Physician-patient and patient-family communication after colonoscopy

Providers' Perceptions of Barriers to Optimal Communication With Patients During the Postcolonoscopy Experience

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy screening is an effective method of detecting and preventing colorectal cancer. Standard procedure for most colonoscopies (98%) is to use conscious sedation, which can cause short-term cognitive impairment postprocedure, including communication difficulties. In this study, we explored providers' (gastroenterology doctors and nurses) perceptions of the barriers to optimal communication with patients immediately following colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with 61 providers across 5 clinical configurations. Interviews were transcribed and coded with NVivo version 11 software.

RESULTS

Themes emerged regarding barriers to optimal provider-patient communication postcolonoscopy: patient barriers (sedation and patient characteristics), caregiver barriers, and system characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers' perceived barriers to communication are an important topic to study. They endorsed, in particular, interventions that target the postcolonoscopy time frame when patients may still be sedated, but providers must convey important discharge and follow-up instructions.

How is the increased risk of colorectal cancer in first-degree relatives of patients communicated?

OBJECTIVES

Compared with the general population, first-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a two-fold to four-fold higher risk of developing CRC. Little data is available regarding communication between doctors and CRC patients about risk to FDRs. We aimed to evaluate CRC patients' knowledge of FDRs' increased CRC risk, and FDRs' knowledge of this risk and adherence to CRC screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center, population-based observational study, patients aged 18-80 years who underwent surgery for CRC between January 2005 and May 2010 were asked to complete a questionnaire. A questionnaire sent to the patients' FDRs (siblings and children) asked whether they had been advised to undergo any CRC screening examination, whether they had done so, and if so, when initiated and by whom. Main outcome measurements were: CRC patients' and their FDRs' information status regarding the FDRs' increased CRC risk and screening status.

RESULTS

Of 343 index patients (390 contacted, 47 deceased/moved), 134 replied to the survey (39.1% response rate). Among index patients, 82.1% (110/134) were informed about FDRs' increased CRC risk. This information was provided mainly by gastroenterologists and general practitioners (65.7 and 28.4%, respectively). Among FDRs, 85.1% (143/168) were informed about their increased CRC risk, but 69% did not undergo a screening colonoscopy. Among the FDRs more than 50 years of age, 40.8% did not undergo a screening colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

In Switzerland, CRC patients and their FDRs are well informed about FDRs' increased CRC risk. However, the majority of FDRs do not undergo the recommended CRC screening.

Familial colorectal cancer risk assessment needs improvement for more effective cancer prevention in relatives

AIM

Twelve to thirty % of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and relatives with an increased familial risk of CRC are referred for preventive measures. New guidelines recommend genetic counselling for high-risk families and surveillance colonoscopy for moderate-risk families. Assessment of familial risk of CRC and referral rates for these preventive measures were determined 1 year after the introduction of new guidelines.

METHOD

Assessment of familial risk of CRC and referral for preventive measures were measured in clinical practice among 358 patients with CRC in 18 hospitals using medical records and questionnaires. Additionally, a knowledge survey was performed among 312 clinicians.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven % of patients with an increased familial risk (n = 65/97) were referred for preventive measures, as were 23% (61/261) of low-risk patients. The uptake of genetic counselling in high-risk families was 33% (12/36). The uptake of surveillance colonoscopy in moderate-risk families was 34% (21/61). In the knowledge survey clinicians correctly determined familial risk in 55% and preventive measures in 65% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Currently 67% of individuals with an increased familial risk of CRC were referred for preventive measures. Only one-third were referred in accordance with guidelines.