly from the experience, and, although challenging, the rewards can be far-reaching and have a positive impact on staff and patients.

Comparison of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Average Risk Patients Performed by Nurses Versus Gastroenterologists

Background

Screening sigmoidoscopy is effective in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer. In 2009, Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) launched a nurse-performed screening flexible sigmoidoscopy program at Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston, Ontario. Prior to this program, there was a pilot sigmoidoscopy screening program by gastroenterologists in a similar average risk cohort.

Aim

To compare neoplasia detection rates and associated costs of screening sigmoidoscopy performed by nurses and gastroenterologists.

Method

A retrospective chart review was conducted on flexible sigmoidoscopies performed as part of two average risk screening programs performed by gastroenterologists and nurse-endoscopists. Detected polyps were categorized as hyperplastic, low-risk adenomas or high-risk adenomas. Average cost per procedure was estimated based on physician fee for service charges, nurse wage and benefits, physician supervisory fees, pathology costs and administrative expenses.

Results

There were 538 procedures performed by nurses and 174 by physicians. Adenomas were detected in 18% of nurse-performed procedures versus 9% in physician-performed procedures (p=0.003), with the higher adenoma detection rate restricted to low risk adenomas. One cancer was found in the physician group. Seven physicians performed the 174 sigmoidoscopies, with one physician performing the majority. This physician’s adenoma detection rate was 4.5%, whereas detection rate for the remaining physicians combined was 16.5%. Nurses biopsied more polyps per case (0.96 versus 0.18). Average estimated cost per case was greater for nurses ($387.54 versus $309.37).

Conclusion

Well-trained nurse-endoscopists can provide an effective service for colorectal cancer screening, but as currently structured in Ontario, the associated cost is higher for nurse-performed procedures.

Patient comfort scores do not affect endoscopist behavior during colonoscopy, while trainee involvement has negative effects on patient comfort

INTRODUCTION

Patient comfort is an important part of endoscopy and reflects procedure quality and endoscopist technique. Using the validated, Nurse Assisted Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS), this study aimed to determine whether the introduction of NAPCOMS would affect sedation use by endoscopists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted over 3 phases. Phase One and Two consisted of 8 weeks of endoscopist blinded and aware data collection, respectively. Data in Phase Three was collected over a 5-month period and scores fed back to individual endoscopists on a monthly basis.

RESULTS

NAPCOMS consists of 3 domains - pain, sedation, and global tolerability. Comparison of Phase One and Two, showed no significant differences in sedative use or NAPCOMS. Phase Three data showed a decline in fentanyl use between individual months ( P  = 0.035), but no change in overall NAPCOMS. Procedures involving trainees were found to use more midazolam ( P  = 0.01) and fentanyl ( P  = 0.01), have worse NAPCOMS scores, and resulted in longer procedure duration ( P  < 0.001). Data comparing gastroenterologists and general surgeons showed increased fentanyl use ( P  = 0.037), decreased midazolam use ( P  = 0.001), and more position changes ( P  = 0.002) among gastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a patient comfort scoring system resulted in a decrease in fentanyl use, although with minimal clinical significance. Additional studies are required to determine the role of patient comfort scores in quality control in endoscopy. Procedures completed with trainees used more sedation, were longer, and had worse NAPCOMS scores, the implications of which, for teaching hospitals and training programs, will need to be further considered.

Patients' Attitudes Toward Nonphysician Screening of Low Back and Low Back Related Leg Pain Complaints Referred for Surgical Assessment

STUDY DESIGN

A questionnaire survey.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore patient attitudes toward screening to assess suitability for low back surgery by nonphysician health care providers.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Canadian spine surgeons have shown support for nonphysician screening to assess and triage patients with low back pain and low back related leg pain. However, patients' attitudes toward this proposed model are largely unknown.

METHODS

We administered a 19-item cross-sectional survey to adults with low back and/or low back related leg pain who were referred for elective surgical assessment at one of five spine surgeons' clinics in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The survey inquired about demographics, expectations regarding wait time for surgical consultation, as well as willingness to pay, travel, and be screened by nonphysician health care providers.

RESULTS

Eighty low back patients completed our survey, for a response rate of 86.0% (80 of 93). Most respondents (72.5%; 58 of 80) expected to be seen by a surgeon within 3 months of referral, and 88.8% (71 of 80) indicated willingness to undergo screening with a nonphysician health care provider to establish whether they were potentially a surgical candidate. Half of respondents (40 of 80) were willing to travel >50 km for assessment by a nonphysician health care provider, and 46.2% were willing to pay out-of-pocket (25.6% were unsure). However, most respondents (70.0%; 56 of 80) would still want to see a surgeon if they were ruled out as a surgical candidate, and written comments from respondents revealed concern regarding agreement between surgeons' and nonphysicians' determination of surgical candidates.

CONCLUSION

Patients referred for surgical consultation for low back or low back related leg pain are largely willing to accept screening by nonphysician health care providers. Future research should explore the concordance of screening results between surgeon and nonphysician health care providers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Non-Physician Endoscopy: How Far Can We Go?

BACKGROUND

The delegation of medical tasks to trained nurses is still little discussed in Germany.

METHODS

To get a picture of the current extent of non-physician endoscopy worldwide, we performed a systematic literature research. The following databases were used: CINAHL®, Cochrane Library, the German National Library of Medicine (ZB MED), OPAC, DIMDI, PubMed and MEDLINE. The research words were: nurse and practitioners or nurse clinician and diagnosis and organization and administration. Actual journals and references were used to find relevant studies (hand research).

RESULTS

Non-physician endoscopy has been well established in some European countries, in the USA and in several other countries in the western world.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of such programs should be based on solid scientific consideration and evaluated within the framework of the 'delegation rights'.

Performance of different categories of operators in simulated diagnostic colonoscopy

The possible involvement, although limited to the diagnostic phase of the procedure, of nonmedical staff (particularly endoscopy nurses) in lower digestive endoscopy has recently been suggested. Computer-based simulators have demonstrated objective evaluation of technical skills in digestive endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate basic colonoscopy skills of endoscopy nurses (naive operators), as compared with junior physician staff and senior endoscopists, through a virtual reality colonoscopy simulator. In this single-center, prospective, nonrandomized study, 3 groups of digestive endoscopy operators (endoscopy nurses, junior doctors [<150 previous colonoscopies], expert doctors [>500 previous colonoscopies and >200/year]) completed six diagnostic cases generated by an endoscopic simulator (AccuTouch, Immersion Medical, Gaithersburg, MD). The performance parameters, collected by the simulator, were compared between groups. Five parameters have been considered for statistical analysis: time spent to reach the cecum; pain of any degree; severe/extreme pain; amount of insufflated air; percentage of visualized mucosa. Statistical analysis to compare the three groups has been performed by means of Wilcoxon test for two independent samples and by means of Kruskal-Wallis test for three independent samples (p < .05). Sixteen operators have been studied (six endoscopy nurses, five junior doctors, and five senior doctors); 96 colonoscopic procedures have been evaluated. Statistically significant differences between experts and naive operators were observed regarding time to reach the cecum and induction of severe/extreme pain, with both Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon test (p < .05); all other comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Although, as expected, expert doctors exceeded both junior doctors and naive operators in some relevant quality parameters of simulated diagnostic colonoscopies, the results obtained by less expert performers--and particularly by nursing staff--appear satisfactory as in regards to most of the considered quality parameters and suggest a potential value of this device in effectively teaching basic lower digestive endoscopy to beginners in a relatively short time.

Non-physician endoscopists: A systematic review

AIM: To examine the available evidence on safety, competency and cost-effectiveness of nursing staff providing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services.

METHODS: The literature was searched for publications reporting nurse endoscopy using several databases and specific search terms. Studies were screened against eligibility criteria and for relevance. Initial searches yielded 74 eligible and relevant articles; 26 of these studies were primary research articles using original datasets relating to the ability of non-physician endoscopists. These publications included a total of 28883 procedures performed by non-physician endoscopists.

RESULTS: The number of publications in the field of non-specialist gastrointestinal endoscopy reached a peak between 1999 and 2001 and has decreased thereafter. 17/26 studies related to flexible sigmoidoscopies, 5 to upper GI endoscopy and 6 to colonoscopy. All studies were from metropolitan centres with nurses working under strict supervision and guidance by specialist gastroenterologists. Geographic distribution of publications showed the majority of research was conducted in the United States (43%), the United Kingdom (39%) and the Netherlands (7%). Most studies conclude that after appropriate training nurse endoscopists safely perform procedures. However, in relation to endoscopic competency, safety or patient satisfaction, all studies had major methodological limitations. Patients were often not randomized (21/26 studies) and not appropriately controlled. In relation to cost-efficiency, nurse endoscopists were less cost-effective per procedure at year 1 when compared to services provided by physicians, due largely to the increased need for subsequent endoscopies, specialist follow-up and primary care consultations.

CONCLUSION: Contrary to general beliefs, endoscopic services provided by nurse endoscopists are not more cost effective compared to standard service models and evidence suggests the opposite. Overall significant shortcomings and biases limit the validity and generalizability of studies that have explored safety and quality of services delivered by non-medical endoscopists.

Design of a randomized controlled trial to assess the comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening among patients cared for in a community health center

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is common and leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Although screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or endoscopy has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, screening rates remain suboptimal. Screening rates are particularly low for people with low incomes and members of underrepresented minority groups. FOBT should be done annually to detect CRC early and to reduce CRC mortality, but this often does not occur. This paper describes the design of a multifaceted intervention to increase long-term adherence to FOBT among poor, predominantly Latino patients, and the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of this intervention compared to usual care.

Methods

In this RCT, patients who are due for repeat FOBT are identified in the electronic health record (EHR) and randomized to receive either usual care or a multifaceted intervention. The usual care group includes multiple point-of-care interventions (e.g., standing orders, EHR reminders), performance measurement, and financial incentives to improve CRC screening rates. The intervention augments usual care through mailed CRC screening test kits, low literacy patient education materials, automated phone and text message reminders, in-person follow up calls from a CRC Screening Coordinator, and communication of results to patients along with a reminder card highlighting when the patient is next due for screening. The primary outcome is completion of FOBT within 6 months of becoming due.

Discussion

The main goal of the study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. Additionally, we want to assess whether or not it is possible to achieve high rates of adherence to CRC screening with annual FOBT, which is necessary for reducing CRC mortality. The intervention relies on technology that is increasingly widespread and declining in cost, including EHR systems, automated phone and text messaging, and FOBTs for CRC screening. We took this approach to ensure generalizability and allow us to rapidly disseminate the intervention through networks of community health centers (CHCs) if the RCT shows the intervention to be superior to usual care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01453894

Opening doors for nonphysician colonoscopists

The current need for colonoscopies is high and steadily growing. Many healthcare facilities are finding that there is a shortage of specialized physicians to perform this procedure. By training nonphysician providers who have previously screened for colorectal cancer and performed colonoscopies safely and accurately, this shortage can be eliminated.

Comparisons of screening colonoscopy performed by a nurse practitioner and gastroenterologists: a single-center randomized controlled trial

Several barriers to colorectal cancer screening have been identified including limited access to trained endoscopists and highlight insufficient capacity to meet projected demand for colonoscopies. Two European studies have found that nonphysician providers can perform colonoscopies as safely and accurately as physicians. Training nurse practitioners (NP) to perform colonoscopy may be an effective strategy to increase access. The goal of this study was to compare accuracy, safety, and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy performed by board certified gastroenterologists (GI-MD) and a gastroenterology trained nurse practitioner (GI-NP). A consecutive sample of average risk participants referred for screening colonoscopy was randomized to have their procedure performed by either a GI-MD (n = 100) or a GI-NP (n = 50). Participants completed a preprocedure and postprocedure questionnaire. Endoscopists completed a postprocedure questionnaire. Cecal intubation rates, duration of procedure, sedative, and analgesic use, and patient reported procedural pain scores were equivalent among the groups. The GI-NP group had a higher adenoma detection rate compared with the combined GI-MD groups (42% and 17%, respectively, p = .0001) and a higher satisfaction score when compared with the combined GI-MD groups (mean 5.9 ± 13.81 and 8.6 ± 16.11, respectively, p = .042; visual analog scale 0-100 mm, "0" = completely satisfied, "100" = completely dissatisfied). There were no immediate complications reported in any group. The properly trained GI-NP in our study performed screening colonoscopy as safely, accurately, and satisfactorily as the GI-MDs. Using well-trained NPs for screening colonoscopy can be an effective strategy to increase access to colorectal screening.

Editorial: risk scoring for colon cancer screening: validated, but still not ready for prime time

Risk stratification for colorectal cancer screening would allow us to use less expensive screening tests, such as sigmoidoscopy with or without fecal blood testing, on lower risk individuals, and reserve colonoscopy for those at higher risk. In this issue, Levitzky et al. validates a risk score that was previously developed by Imperiale et al., finding similar results among three ethnic groups. Risk scoring would detect 82-87% of proximal advanced neoplasia while decreasing colonoscopy use by 33-46%. However, before risk scoring is ready for widespread use, sigmoidoscopy access and performance issues need to be addressed, and we must be comfortable with missing some proximal neoplasms.

Nurses' experiences of a colorectal cancer screening pilot

This article describes a study that set out to explore the experience of endoscopy nurse practitioners participating in the Department of Health-funded UK Nurse-led Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the three nurse practitioners involved and were analysed using Thematic Analysis, a qualitative method for analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data. Nurse practitioners found that participating in the study improved their skills and provided job satisfaction despite the hard work it entailed. A varied workload consisting of diagnostic and screening procedures, in addition to the other duties of nurse practitioners, may be desirable for nurses working in the field of gastroenterology.

A comprehensive training programme for nurse endoscopist performing flexible sigmoidoscopy in Hong Kong

AIMS

To describe the process and explore the feasibility of training a colorectal nurse in Hong Kong to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Given the shortage and high turnover rate of medical staff, a pilot programme was designed to train and expand the role of colorectal nurse clinicians. It was hoped that such nurses could share some of the clinical duties of the medical staff. An advanced practice nurse was selected for the programme. One of the training components was the performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy.

DESIGN

This was a descriptive, case review study.

METHOD

A one-year-structured endoscopic training programme was designed for the nurse clinician. Weekly sessions were conducted by one of the trainers. The training process included the following: (1) procedural observation; (2) supervised withdrawal, advancement and manipulation of the sigmoidoscope and (3) a final assessment of the nurse's competency in performing sigmoidoscopy independently.

RESULTS

In total, 119 outpatients (58 male and 61 female) with a mean age of 57·02 years (SD 14·6 years; range: 18-83 years) underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy by the nurse over 11 months. The mean procedural time was 9·38 minutes (SD 3·5 minutes; range 3-26 minutes). The procedure was terminated prematurely if it could not be tolerated by the patient or if the bowel preparation was inadequate. The mean depth of insertion was 53·5 cm (SD 12·2 cm; range 6-60 cm). In total, 82 patients had a normal exam, 32 patients had abnormalities. There were no procedural complications, and no patient required an unplanned hospital admission after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

In Queen Mary Hospital, nurses can be trained to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in a safe and effective manner.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurse endoscopists could increase the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and can also enhance the professional development of colorectal nurses.

Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. We tested the hypothesis that only one flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between 55 and 64 years of age can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

METHODS

This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 14 UK centres. 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would accept an invitation for screening, were randomly allocated to the intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or the control group (not contacted). Randomisation by sequential number generation was done centrally in blocks of 12, with stratification by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The primary outcomes were the incidence of colorectal cancer, including prevalent cases detected at screening, and mortality from colorectal cancer. Analyses were intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN28352761.

FINDINGS

113 195 people were assigned to the control group and 57 237 to the intervention group, of whom 112 939 and 57 099, respectively, were included in the final analyses. 40 674 (71%) people underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. During screening and median follow-up of 11.2 years (IQR 10.7-11.9), 2524 participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (1818 in control group vs 706 in intervention group) and 20 543 died (13 768 vs 6775; 727 certified from colorectal cancer [538 vs 189]). In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence in the intervention group was reduced by 23% (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.84) and mortality by 31% (0.69, 0.59-0.82). In per-protocol analyses, adjusting for self-selection bias in the intervention group, incidence of colorectal cancer in people attending screening was reduced by 33% (0.67, 0.60-0.76) and mortality by 43% (0.57, 0.45-0.72). Incidence of distal colorectal cancer (rectum and sigmoid colon) was reduced by 50% (0.50, 0.42-0.59; secondary outcome). The numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145-277) and 489 (343-852), respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit.

FUNDING

Medical Research Council, National Health Service R&D, Cancer Research UK, KeyMed.

Making the case: the impetus for federally mandating insurance companies to cover colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths per year in the U.S. The 5-year survival rate of CRC detected early is 90%, but only 39% of CRC is detected in this stage. CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality from this disease, but national screening rates are alarmingly low. Mandated CRC screening insurance coverage significantly increases screening rates. However, mandated coverage varies greatly by state. Bill H.R. 1330, which would federally mandate insurance companies to cover CRC screening for people 50 and older, is currently under consideration by the House of Representatives. Reasons to support this bill and rebuttals to arguments made against H.R. 1330 are discussed.

Exploring the nurse endoscopist role: a qualitative approach

BACKGROUND

Previously, gastrointestinal endoscopy was undertaken only by medical staff. The nurse endoscopist role has recently been developed and is now in great demand. Barriers and facilitators are identified in similar nursing roles, though little research has been undertaken on the nurse endoscopist role.

AIM

To examine perceptions of UK nurse endoscopists regarding their experience of the role. This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with eight UK nurse endoscopists. Data gained were analyzed qualitatively. The following categories emerged: role structure, collaboration, experience, and education and training.

RESULTS

The 'role structure' category showed that patient services were better where the nurse endoscopist role encompassed a more holistic approach. In the 'collaboration' category, the importance of relations with medical, nursing and management colleagues was observed. It was found that nurse endoscopists may be providing an inferior service due to being given lower priority than medical endoscopists. The 'experience' category showed nurse endoscopists valued their nursing experience, while specific endoscopy nursing experience prior to becoming an endoscopist was also useful. The 'education' category showed that degree-level education and training were important when accessed, in addition to prescribing courses.

CONCLUSION

Nurses undertaking endoscopy have potentially satisfying roles, which allow them to perform effectively. The roles should be planned adequately and practitioners should receive appropriate degree-level education. Furthermore, patients should receive equitable treatment regardless of which profession undertakes the endoscopy.

Assessment of early learning curves among nurses and physicians using a high-fidelity virtual-reality colonoscopy simulator

BACKGROUND

Recently, it has been suggested that nurses can perform diagnostic endoscopy procedures, which traditionally have been a physician's responsibility. The existing studies concerning quality of sigmoidoscopy performed by nurses are small, used assessment tools with insufficient validation and to date there is very little knowledge of the learning curve patterns for physicians and nurses. The aim of a present study was to assess early learning curves on a virtual-reality colonoscopy simulator of untrained residents as compared with that of nurses with and without endoscopy assistance experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty subjects were included in the study: 10 female residents (median age 30.5 years) without colonoscopy experience, 10 female nurses (median age 27.5 years) without endoscopy assistance experience and 10 female nurses (median age 42 years) with endoscopy assistance experience. All participants performed 10 repetitions of task 6 from the "Introduction" colonoscopy module of the Accu Touch Endoscopy simulator. Eight experienced colonoscopists performed three repetitions of task 6 in order to provide the reference expert level of performance.

RESULTS

All subjects completed the virtual colonoscopy without complications. Significant differences existed between residents and nurses with respect to time to complete the procedure. Residents and nurses showed similar learning curve patterns. There were not significant differences between the groups in terms of volume of insufflated air, percentage of time without discomfort, and percentage of mucosa seen. None of the trainee groups achieved expert proficiency level in terms of time and amount of insufflated air by the tenth repetition.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses performed virtual colonoscopy as accurately and safely as residents. Although the residents performed significantly faster, time differences showed a tendency towards decreasing, and appraisement of the numeric time differences seemed of minor practical importance. From a technical point of view this indicates that nurses may learn to perform colonoscopy after appropriate training.

Effectiveness of nurse delivered endoscopy: findings from randomised multi-institution nurse endoscopy trial (MINuET)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of doctors and nurses in undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

DESIGN

Pragmatic trial with Zelen's randomisation before consent to minimise distortion of existing practice.

SETTING

23 hospitals in the United Kingdom. In six hospitals, nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 centres.

PARTICIPANTS

67 doctors and 30 nurses. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, we randomised 4128 (83%) and recruited 1888 (38%) from July 2002 to June 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, undertaken with or without sedation, with the standard preparation, techniques, and protocols of participating hospitals. After referral for either procedure, patients were randomised between doctors and nurses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Gastrointestinal symptom rating questionnaire (primary outcome), gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire and state-trait anxiety inventory (all analysed by intention to treat); immediate and delayed complications; quality of examination and corresponding report; patients' preferences for operator; and new diagnoses at one year (all analysed according to who carried out the procedure).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in outcome at one day, one month, or one year after endoscopy, except that patients were more satisfied with nurses after one day. Nurses were also more thorough than doctors in examining the stomach and oesophagus. While quality of life scores were slightly better in patients the doctor group, this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic endoscopy can be undertaken safely and effectively by nurses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International standard RCT 82765705.

A risk profile for advanced proximal neoplasms on diagnostic colonoscopy

The capacity for colonoscopy is limited and a method to prioritize patients for diagnostic colonoscopy is needed in health care centers. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study was carried out in county and community endoscopy centers, which included 1,065 county and 279 community patients aged > or = 40 years undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. We constructed a risk profile for proximal advanced neoplasms on diagnostic colonoscopy at the county center based on the size of the regression coefficients for independent risk factors from logistic regression. An advanced neoplasm was defined as one of size > or = 1 cm or containing villous histology, high-grade dysplasia, or cancer. In our county colonoscopy population (n = 929 after exclusions), the stepwise logistic regression analysis identified age > or = 60 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.14, 6.14), iron deficiency anemia (AOR: 4.74; 95% CI: 2.07, 11.34), and an advanced neoplasm in the recto-sigmoid (AOR: 6.01; 95% CI: 2.02, 16.00) as the statistically significant predictors of an advanced proximal neoplasm. In the county population, the prevalence rates of an advanced proximal neoplasm and proximal high-grade dysplasia/cancer in the low-risk group were 0.71% (95% CI: 0.15, 2.05) and 0.24% (95% CI: 0.01, 1.31), respectively. Avoiding colonoscopy in this group would increase the capacity for colonoscopy by 46% in the higher risk groups. In a disparate community population (n = 237 after exclusions), this scoring system had a goodness-of-fit test showing high concordance (P = 0.51). This clinical profile stratified the risk for an advanced neoplasm proximal to the sigmoid in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. It identified a large subset of low-risk patients.

Referring patients to nurses: outcomes and evaluation of a nurse flexible sigmoidoscopy training program for colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer is a significant health burden. Several screening options exist that can detect colorectal cancer at an early stage, leading to a more favourable prognosis. However, despite years of knowledge on best practice, screening rates are still very low in Canada, particularly in Ontario. The present paper reports on efforts to increase the flexible sigmoidoscopy screening capacity in Ontario by training nurses to perform this traditionally physician-performed procedure. Drawing on American, British and local experience, a professional regulatory framework was established, and training curriculum and assessment criteria were developed. Training was initiated at Princess Margaret Hospital and Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario. (During the study, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre was deamalgamated into two separate hospitals: Women's College Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.) Six registered nurses participated in didactic, simulator and practical training. These nurses performed a total of 77 procedures in patients, 23 of whom had polyps detected and biopsied. Eight patients were advised to undergo colonoscopy because they had one or more neoplastic polyps. To date, six of these eight patients have undergone colonoscopy, one patient has moved out of the province and another patient is awaiting the procedure. Classifying the six patients according to the most advanced polyp histology, one patient had a negative colonoscopy (no polyps found), one patient's polyps were hyperplastic, one had a tubular adenoma, two had advanced neoplasia (tubulovillous adenomas) and one had adenocarcinoma. All these lesions were excised completely at colonoscopy. Overall, many difficulties were anticipated and addressed in the development of the training program; ultimately, the project was affected most directly by challenges in encouraging family physicians to refer patients to the program. As health human resource strategies continue to evolve, it is believed that lessons learned from experience make an important contribution to the knowledge of how nontraditional health services can be organized and delivered.

Improving colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice: innovative strategies and future directions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been supported by strong research evidence and recommended in clinical practice guidelines for more than a decade. Yet screening rates in the United States remain low, especially relative to other preventable diseases such as breast and cervical cancer. To understand the reasons, the National Cancer Institute and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored a review of CRC screening implementation in primary care and a program of research funded by these organizations. The evidence base for improving CRC screening supports the value of a New Model of Primary Care Delivery: 1. a team approach, in which responsibility for screening tasks is shared among other members of the practice, would help address physicians' lack of time for preventive care; 2. information systems can identify eligible patients and remind them when screening is due; 3. involving patients in decisions about their own care may enhance screening participation; 4. monitoring practice performance, supported by information systems, can help target patients at increased risk because of family history or social disadvantage; 5. reimbursement for services outside the traditional provider-patient encounter, such as telephone and e-mail contacts, may foster enhanced screening delivery; 6. training opportunities in communication, cultural competence, and use of information technologies would improve provider competence in core elements of screening programs. Improvement in CRC screening rates largely depends on the efforts of primary care practices to implement effective systems and procedures for screening delivery. Active engagement and support of practices are essential for the enormous potential of CRC screening to be realized.

Patient satisfaction scores for endoscopic procedures: impact of a survey-collection method

BACKGROUND

Many endoscopy units administer patient satisfaction surveys. We hypothesized that the survey collection method would affect satisfaction scores.

OBJECTIVE

To compare satisfaction scores obtained by using on-site (OS) surveys versus mail-back (MB) surveys.

DESIGN

Quasi-randomization based on alternating weeks.

SETTING

Teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing elective routine outpatient colonoscopy or upper endoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Every patient was given an 11-question survey that asked about the patient's satisfaction with the nurses and the physician, wait times, the bowel-preparation process, patient education, procedural comfort, and sedation. Survey collection methods alternated weekly between an OS versus an MB method.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Satisfaction scores on a Likert scale ranged from 1 (worst) to 7 (best).

RESULTS

A total of 1698 subjects were included. The response rate was higher for the OS group (95%) than the MB group (62%). OS scores were significantly higher than MB scores for 5 of 11 questions, which concerned nurse satisfaction, physician satisfaction, bowel-preparation comfort, postprocedure education, and overall satisfaction (Bonferroni adjusted P < .05 for all). Younger patients gave lower scores than older patients for all questions, whereas women gave significantly lower scores than men for bowel-preparation satisfaction.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of true randomization and formal validation of the satisfaction survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Survey collection methods may bias not only response rates but also satisfaction scores. OS survey collection methods tend to result in higher satisfaction scores than MB methods. This bias should be noted when comparing scores among studies that used different survey collection methods.

Nurses working in GI and endoscopic practice: a review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 10 years, nurses increasingly perform tasks and procedures that were previously performed by physicians.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we investigated what types of GI care and endoscopic procedures nurses presently perform and reviewed the available evidence regarding the benefits of these activities.

DESIGN

Review of published articles on nurses' involvement in GI and endoscopic practice.

RESULTS

In total, 19 studies were identified that evaluated performance and participation of nurses in GI and endoscopic practice. Of these, 3 were randomized trials on the performance of nurses in flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 2) and upper endoscopy (n = 1). Fourteen nonrandomized studies evaluated performance in upper endoscopy (n = 2), EUS (n = 1), flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 7), capsule endoscopy (n = 2), and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement (n = 2). In all studies, it was found that nurses accurately and safely performed these procedures. Two further studies demonstrated that nurses adequately managed follow-up of patients with Barrett's esophagus and inflammatory bowel disease. Four of the 19 studies showed that patients were satisfied with the type of care nurses provided. Finally, it was suggested that costs were reduced if nurses performed a sigmoidoscopy and evaluated capsule endoscopy examinations compared with physicians performing these activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review support the involvement of nurses in diagnostic endoscopy and follow-up of patients with chronic GI disorders. Further randomized trials, however, are needed to demonstrate whether this involvement compares at least as favorably with gastroenterologists in terms of medical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and costs.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in the elderly

Data on performance characteristics of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) between age groups are limited. This study evaluates screening FS in subjects > or = 75 years of age (elderly) compared with ages 50-74 years (general screening population). Data were collected on patient characteristics, insertion depth, procedural difficulties, complications, and endoscopic findings. There was an increased rate of endoscopist-reported limitations (50.4% vs. 34.9%; P = 0.0001) and incomplete examinations (15.6% vs. 5.4%; P = 0.0001) in the elderly cohort relative to subjects aged 50-74. The complication rate (1.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.53), adenoma detection rate (7.2% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.213), and advanced adenoma detection rate (0.71% vs 0.65%; P = 0.86) were similar. More carcinomas were detected in the elderly (0.53% vs. 0.06%; P = 0.042). Factors associated with incomplete examinations in the elderly included age, female gender, and poor bowel preparation. Despite technical difficulties, FS in the elderly is safe and detects significant pathology.

The nurse colonoscopist--training and quality assurance

Specialist trained nurses have been performing flexible sigmoidoscopy as part of their nursing role since the 1970s in the United States. As nurses have shown their efficacy and effectiveness in performing flexible sigmoidoscopy, this new nursing role has been adopted more globally in the United Kingdom and other European countries.

Management of colorectal cancers

The management of colorectal cancers, published in a recent issue of Effective Health Care, is reviewed.

Evaluation of TENS during screening flexible sigmoidoscopy

The expectation of pain is a statistically significant factor negatively affecting patient compliance with current screening flexible sigmoidoscopy recommendations. Numerous pain reduction modalities have been studied with limited success. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has been used to treat pain of various origins. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the efficacy of TENS in reducing discomfort experienced during screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.A double-blind study was conducted in which 90 subjects were randomized to receive TENS, sham TENS, or control (standard care). The same pulse frequency and intensity were used for all subjects in the TENS group. Subjects completed preprocedural and postprocedural questionnaires, and the endoscopist completed a postprocedural questionnaire. A slight, but statistically insignificant (p =.526) reduction in the mean pain score reported by the TENS group was noted when compared with the sham TENS and control groups (2.00, 2.27, and 2.23 respectively). In light of the fact that only one pulse frequency and intensity of the TENS intervention were used in this study, further study with this safe and cost-effective modality is warranted.

Evaluation of flexible sigmoidoscopy as an investigation for "left sided" colorectal symptoms

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the best way of imaging the colon with concurrent biopsy and treatment. However it is expensive, requires full bowel preparation, and carries a risk of complications. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is an alternative way to investigate symptoms that raise the suspicion of a lesion of the rectum or left colon.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To evaluate flexible sigmoidoscopy as the main investigation for "left sided" colorectal symptoms.

METHODS

The clinical records of 317 patients who were assessed at a colorectal specialist clinic and were thought to have a suspicion of a lesion of the rectum or left colon were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had flexible sigmoidoscopy as the primary investigation. Primary outcome was the diagnostic yield of flexible sigmoidoscopy and secondary outcomes were any additional colonic investigations required, failure rates, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Three hundred and sixteen patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy with the above criteria were retrospectively analysed. Twenty four procedures (7.6%) had to be abandoned because of poor bowel preparation. The examination was considered complete when it reached the splenic flexure, which was the case in 205 cases (65%). In 137 flexible sigmoidoscopies (43.3%) there were no abnormal findings. Of the remaining 179 a carcinoma of the rectum or colon was found in 28 cases (8.8%) and one or more polyps was found in 57 (18%) cases. On the basis of the findings it was calculated that 31% of the patients would require an additional investigation for further imaging of the right colon.

DISCUSSION

Although flexible sigmoidoscopy has a high yield of pathologies when carried out by a specialist colorectal clinic, the presence of those pathologies makes the full imaging of the whole colon with an additional investigation necessary. Therefore the cost efficiency of flexible sigmoidoscopy is questionable. Although flexible sigmoidoscopy is indicated for certain patients, it cannot replace colonoscopy as the main investigation used by a specialist colorectal clinic.

A national survey of flexible sigmoidoscopy training in primary care graduate and postgraduate education programs

OBJECTIVES

Expanding the pool of primary care endoscopists to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) has been advocated as a strategy for building colorectal cancer screening capacity. The principal aim of this study was to evaluate the availability and structure of FS training among internal medicine (IM), family practice (FP), physician assistant (PA), and nurse practitioner (NP) training programs.

METHODS

A postal survey of all accredited IM (n = 445), FP (n = 471), PA (n = 118), and NP (n = 149) training programs nationwide was conducted. The primary outcome was the proportion of programs offering or mandating FS training; and secondary outcomes, if applicable, were the number of participating trainees, the number of required procedures, the availability of instruction in endoscopic biopsy technique, mentors, and barriers.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 63%. Most IM (89%) and FP (99%) programs offered FS training versus only 12% of PA and 0% of NP programs. Family practice programs were more likely to offer training (p < 0.0001), require training (p < 0.0001), and teach biopsy techniques (p < 0.0001); Internal medicine programs were more likely to have minimum requirements (p < 0.0001) and required >/= 25 procedures per trainee (p < 0.0001). Physician assistant programs were less structured and often lacked minimum requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible sigmoidoscopy training is widely available among FP and IM programs but more restricted or nonexistent among PA and NP programs. The lack of minimum standards for ensuring competency highlights the need for a standardized credentialing process.

Colorectal cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy—participants' experiences and technical feasibility

AIM

To evaluate tolerability and technical feasibility of colorectal cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy.

METHODS

One thousand men and women aged 59-61 years, randomly selected from the population register of Uppsala, Sweden, were invited by mail. After random allocation, half of them were called up by a nurse (group 1), while the other half were asked to call themselves (group 2) to book a sigmoidoscopy. After the examination, the participants anonymously answered a questionnaire about their subjective experiences. Endoscopists and their assisting nurse filled out structured forms documenting various technical aspects including an estimation of the subjects' discomfort.

RESULTS

Four hundred and sixty-nine subjects participated. Mean intubation depth was 59 cm (range 28-60) and mean duration 5.8 min (range 2-23). On average, participants reported low degrees of discomfort and feeling of exposure, but 19 and 27% rated pain and distension, respectively, on the upper half of a visual analogue scale (VAS). Most subjects found the duration acceptable. Patient discomfort, as appraised by the endoscopists, was lower in men than in women, positively linked to duration of the procedure, but inversely associated with intubation distance. However, the overall differences between strata of participants were small. Among self-reported variables, group 1 and 2 differed significantly only with regard to 'other discomfort'. All but six subjects would accept a repeat examination. Failures, resulting in incomplete examinations, occurred in 14 subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible sigmoidoscopy is generally well tolerated and technically feasible in screening for colorectal cancer. A more personalised invitation did not have any important effects on the subjective experience.

Physicians' use of nonphysician healthcare providers for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Data on the involvement of nonphysician healthcare providers in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening delivery are sparse. This article describes physicians' use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants to provide CRC screening with the fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy, as well as physicians' attitudes toward using these providers to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy.

METHODS

Nationally representative samples of primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and general surgeons were surveyed in 1999-2000. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to estimate the prevalence and predictors of physicians' use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants for CRC screening and to assess physicians' attitudes toward their use in providing CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 24% of primary care physicians reported using a nurse practitioner or physician assistant to provide CRC screening with FOBT. However, only 3% of all physicians surveyed used nurse practitioners and physician assistants for CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy, and less than 1% of gastroenterologists and general surgeons reported using these providers to perform CRC screening with colonoscopy. Approximately 15% of general surgeons, 40% of primary care physicians, and 60% of gastroenterologists who do not currently use nurse practitioners or physician assistants to perform CRC screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy agreed that these providers could effectively perform the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show current involvement of nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the delivery of CRC screening to be limited. Use of nonphysician healthcare providers for CRC screening with FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy is one possible solution to the challenge of boosting low screening rates. However, physician beliefs about the ability of nurse practitioners and physician assistants to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy are a potential barrier to increasing the involvement of nonphysician providers in CRC screening delivery.

Options for screening for colorectal cancer

Unlike other types of cancer, there are several options for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). The most extensively examined method, faecal occult blood testing (FOBT), has been shown, in three large randomized trials, to reduce mortality from CRC by up to 20% if offered biennally and possibly more if offered every year. Recently published data from the US trial suggest that CRC incidence rates are also reduced by up to 20%, but only after 18 years. In this study, the number of positive slides was associated with the positive predictive value both for CRC and adenomas larger than 1 cm, suggesting that the reduction in CRC incidence was caused by the identification and removal of large adenomas. In this respect, this study supports the concept that removing adenomas prevents CRC. More efficient methods of detecting adenomas include the use of colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). Considerable evidence exists from case-control and uncontrolled cohort studies to suggest that endoscopic screening by sigmoidoscopy reduces incidence of distal colorectal cancer. However, in the absence of evidence from a randomized trial, several countries have been reluctant to introduce endoscopic screening. Three trialsare currently in progress (in the UK, Italy and the US) to address this issue. Two of these trials are examining the hypothesis that a single FS screen at around age 55-64 might be a cost-effective and acceptable method for reducing CRC incidence rates. Recruitment and screening are now complete in both studies and the first analysis of results on incidence rates is expected in 2004. Colonoscopy screening at 10-year intervals has recently been endorsed in the US on the basis that the reductions in incidence observed with distal CRC screening can be extrapolated to the proximal colon. However, data are lacking and a pilot study for a trial of the acceptability and efficacy of colonoscopy screening is in progress in the US. It has also been suggested that FOBT testing should be used to detect proximal CRC missed by sigmoidoscopy screening, but the small amount of published data suggest that supplementing FS with FOBT offers very little advantage over FS alone. Other forms of CRC screening are under investigation and represent exciting options for the future. Extraction of DNA from stool is now feasible and a number of research groups have shown high sensitivity for CRC using a panel of DNA markers including mutations in k-ras, APC, p53 and BAT26. Data so far indicate that, with the exception of k-ras, these markers are highly specific and therefore represent a significant improvement over FOBT. Whether these tests will replace or supplement existing methods of screening has yet to be determined. It has been suggested that BAT26, which is a marker of microsatellite instability, a feature of proximal sporadic CRC, might be a useful adjunct to sigmoidoscopy screening. Others have suggested that a test for occult blood should be included with the DNA markers to further increase sensitivity. It is not yet known how sensitive these markers are for adenomas--it is only by detecting adenomas that CRC incidence rates can be reduced. A final exciting new option for screening is virtual colonoscopy (VC), which by screening out people without neoplasia allows colonoscopy to be reserved for patients requiring a therapeutic intervention. The sensitivity of VC for large adenomas and CRC appears to be high, although results vary by centre and there is a steep learning curve. Sensitivity for small adenomas is low, but perhaps it is less essential to find such lesions. Some groups have suggested that virtual colonoscopy might be a useful option for investigating patients who test positive with stool-based screening tests. Whichever CRC screening method is finally chosen (and there is no reason why several methods should not ultimately be available), high quality endoscopy resources will always be required to investigate and treat neoplastic lesions detected.

Female gender and other factors predictive of a limited screening flexible sigmoidoscopy examination for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with reduced mortality from CRC. It is unknown whether FS is equally effective in men and women, but differences in anatomy and perception of pain may increase the difficulty of performing FS in women. The aim of this study was to determine factors associated with a shorter or limited screening FS.

METHODS

Patients referred by their primary care provider were eligible for screening sigmoidoscopy if they were 50 yr or older with negative fecal occult blood tests and no first-degree relative with colorectal cancer at age 55 yr or younger. A detailed questionnaire regarding demographic characteristics and risk factors for CRC, aspirin and multivitamin use, and previous abdominal surgery was completed by the patient on a standardized form before their procedure. The histologic type (hyperplastic, adenoma, normal mucosa, or carcinoma) of each polyp was recorded. Depth of examination (in cm) was recorded based on the standardized markings on the shaft of the sigmoidoscope when it was thought to be in a straight position. Limitations to the examination (angulation, pain, and poor preparation), other mucosal findings, and complications were also noted.

RESULTS

A total of 3980 patients (52% female) were prospectively enrolled in a screening program over a 22-month period. Women were more likely than men to report previous pelvic or abdominal surgery (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 2.29-3.05) and were less likely to have had a previous sigmoidoscopy (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61-0.83). Females were almost twice as likely as males to have a procedure limited in some way (angulation, spasm, or pain) (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.63-2.13). When defined by depth of examination, females were significantly more likely than males to have a procedure of <50 cm (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.63, 2.29) and were less likely to have an adenomatous polyp or cancer detected (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.42-0.71). The average endoscopy distance for women was 52.3 cm, compared with 55.2 cm in men (p < 0.0001), and the average number of polyps detected in women was 1.4, compared with 1.56 in men (p = 0.003) among patients with at least one polyp. Using multivariable analysis, females were more likely to have an examination of <50 cm compared with men, controlling for age, spasm or pain on examination, previous surgery, angulation of the colon, and type of endoscopist-MD or nonphysician endoscopist (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.41-1.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Women are more likely than men to have a shorter and more limited FS. This is partly owing to increased colonic angulation and pain during the examination. Methods aimed at reducing pain and improving maneuverability in an angulated colon during FS may improve the effectiveness of CRC screening in women.

Accuracy of esophagoscopy performed by a non-physician endoscopist with a 4-mm diameter battery-powered endoscope

BACKGROUND

A cost-effective technique is needed for screening of a broad population at risk for esophageal cancer. A solution would be to have non-physician endoscopists perform esophagoscopy with small-caliber battery-powered endoscopes.

METHODS

In a prospective blinded study, the diagnostic accuracy of sedated esophagoscopy performed by a trained nurse practitioner with a battery-powered 4-mm diameter endoscope was compared with that for a sedated standard video-endoscopy performed by a gastroenterologist. Patients were recruited to undergo peroral esophagoscopy by the nurse practitioner followed by sedated standard endoscopy by the supervising gastroenterologist, each blinded to the findings of the other. Major esophageal findings of nurse practitioner and gastroenterologist were compared.

RESULTS

Findings in 40 patients were analyzed. In 4 patients both endoscopists could not assess the presence or absence of columnar-lined esophagus because of severe erosive esophagitis (n = 3) or severe candida-esophagitis (n = 1). By using sedated standard endoscopy as the standard, on a per finding basis, esophagoscopy by the nurse practitioner had a sensitivity for columnar-lined esophagus of 89%: 95% CI [75%, 97%] and specificity of 96%: 95% CI [84%, 99%]. The missed columnar epithelium was a 3 x 3-mm island. For all lesions, the sensitivity of endoscopy performed by the nurse practitioner with the battery-powered endoscope was 75%: 95% CI [67%, 82%] and specificity 98%: 95% CI [96%, 99%]. The nurse practitioner missed all of 4 rings (3 considered clinically irrelevant).

CONCLUSION

Esophagoscopy with a battery-powered 4-mm diameter endoscope by a non-physician endoscopist is feasible and accurate in detecting esophageal pathologies. It may be an efficient screening method for the detection of columnar-lined esophagus. There was a distinct underestimate of the presence of esophageal rings.

Gastroenterologist specialist care and care provided by generalists--an evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency

OBJECTIVE

In this era of cost containment, gastroenterologists must demonstrate that they provide effective and efficient care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process and outcomes of care provided by gastroenterologists and generalist physicians (internists, family physicians, general surgeons) for GI conditions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review using a MEDLINE search of English language articles (January 1980 to September 1998). A total of 2157 articles were identified; 10 met inclusion criteria for systematic review. In addition, there were nine articles that described the results of physician surveys, and examined the process of care among gastroenterologists and generalist physicians.

RESULTS

Care provided by gastroenterologists for GI bleeding and diverticulitis resulted in significantly shorter length of hospital stay. Gastroenterologists diagnosed celiac disease more accurately than generalists, and more adequately diagnosed colorectal cancer and prescribed antimicrobials for peptic ulcer disease. There was no difference between gastroenterologists and generalists in terms of colonoscopy procedure time, and family physicians detected a greater number of cancers. Furthermore, there was no difference in the outcomes of gastroesophageal reflux disease therapy in patients seen by gastroenterologists, versus those educated by nurses. The survey articles suggested that gastroenterologists were more likely to test and treat for Helicobacter pylori in patients with peptic ulcer disease, and were more likely recommended for medical versus surgical therapy. Gastroenterologists had a lower threshold for ordering ERCP before cholecystectomy than surgeons, but had similar responses regarding indications for surgery in inflammatory bowel disease. Finally, primary care physicians were less likely to associate symptoms of profuse watery diarrhea with cryptosporidium infection compared with gastroenterologists and infectious disease specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

We reached the following conclusions: 1) The results suggest that gastroenterologists deliver effective and efficient care for GI bleeding and diverticulitis and provide more effective diagnosis in certain disorders. 2) Studies are limited by retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of control groups. 3) To fully evaluate care by gastroenterologists, prospective comparisons with greater attention to methodology are needed.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: valid approach or short-sighted?

Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe, effective test that may be delivered feasibly on a large scale for mass colorectal cancer screening. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is 67% to 80% as sensitive as colonoscopy in a screening population, but is probably 10 to 20 times safer than colonoscopy in terms of complications. Several national guidelines recommend combining flexible sigmoidoscopy with fecal occult blood tests. There is limited evidence to support this practice, and the added benefit to an existing flexible sigmoidoscopy screening program although real, may be marginal. In the future, it is likely that flexible sigmoidoscopy screening among patients aged 50 to 65 will be supplemented with total colonic screening, using molecular-based fecal tests or virtual colonoscopy, after age 65.

On-site screening sigmoidoscopy promotes long-term utilization but fails as a venue for training primary care endoscopists

BACKGROUND & AIMS

"Academic detailing" is an effective strategy for promoting the use of screening sigmoidoscopy by primary care physicians. The primary objectives of this study were to determine whether the sustained presence of an "outside" university-based gastroenterologist performing on-site screening sigmoidoscopy promoted long-term utilization and whether the provision for on-site sigmoidoscopy was an effective venue for training primary care endoscopists.

METHODS

Nine urban community health centers, including 4 intervention and 5 control sites, participated in a nonrandomized controlled trial conducted over 3 years.

RESULTS

By the end of year 3, overall self-reported use of screening sigmoidoscopy increased by 61% for the intervention group vs. only 25% for the comparison group (P = 0.001). Ninety-seven percent of those reporting compliance referred 1 or more asymptomatic average-risk patients for screening examinations. Only 2 of 83 (2.4%) eligible providers completed on-site training and continued performing screening examinations independently. The major barriers to participation included lack of interest, lack of time to learn or perform sigmoidoscopy, concerns about technical competence, and lack of need because of on-site availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance of on-site screening sigmoidoscopy services performed by an outside gastroenterologist promotes long-term utilization but fails as venue for training primary care endoscopists. Alternative strategies for expanding capacity are needed.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy: an important screening option for average-risk individuals

Colorectal cancer screening techniques should be effective, acceptable to patients, affordable, widely available, and safe. For average-risk adults aged more than 50 years who do not have significant colorectal symptoms, significant family history, or significant predisposing conditions, flexible sigmoidoscopy is an important option for reducing the risk for colorectal cancer, meeting all criteria for an effective and feasible screening modality. This article discusses evidence supporting flexible sigmoidoscopy, practical issues in implementation, and current controversies.

Achieving quality in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Sigmoidoscopy screening, which can dramatically reduce colorectal cancer mortality, is supported increasingly by physicians and payers, and is likely to be performed more frequently in the future. As more physicians and nonphysician medical personnel learn how to perform this procedure, and with attention to quality standards, the overall impact of sigmoidoscopy screening may improve. This review describes elements that characterize high-quality examinations and identifies resources for in-depth information on performing flexible sigmoidoscopy.

METHODS

The domains of quality were identified from textbooks, articles, and the professional opinions of gastroenterologists and primary care physicians. Information was obtained from MEDLINE, bibliographies in recent articles, medical professional organizations, equipment manufacturers' representatives, and focus groups of primary care physicians.

RESULTS

Nine domains of quality are identified and discussed: training, logistical start-up, patient interaction, bowel preparation, examination technique, lesion recognition, complications, reporting, and processing (equipment cleaning and disinfection).

CONCLUSIONS

Persons learning how to perform and to implement flexible sigmoidoscopy may use this information to help ensure the quality of screening examinations.