The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system

Timely Completion of Direct Access Colonoscopy Is Noninferior to Office Scheduled for Screening and Surveillance

GOALS

We aimed to evaluate whether direct access colonoscopy (DAC) is noninferior to office-scheduled colonoscopy (OSC) for achieving successful colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

DAC may improve access to colonoscopy. We developed an algorithm assessing eligibility, risk for inadequate preparation, and need for nursing/navigator assistance.

STUDY

This was a retrospective, single-center study of DAC and OSC patients from June 5, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Patients were 45 to 75 years old with an indication of screening or surveillance. A successful colonoscopy met 3 criteria: complete colonoscopy (cecum, anastomosis, or ileum), adequate preparation (Boston Score ≥2/segment), and performed <90 days from initial patient contact. Unsuccessful colonoscopy did not meet ≥1 criteria. Secondary end points included days to successful colonoscopy, preparation quality, polyp detection, and 10-year recall rate. Noninferiority against risk ratio value of 0.85 was tested using 1-sided alpha of 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 1823 DAC and 828 OSC patients were eligible. DAC patients were younger, with a greater proportion of black patients and screening indications. For the outcome of successful colonoscopy, DAC was noninferior to OSC (DAC vs. OSC: 62.7% vs. 57.1%, RR 1.16, 95% LCL 1.09, P =0.001). For DAC, days to colonoscopy were fewer, and likelihood of 10-year recall after negative screening greater. Boston Score and polyp detection were similar for groups. Black patients were less likely to achieve successful colonoscopy; otherwise, groups were similar. For unsuccessful colonoscopies, proportionally more DAC patients canceled or no-showed while more OSC patients scheduled >90 days. DAC remained noninferior to OSC at 180 days.

CONCLUSIONS

DAC was noninferior to OSC for achieving successful colonoscopy, comparing similarly in quality and efficiency outcomes.

Sustainability in gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy: Position Paper from the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Digestive Endoscopists (AIGO)

Climate crisis is dramatically changing life on earth. Environmental sustainability and waste management are rapidly gaining centrality in quality improvement strategies of healthcare, especially in procedure-dominant fields such as gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy. Therefore, healthcare interventions and endoscopic procedures must be evaluated through the 'triple bottom line' of financial, social, and environmental impact. The purpose of the paper is to provide information on the carbon footprint of gastroenterology and digestive endoscopy and outline a set of measures that the sector can take to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases while improving patient outcomes. Scientific societies, hospital executives, single endoscopic units can structure health policies and investment to build a "green endoscopy". The AIGO study group reinforces the role of gastrointestinal endoscopy professionals as advocates of sustainability in digestive endoscopy. The "green endoscopy" can shape a more sustainable health service and lead to an equitable, climate-smart, and healthier future.

Predictors of ICU admission associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy in medical inpatients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are commonly performed in medical inpatients. Limited prior research has examined factors associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admission after GI endoscopy in medical inpatients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using routinely-collected clinical and administrative data from all general medicine hospitalizations at five academic hospitals in Toronto, Canada between 2010 and 2020. We describe ICU admission and death within 48 h of GI endoscopy in medical inpatients. We examined adjusted associations of patient and procedural factors with ICU admission or death using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 18 290 medical inpatients who underwent endoscopy, 900 (4.9%) required ICU admission or died within 48 h of endoscopy. Following risk adjustment, ICU admission or death were associated with the following procedural factors: endoscopy on the day of hospital admission (aOR 3.16 [2.38-4.21]) or 1 day after admission (aOR 1.92 [1.51-2.44]) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures; and the following patient factors: Charlson comorbidity index of two (aOR 1.38 [1.05-1.81]) or three or greater (aOR 1.84 [1.47-2.29]), older age, male sex, lower hemoglobin prior to endoscopy, increased creatinine prior to endoscopy, an admitting diagnosis of liver disease and certain medications (antiplatelet agents and corticosteroids).

CONCLUSIONS

ICU admission or death after endoscopy was associated with procedural factors such as EGD and timing of endoscopy, and patient factors indicative of acute illness and greater comorbidity. These findings can contribute to improved triage and monitoring for patients requiring inpatient endoscopy.

The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. An observational multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy demands a considerable amount of resources, and little is known about its diagnostic yield among inpatients.

AIMS

To assess indications, diagnostic yield and findings of colonoscopy for inpatients, and to identify risk factors for relevant findings and cancer.

METHODS

Multicentre, prospective, observational study including 12 hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy were evaluated from February through November 2019.

RESULTS

1,302 inpatients underwent colonoscopy. Diagnostic yield for relevant findings and cancer was 586 (45%) and 112 (8.6%), respectively. Adequate colon cleansing was achieved in 896 (68.8%) patients. Split-dose/same-day regimen was adopted in 847 (65%) patients. Factors associated to relevant findings were age ≥70 years (RR 1.32), male gender (RR 1.11), blood loss (RR 1.22) and adequate cleansing (RR 1.63). Age ≥70 years (RR 2.08), no previous colonoscopy (RR 2.69) and split-dose/same-day regimen (RR 1.59) significantly increased cancer detection. Implementing adequate cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen in all patients would increase the diagnostic yield for any relevant findings and cancer from 43% to 70% and from 6% to 10%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Relevant colorectal diseases and cancer were frequent among inpatients. Factors associated with detection of relevant findings were identified. Adequate colon cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen significantly increased colonoscopy diagnostic yield.

Improvement in appropriateness and diagnostic yield of fast-track endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Italy

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy, only fast-track endoscopic procedures have been performed; nevertheless, a significant drop in their number has been reported. We evaluated whether the pandemic has impacted the appropriateness and diagnostic yield of fast-track endoscopic procedures compared with those performed in 2019.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved endoscopy services in Northern Italy. We compared data regarding endoscopic procedures performed in March and April 2020 with those performed during the same period in 2019.

RESULTS

In 2020, there was a 53.6 % reduction in the number of fast-track endoscopic procedures compared with 2019. Patients undergoing endoscopy in 2020 were younger than in 2019. Both appropriate referral and diagnostic yield increased in 2020 for both upper and lower endoscopy. A higher rate of cancer was diagnosed in 2020 by upper endoscopy (3.6 % vs. 6.6 %; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The high level of inappropriate endoscopy referrals registered in 2019 significantly improved during the COVID-19 outbreak of 2020, with an increase in the diagnostic yield.

Open Access Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Prevention: An Evaluation of Appropriateness and Quality

BACKGROUND

Open access colonoscopy (OAC) has gained widespread acceptance and has the potential to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, there is little data evaluating its appropriateness for CRC prevention.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of OAC in CRC screening and polyp surveillance by comparing to procedures ordered by gastroenterologists (NOAC). As secondary outcomes, we compared the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR) between OAC and NOAC.

METHODS

It is retrospective single-center study. Inclusion criteria included patients > 50 years of age undergoing a colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance. Appropriateness was defined as those colonoscopies performed within 12 months of the recommended 2012 consensus guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation and ADR.

RESULTS

5211 colonoscopies met inclusion criteria, and 64.9% were OAC. Screening OAC was appropriately 91.6% and NOAC 92.9% of the time (p = 0.179). Surveillance NOAC were inappropriate in 26.4% of cases, and surveillance OAC was 32.6% (p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that OAC did not influence ADR (OR for NOAC 0.97; 95% CI 0.86-1.1; p = 0.644) or an adequate bowel preparation (OR for NOAC 1.11; 95% CI 0.91-1.36; p = 0.306).

CONCLUSION

OAC performed similarly to NOAC for screening indications, quality of bowel preparation, and ADR. However, more surveillance procedures were inappropriate in the OAC group although both groups had a high number of inappropriate indications. Although OAC can be efficiently performed for screening indications, measures to decrease inappropriate surveillance colonoscopies are needed.

The Drivers of Discretionary Utilization: Clinical History Versus Physician Supply

PURPOSE

Because the effect of physician supply on utilization remains controversial, literature based on non-Medicare populations is sparse, and a physician supply expansion is under way, the potential for physician-induced demand across diverse populations is important to understand. A substantial proportion of gastrointestinal endoscopies may be inappropriate. The authors analyzed the impact of physician supply, practice patterns, and clinical history on esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD, defined as discretionary) among patients hospitalized with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB).

METHOD

Among 34,344 patients hospitalized for LGIB from 2004 to 2009, 43.1% and 21.3% had a colonoscopy or EGD, respectively, during the index hospitalization or within 6 months after. Linking to the Dartmouth Atlas via patients' hospital referral region, gastroenterologist density and hospital care intensity (HCI) index were ascertained. Adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and race/education indicators, the association of gastroenterologist density, HCI index, and history of upper gastrointestinal disease with EGD was estimated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

EGD was not associated with gastroenterologist density or HCI index, but was associated with a history of upper gastrointestinal disease (OR 2.30; 95% CI 2.17-2.43), peptic ulcer disease (OR 4.82; 95% CI 4.26-5.45), and liver disease (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.18-1.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients hospitalized with LGIB, large variation in gastroenterologist density did not predict EGD, but relevant clinical history did, with association strengths commensurate with risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. In the scenario studied, no evidence was found that specialty physician supply increases will result in more discretionary care within commercially insured populations.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

The impact of chronic opioid use on colonoscopy outcomes

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed on patients chronically on opioids, raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of conventional sedation.

AIMS

We hypothesized that chronic opioid use is associated with longer procedure times, higher dosages of sedation medications, and an increase in adverse effects.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review from June 2012 to June 2013. Patients on chronic opioids (opioids use ≥ 12 weeks) were compared to randomly selected patients matched for age, race, and sex. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors that were independently predictive of longer procedure times.

RESULTS

Patients on chronic opioids required higher doses of fentanyl (122.0 ± 45.3 vs. 105.8 ± 47.2 µg; P < 0.0001) and midazolam (5.3 ± 5.3 vs. 4.4 ± 2 mg; P = 0.0037) and were more likely to receive diphenhydramine (42.8 vs. 22.6 %; P < 0.001). The induction period (11.3 ± 8.8 vs. 7.5 ± 4.0 min), duration of procedure (39.1 ± 17.5 vs. 33.4 ± 14.1 min), and recovery times (38.7 ± 15.3 vs. 33.8 ± 12.1 min) were significantly longer for patients on chronic opioids. In the multivariate regression analysis, opioid use was an independent predictor of longer procedure duration (P < 0.05). Hypotensive episodes did not differ between groups (2.8 vs. 2.7 %; P = 0.8). However, patients on chronic opioids experienced more pain (13.4 vs. 5.9 %; P 0.001) and hypertensive episodes (8.1 vs. 2.8 %; P 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Patients on chronic opioids represent a high-risk population with longer procedural times and more discomfort, despite higher dosages of sedative agents. Prospective studies are required to define the risks and benefits of more costly alternative sedation strategies for patients on chronic opioids.

Our results of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: evaluation of 700 patients

OBJECTIVE

Although radiological imaging modalities like barium enema and computed tomography provide some clues, endoscopic methods still maintain superiority in assessment and differential diagnosis of large intestinal symptoms and complaints that require biopsy. We aimed to present the results of colonoscopic procedures performed in our general surgery clinic in detail.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seven hundred patients who presented to Afyon Kocatepe University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery Endoscopy Unit between January 2011 and July 2012 with an indication for colonoscopy were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of the 700 patients enrolled in the study 356 (50.8%) were male while 344 patients (49.2%) were female. The mean age of the patients was found to be 49 years. Within the group of 700 patients who underwent colonoscopic examinations, the terminal ileum and cecum have been reached on the first attempt in 432 patients (61.7%) and colonoscopic success has been achieved. Results of colonoscopies performed on 700 patients in our clinic revealed malignancy in 42 (6%) patients, and all of these patients were treated surgically in our clinic. Mortality was not observed in this series. Procedure-related bleeding and perforation developed in 6 patients. One patient developed respiratory arrest due to sedation and patient was responsive to resuscitation. The complication rate in our series was 1%.

CONCLUSION

In the study where we revised our own clinical experience, we found that our success rate was lower than the literature, and our complication rate was higher. The main reasons are accepted as our colonoscopy unit's being young and the low patient volume.

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.

[Introduction of a quality index in a Hungarian endoscopy unit]

The quality of endoscopic examinations substantially determines their value. In developed countries, Continuous Quality Management is used to improve it permanently. In Hungary there is no example for measuring quality in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM

The measurement and improvement of quality of endoscopy applying completeness index (cecum intubation rate) during colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The authors defined base values retrospectively from 841 colonoscopy reports, performed in the last quarter of the year, before starting the project. The next two years (3160 colonoscopy in 2009 and 3167 in 2010) every three months they calculated the cecum intubation rate for each endoscopist.

RESULTS

The cecum intubation rate was 81.6% in the base period. When the authors excluded examinations with poor preparations and those with a previously unknown stenosis that prevented the total colonoscopy, the adjusted cecal intubation rate was 90.9%. In the next 2 years, the cecum intubation rate was 84.2% and 85.7% (p = 0.0394), while adjusted cecum intubation rate proved to be 92.3% and 92.6% (p = 0.381 NS) for the whole endoscopy unit. Of the 14 endoscopists only 6 reached an adjusted cecum intubation rate of 90%, but in the second year of the project 10 of them reached this rate and only one endoscopist remained below 87%. The endoscopists performing more than 100 colonoscopies per year had better adjusted cecum intubation rate (base 91.2%; 92.7% and 93.1% during the 2 project years) compared to those with less than 100 colonoscopies per year (base, 86.7%; project period, 85.5 and 89%).

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation and publicity of the cecal intubation rate resulted in an improvement of the quality of colonoscopy. The authors also presented that endoscopists performing more than 100 colonoscopies per year have better endoscopic quality.

The appropriateness of colonoscopies at a teaching hospital: magnitude, associated factors, and comparison of EPAGE and EPAGE-II criteria

BACKGROUND

The growing demand for colonoscopies and inappropriate colonoscopies have become a significant problem for health care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies and to analyze the association with some clinical and organizational factors. To compare the results of the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) and the EPAGE-II criteria.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Endoscopy unit of a teaching hospital in Spain.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for colonoscopy, excluding urgent, therapeutic indications, and poor cleansing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Appropriateness of colonoscopies according to the EPAGE criteria.

RESULTS

From 749 colonoscopies, 619 were included. Most patients were referred by gastroenterologists (66.1%) in an outpatient setting (80.6%). Hematochezia was the most frequent indication (31.5%) followed by colorectal cancer-related indications (27.3%); a clinically relevant diagnosis was established in 41%. Inappropriate use was higher with EPAGE (27.0%) than EPAGE-II (17.4%) criteria. Surveillance after colonic polypectomy and uncomplicated lower abdominal pain were the indications exhibiting higher inadequacy. Inappropriate use was less with older age, in hospitalized patients, with referrals from internal medicine, and in colonoscopies with clinically relevant diagnoses. Agreement between EPAGE and EPAGE-II was fair (weighted κ = 0.31) but improved to moderate (simple κ = 0.60) after grouping appropriate and uncertain levels.

LIMITATIONS

The appropriateness criteria are based on panel opinions. Some patients (12%) could not be evaluated with the EPAGE criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identifies substantial colonoscopy overuse, especially in tumor disease surveillance. The EPAGE-II criteria decrease the inappropriate rate and the possibility of overlooking potentially severe lesions.

[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.

Evaluation of French guidelines on the indications of colonoscopy: results of a regional practice survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Compliance with guidelines on colonoscopic indications can improve colorectal cancer screening efficiency. We conducted a regional practice survey of gastroenterologists working in the public and private sectors in France, and compared the results with French national guidelines.

METHODS

Four consecutive yearly questionnaire-based practice surveys were conducted, and remedial measures were recommended on the basis of the results.

RESULTS

We analyzed 5128 colonoscopies carried out by 65 practitioners. Of these, 4266 (83.2%) conformed to contemporary guidelines, 391 (7.6%) did not conform, and 471 (9.2%) could not be classified, owing to a lack of information. Remedial measures led to a significant increase in the number of colonoscopies conforming to guidelines (p=0.037) and to a significant fall in the number of unclassified procedures (p=0.0018). The distribution of colonic lesions differed between procedures that did and did not conform to guidelines (2.4% versus 0.3% of colorectal cancers, 11.4% vs. 6.9% of advanced adenomas, and 17.5% vs. 14.6% of non-advanced adenomas; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This longitudinal multicenter survey shows that national colonoscopy guidelines are largely respected in France and improve the detection of colonic neoplasia. Practices improved following implementation of remedial measures.

Appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy in a non-academic hospital

AIM: To assess the appropriate use and the diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy in this subgroup of patients.

METHODS: In total, 789 consecutive outpatients referred for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy [381 for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 408 for colonoscopy] were prospectively enrolled in the study. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines were used to assess the relationship between appropriateness and the presence of relevant endoscopic findings.

RESULTS: The overall inappropriate rate was 13.3%. The indications for EGD and colonoscopy were, respectively, appropriate in 82.7% and 82.6% of the exams, uncertain in 5.8% and 2.4% and inappropriate in 11.5% and 15%. The diagnostic yield was significant higher for EGDs and colonoscopies judged appropriate and uncertain when compared with those considered inappropriate (EGD: 36.6% vs 36.4% vs 11.4%, P = 0.004; Colonoscopy: 24.3% vs 20.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.001). Of the 25 malignant lesions detected, all but one was detected in exams judged appropriate or uncertain.

CONCLUSION: This study shows a good adherence to ASGE guidelines by the referring physicians and a significant increase of the diagnostic yield in appropriate examinations, namely in detecting neoplastic lesions. It underscores the importance that the appropriateness of the indication assumes in assuring high-quality GI endoscopic procedures.

An academic medical center model for community colorectal cancer screening: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstration program experience

During 2005-2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded five colorectal cancer (CRC) screening demonstration projects around the United States; only one was based in an academic medical center (AMC) rather than a health department. The Suffolk County Preventive Endoscopy Project (Project SCOPE) was a collaborative effort between Stony Brook University Medical Center (SBUMC) and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Project SCOPE's objective was to increase CRC screening among Suffolk County residents at least 50 years old who had inadequate or no insurance coverage for CRC screening. The demonstration application drew on the screening, diagnostic, and treatment resources of the AMC and the indigent populations using its outpatient clinics. Patients at 10 county health centers were a primary target for (previously inaccessible) colonoscopy screening. The project's organizational center was SBUMC's preventive medicine department, which was linked to SBUMC's large gastroenterology practice. The specific staffing, financial, and training issues faced by this project provide insights for others who are similarly interested in community engagement. During 40 months of screening, 800 indigent, culturally diverse patients were recruited, and they underwent colonoscopy. Challenges encountered included unreachable referred patients (425 patients; 28% of referrals) and medical ineligibility (e.g., symptomatic comorbid conditions). Pending legislation providing federal funding for a national program offers other AMCs the opportunity to adopt a model such as that proven feasible during Project SCOPE. The lessons learned may have broader application for fostering collaborative AMC partnerships and for enhancing recruitment and retention of participants through outreach.

Gastroenterology service in a teaching hospital in rural New Zealand, 1991-2003

AIM: To retrospectively collect inpatient and outpatient data and to assess the use of endoscopic procedures during the years 1991, 1997 and 2003 to analyse for trends.

METHODS: This retrospective survey was conducted in a University-associated Gastroenterology Unit offering secondary and tertiary health care services for a population of approximately 182 000 people in Southern New Zealand. Data collected included patient contacts (in- and outpatients), gastroscopic and colonoscopic investigations.

RESULTS: We observed a significant increase in the absolute numbers of patient contacts over the years (1991: 2308 vs 1997: 2022 vs 2003: 2783, P < 0.0001) with inflammatory bowel disease, other diseases of the colon, anus and rectum and iron studies related disorders decreasing significantly but liver disease and constipation increasing linearly over time. The use of endoscopy services remained relatively stable but colonoscopic investigations for a positive family history of colorectal cancer increased significantly while more gastroscopies were performed for unexplained anaemia.

CONCLUSION: The whole spectrum of gastroenterology contacts was studied. A substantial proportion of colonoscopies and outpatient consultations were undertaken to screen for colorectal cancer. This proportion is likely to grow further. Our findings have implications for the recruitment and training of the next generation of gastroenterologists.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in a digestive endoscopy unit: a prospective study using ASGE guidelines

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Appropriate indications for colonoscopy (C) are essential for a rational use of resources. The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of indication for C according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines and to evaluate whether appropriate use was correlated with the diagnostic yield of C.

METHODS

We analysed 677 consecutive C performed over an 11-month period in a digestive endoscopy unit with an open access system.

RESULTS

The rate of 'generally indicated' C was 77% and 'generally not indicated' C was 18%. The rate of indication not listed in the ASGE guidelines was 5%. The percentage of generally not indicated C requested by gastroenterologists for outpatients was lower than that requested by primary care surgeons or doctors (9.5%, 29%, 25.3%, respectively). In 38 (7.3%) and in 111 (21.3%) of 520 patients with appropriate C, cancer and polyps larger than 5 mm were found, respectively. Twenty polyps greater than 5 mm were detected in 15 cases (12%) of 122 inappropriate C, with only one case of intramucosal carcinoma; four (12%) polyps measuring over 5 mm were found in C not listed in ASGE guidelines. No advanced stage cancer was detected in the inappropriate group and in C not listed in ASGE guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed the high rate of inappropriate procedures, according to ASGE guidelines, requested by surgeons, internists and primary care doctors for both outpatients and inpatients. The proportion of not indicated endoscopic procedures requested by gastroenterologists must be reduced through more carefully application of ASGE guidelines. Endoscopic findings were more stringent in appropriate C.

Improving the appropriateness of referrals and waiting times for endoscopic procedures

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of standard methods for determining the clinical priority of patients referred by general practitioners (GPs) for specialist outpatient consultations. We introduced a system of progressive involvement by general practitioners and specialists with 80 diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate this new method of prioritization of patients suffering from significant gastroenterological disorders needing rapid access to diagnostic procedures.

METHODS

The study included 438 outpatients who were referred for and underwent a gastroscopy or colonoscopy. GPs used a ranking of waiting times for different levels of clinical priority, called 'homogeneous waiting groups'. Specialists also assigned a priority level for each patient as well as evaluating the appropriateness of the referral and the presence of significant endoscopic disorders. Agreement between GPs' and specialists' priority assessments was evaluated by the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

Most referrals (74.4%) were deemed low priority by GPs, with no maximum waiting time assigned. The level of agreement between GPs and specialists as regards patients' priorities was poor or moderate: for gastroscopy the kappa was 0.31 (weighted kappa 0.47) and for colonoscopy 0.44 (weighted kappa 0.46). There was an association between the proportion of significant disorders identified with endoscopy and the priority assigned to the referral (chi2 = 18.9, 1 df, p < 0.001). The overall proportion of referrals deemed inappropriate by specialists was 22.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is value in liaison between GPs and specialists for achieving timely referrals and avoiding delayed diagnosis though higher levels of agreement need to be achieved.

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.

Diagnostic yield of colonoscopy based on symptoms

OBJECTIVE

There are only a few data on the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in different symptoms. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of colonoscopy in patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms and to estimate the relation between the findings and the presenting symptoms.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

1121 consecutive colonoscopies were registered during 1 year. Asymptomatic subjects and patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were excluded, leaving 767 eligible for the study. Symptoms, findings and clinical judgement about their relation were recorded.

RESULTS

In patients with bleeding symptoms (n=405), serious colonic pathology--cancers and adenomas >1 cm, IBD and angiodysplasia--was found in 54 (13.3%), 83 (20.5%) and 20 (4.9%) patients, respectively; 162 (40%) patients had findings that could be related to the symptom. In 173 subjects with non-bloody diarrhoea, the diagnostic yield was 31.2%, i.e. mostly IBD and microscopic colitis. In 189 subjects with other gastrointestinal symptoms, the diagnostic yield was 13.2%. Serious colonic pathology was found in 8 of 362 (2.2%) subjects examined because of non-bleeding symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy is high in patients with bleeding symptoms or diarrhoea, while the prevalence of significant findings is equal to a screening population in patients with other symptoms.

Education improves colonoscopy appropriateness

BACKGROUND

Appropriateness in GI endoscopy is critical to face the rising amount of demands. Education of physicians has been advocated to reduce the level of inappropriateness.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of an educational program in determining a reduction of inappropriate colonoscopies in an open access system.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

A single endoscopy unit in Italy.

PATIENTS

A total of 495 consecutive outpatients referred to our endoscopy unit by family physicians for diagnostic colonoscopy before the educational course and 522 after its completion, for a total of 1017 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Inappropriate colonoscopy reduction rates, cost savings, and reduction of waiting lists were evaluated.

RESULTS

With regard to inappropriate colonoscopies, the post-course group rate of inappropriateness was significantly lower than that of the pre-course group (P < or = .001). The economic savings for 1 year was estimated to be euro19,000. The reduction of the waiting list was about 15% of the original value.

CONCLUSIONS

Education has a high incidence in reducing inappropriate colonoscopies in an open-access system determining reduction of costs and waiting lists.

[Guidelines for the rational use of endoscopy to improve the detection of relevant lesions in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Almost 50% of gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in our Unit correspond to patients coming from primary care. Since resources are finite, adherence to appropriate indications for these procedures is essential. We prospectively assessed the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopies referred from Primary Care according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

From May to June 2005, all consecutive patients referred from Primary care to our unit for open-access endoscopy were included (478 colonoscopies and 264 gastroscopies). Appropriateness of each exploration was established according to the EPAGE criteria. In order to evaluate whether appropriateness of use correlated with the diagnostic yield of endoscopies, relevant endoscopic findings were recorded.

RESULTS

In 146 patients (20%), an endoscopy indication was not listed in the EPAGE guidelines or data were incomplete and they were not evaluated. In the remaining 596 patients, the indication of the procedure was considered appropriate in 401 (67%) patients (253 [69%], colonoscopies and 148 [65%], gastroscopies). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for appropriate endoscopies (30% vs 7%, p < 0.001). Endoscopies were more appropriate in older patients and in non-foreigners.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of gastrointestinal endoscopies in patients coming from primary Care increases with the appropriateness of indications according to the EPAGE criteria. Since a noteworthy proportion of these patients' endoscopies are considered inappropriate, the implementation of validated guidelines for its appropriate use could improve this situation.

Diagnostic yield and safety of colonoscopy in Israeli patients in an open access referral system

BACKGROUND

Open access endoscopy allows reference of patients for endoscopic procedures without prior gastrointestinal consultation, allowing the procedure to be more accessible. This practice is becoming increasingly widespread in the United States and other countries and has become commonplace in clinical practice in Israel. The objective of our study is to bring forward our experience with an open access referral system for colonoscopy and to measure the yield and safety of colonoscopy in this system.

METHODS

Between January 2001 and September 2003, 10,866 colonoscopies were performed. Patient's charts were reviewed for the following data: demographics, indication for endoscopy, endoscopic and histopathologic findings, and complications. The practice guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy were used to assess appropriateness of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

3533 pathologic findings were found, in 2978 colonoscopies. 2336 polyps were removed, including 18% hyperplastic, 26% tubular adenomata, 13% villous adenomata, 11% tubulovillous adenomata. Advanced disease was found in 41% of pathologic findings, 11% were invasive cancer. Rate of colonoscopies "generally indicated" according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines was 78% with a rate of colonoscopies "generally not indicated" of 22%. Colonoscopy was completed successfully to the cecum in 93% of patients. 0.08% had serious complications during or immediately after colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that open access colonoscopy is a reliable and safe method for screening average risk population. As colonoscopy is becoming the recommended screening model for colorectal cancer this attitude of performing screening in an open access system could both cut costs in the future and improve availability, in an aim to become common practice.

The appropriateness of colonoscopy: a multi-center, international, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopy across Europe.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

A total of 21 gastrointestinal centers from 11 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at each center.

INTERVENTION

Appropriateness criteria developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, using the RAND appropriateness method, were used to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Appropriateness of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 5213 of 6004 (86.8%) patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy and had an appropriateness rating were included in this study. According to the criteria, 20, 26, 27, or 27% of colonoscopies were judged to be necessary, appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, respectively. Older patients and those with a major illness were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication for colonoscopy as compared to healthy patients or patients who were 45-54 years old. As compared to screening patients, patients who underwent colonoscopy for iron-deficiency anemia [OR: 30.84, 95% CI: 19.79-48.06] or change in bowel habits [OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.74-4.96] were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication, whereas patients who underwent colonoscopy for abdominal pain [OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83] or chronic diarrhea [OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40-0.75] were less likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified significant proportions of inappropriate colonoscopies. Prospective use of the criteria by physicians referring for or performing colonoscopies may improve appropriateness and quality of care, especially in younger patients and in patients with nonspecific symptoms.

The corner of the gastroenterologist: what colonoscopy can do, what to ask to radiologist

Colonoscopy is the diagnostic technique of choice for most colonic diseases and allows to explore the entire colonic mucosal surface and to visualize the mucosa of terminal ileum. When it is done with appropriate indications, significantly more clinically relevant diagnoses are made. Moreover, colonoscopy keeps an operative role in the treatment of some acute and chronic colonic diseases and it is the most effective colorectal cancer screening modality. The endoscopic exploration of colon is not infallible and presents rare complications. Programs of endoscopic training and practice, monitoring of quality indicators and continuous technological development are improving endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic role. Appropriate indications for colonoscopy, its limits and complications and questions for the radiologist are discussed.

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.

Appropriateness of indication and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: first report based on the 2000 guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

AIM

To assess the appropriateness of referrals and to determine the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy according to the 2000 guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

METHODS

A total of 736 consecutive patients (415 males, 321 females; mean age 43.6+/-16.6 years) undergoing colonoscopy during October 2001-March 2002 were prospectively enrolled in the study. The 2000 ASGE guidelines were used to assess the appropriateness of the indications for the procedure. Diagnostic yield was defined as the ratio between significant findings detected on colonoscopy and the total number of procedures performed for that indication.

RESULTS

The large majority (64%) of patients had colonoscopy for an indication that was considered "generally indicated", it was "generally not indicated" for 20%, and it was "not listed" for 16% in the guidelines. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was highest for the "generally indicated" (38%) followed by "not listed" (13%) and "generally not indicated" (5%) categories. In the multivariable analysis, the diagnostic yield was independently associated with the appropriateness of indication that was "generally indicated" (odds ratio=12.3) and referrals by gastroenterologist (odds ratio =1.9).

CONCLUSION

There is a high likelihood of inappropriate referrals for colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system. The diagnostic yield of the procedure is dependent on the appropriateness of indication and referring physician's specialty. Certain indications "not listed" in the guidelines have an intermediate diagnostic yield and further studies are required to evaluate whether they should be included in future revisions of the ASGE guidelines.

The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

The demand for gastrointestinal endoscopy is increasing in most developed countries, resulting in an important rise in overall costs and waiting lists for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, adherence to appropriate indications for these procedures is essential for the rational use of finite resources in an open-access system.

AIM

To assess indications and appropriateness of colonoscopy according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria.

METHODS

From May to June 2004, all consecutive patients referred to our Unit for open-access colonoscopy were considered for inclusion in this prospective study. Appropriateness of each colonoscopy was established according to the EPAGE criteria. In order to evaluate whether appropriateness of use correlated with the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy, relevant endoscopic findings were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 350 consecutive patients were included in the study. In 38 of them, the colonoscopy indication was not listed in the EPAGE guidelines and, consequently, they were not evaluated. In the remaining 312 patients, the indication for the procedure was considered inappropriate in 73 (23%) patients. Both referring doctor characteristics (specialty and health care setting) and patient data (age) correlated with appropriateness of endoscopy. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for appropriate colonoscopies (42%) than in those judged inappropriate (21%) (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A noteworthy proportion of patients referred for colonoscopy to an open-access endoscopy unit are considered inappropriate because of their indication, with significant differences among specialties. These results suggest that implementation of validated guidelines for its appropriate use could improve this situation and, considering the correlation between appropriateness and diagnostic yield, even contribute to improve the prognosis of patients with colorectal diseases.

Quality assurance and gastrointestinal endoscopy: an audit of 500 colonoscopic procedures

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of colonoscopic procedures in our endoscopy unit with the goal of improving performance.

METHODS

We prospectively audited 500 consecutive colonoscopic procedures and assessed sixty-two process or outcome indicators for each procedure.

RESULTS

Most of the measured indicators were within standard limits: cecal intubation rate (92%), inadequate bowel preparations (24%), inappropriate procedures (9.7%), normal procedures (54%), yield for neoplasia (32%), morbidity (0.4%), and overall patient satisfaction (95.8%). Some indicators were outside standard limits suggesting our practices should be modified: endoscopy withdrawal time less than 6 minutes (78%), forceps removal of polyps (31%), resected polyps not recovered for pathological examination (12%), adenomas with villous elements (22%), patients unsatisfied because of time spent waiting for the procedure (19%), patients unsatisfied because of inadequate explanations (10%). There was no standard for a few indicators: patient discomfort (6.9%), diagnostic success (89%), therapeutic success (92%). Three new indicators were proposed: proportion of patients aged<50 years, number of normal colonoscopic procedures to perform to detect one advanced adenoma or cancer, and proportion of colonoscopic procedures causing discomfort. The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was dependent on age, gender, indication and appropriateness of indication but not on the prescriber.

CONCLUSION

This audit allowed us to evaluate our endoscopic practices and to detect certain shortcomings and deviations from standards. It enabled us to change some of our practices with the goal of improving the quality of our colonoscopic procedures.

Strategies to address increased demand for colonoscopy: Guidelines in an open endoscopy practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since Medicare approval for reimbursement of screening colonoscopies, the number of colonoscopy requests has increased. Physician resources have often been inadequate to meet the demand. We sought to reduce the demand for colonoscopy in an open endoscopy system by using a guideline-based triage system to eliminate inappropriate procedures and to align the timing of surveillance colonoscopies with recommendations made by national organizations.

METHODS

This was a cohort study with primary care outpatients. From October 2002 to February 2003, 498 consecutive patients on a waiting list of 2400 awaiting colonoscopy for all indications were triaged and are the focus of the study. Selection of patients for appropriate colonoscopy was based on consensus guidelines developed for institutional use by using established published guidelines for appropriate colonoscopy indications.

RESULTS

Of the 498 consecutive patients triaged, 139 (28%) were deemed inappropriate. The most common reason was inappropriate referral for surveillance of colorectal polyps. The percentage of inappropriate referrals by the 3 largest referring specialties (internal medicine, family medicine, and gastroenterology) combined was also 28% with no statistically significant differences between specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Most referrals for colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system were appropriate, although about 1 in 4 were not. Use of triage and further education of physicians regarding colonoscopy may optimize colonoscopy utilization.

Appropriateness of Colonoscopy in a Tertiary Referral Centre

The aim of this study was to determine the appropriateness of colonoscopy in relation to its diagnostic yield, with reference to the guidelines set by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). A prospective 90-day audit was performed at Hospital Kualal Lumpur, which is a tertiary referral centre in Malaysia, to examine the appropriateness of colonoscopy by indication. During that time, 257 colonoscopies were performed in 244 patients. The predominant indications for colonoscopy were altered bowl habit (37%) and rectal bleeding (18%). Of the 257 colonoscopies, 216 (84%) were judged to be appropriate by ASGE guidelines. Only 43% of all colonoscopies had positive findings. Positive findings were found in 93% of cases judged appropriate compared with only 7% found in cases deemed inappropriate. There were statistically significant relationships between appropriateness and overall positive yield and between appropriateness and neoplastic findings (p < 0.05). Colonoscopy performed for appropriate indications yield more significant findings, this, we advocate the use of accepted guidelines to maintain or improve the standard colonoscopy services.

Appropriateness of diagnostic digestive endoscopy

The indications of diagnostic endoscopy--upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or colonoscopy--in the exploration of the digestive tract are classified as appropriate or inappropriate with regard to criteria established in guidelines supported by national scientific societies and by insurance companies. This applies to the exploration of symptomatic patients and to screening protocols for malignant lesions. Functional or nonstructural diseases being more frequent than structural diseases, negative findings in endoscopy are common. However this reassures the patient and should not be considered as overuse. On the other hand excess in the repetition of negative endoscopic procedures during surveillance raises ethical problems, increased costs, and may be considered as unethical.

The role of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in the diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal disorders: technique, indications, and contraindications

Flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy have revolutionized the clinical management of colonic diseases. Colonoscopy has a broad range of indications, including evaluating lower GI symptoms such as lower GI bleeding, evaluating abnormal radiographic findings, and screening and surveillance for colon cancer. Colonoscopy is increasingly being used therapeutically. Patient evaluation, patient instructions, and colonic preparation before colonoscopy are essential for safe and efficient colonoscopy. Intravenous sedation reduces patient pain and anxiety during colonoscopy, but requires monitoring by pulse oximetry and automated measurements of vital signs. An experienced colonoscopist can complete colonoscopy in 90% or more of cases, using maneuvers to maintain the colonic lumen in view, straighten the colonoscope, and avoid looping during colonic intubation.

The role of sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in the diagnosis and management of lower gastrointestinal disorders: endoscopic findings, therapy, and complications

Flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy have revolutionized the clinical management of colonic diseases. Colonoscopy is a highly sensitive and specific test. Colonic diseases often produce characteristic colonoscopic findings, as well as characteristic histologic findings, as identified in colonoscopic biopsy or polypectomy specimens. Colonoscopy is relatively safe, with a low incidence of serious complications, such as colonic perforation, hemorrhage, cardiopulmonary arrest, or sepsis. Colonoscopy is becoming more important clinically because of more widespread use of screening colonoscopy for colon cancer, application of therapeutic colonoscopy, and exciting new technical improvements.

Open access endoscopy in rural and remote Western Australia: does it work?

BACKGROUND

Access to diagnostic endoscopy is limited in rural and remote Western Australia. Published reports suggest open access referrals may result in over-servicing, this is reduced by adherence to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. The aim was to assess whether an outreach surgical service offering open access endoscopy to rural areas was being over utilized.

METHODS

Prospective data collection from all patients undergoing upper and lower endoscopy procedures between January 1996 and June 2000 were included in the present study. Indications for referral between the general practitioners and the visiting surgeons were reviewed in patient records and assessed for compliance with the ASGE guidelines. The groups were analysed for appropriateness of referrals and frequency of positive pathology investigations. Records for all patients undergoing colonoscopy were reviewed to determine the reason and number of cancelled procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 772 endoscopies were performed and 75% were booked as open access services. The referral rate for procedures was greater for general practitioners (583) compared to the visiting surgeons (189), the overall compliance rate for approved indications using the ASGE guidelines for both groups was 92%. There was no significant difference in pathology found between groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that an outreach rural surgical service programme in Western Australia offering open access endoscopy conforms to international guidelines and does not induce unnecessary procedures. Rural patients benefit from a personal cost savings and convenience. There is an associated reduction in government-assisted travel costs to larger centres as well as decreased waiting lists.

The yield of lower endoscopy in patients with constipation: survey of a university hospital, a public county hospital, and a Veterans Administration medical center

BACKGROUND

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of constipation is controversial. The aim of this study was to clarify the yield of lower endoscopy in patients with constipation.

METHODS

Endoscopic databases from 3 diverse hospitals were searched for procedures with constipation as an indication. Detection of neoplasia was the main outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Among 19,764 sigmoidoscopies or colonoscopies, constipation was a procedure indication for 563 patients (mean age 61 [16] years, 52% women); 58% had procedure indications in addition to constipation. Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 8 (1.4%), adenomas in 82 (14.6%), and advanced lesions (cancer or adenoma with malignancy, high-grade dysplasia, villous features, or size > or = 10 mm) in 24 (4.3%). In the 358 patients who underwent colonoscopy, cancer was detected in 1.7%, adenomas in 19.6%, and advanced lesions in 5.9%. Two patients with cancer were less than 50 years of age. In as many as 6 patients with cancer, the tumor may have caused partial obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

The range of neoplasia in patients with constipation evaluated with lower endoscopy was comparable with what would be expected in asymptomatic subjects undergoing colorectal cancer screening. Although chronic constipation alone may not be an appropriate indication for lower endoscopy, age-appropriate colorectal cancer screening should be pursued when patients with constipation seek medical care.

Colonoscopy: evaluating indications and diagnostic yield

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic procedure is an accepted modality for the evaluation of colonic disease. Open-access versus restricted-access colonoscopy has been argued over in the recent literature. The aim of this retrospective analysis is to identify the yield of the major indications for the procedure, and the pattern of colon pathology in our community.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our experience in 3000 colonoscopies over a five-year period. The patients comprised 1145 females (38%) and 1855 males (62%), and their ages ranged from 9 months to 95 years (mean 39.2). There were 2283 patients (76%) who were aged less than 55 years. Complete examination to the cecum was possible in 2850 cases (95%).

RESULTS

Pathological findings were identified in 640 patients (21%). The diagnostic yield of patients referred for lower abdominal pain and surveillance was low, at 7% and 17%, respectively. The yield was high for those with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (47%), non-bloody diarrhea (35%), iron deficiency anemia (30%), mass lesions identified by radiology (53%), and polyps identified by radiology (70%). Inflammatory bowel disease was diagnosed in 220 patients, carcinoma in 64 patients, and colonic polyps in 139 patients.

CONCLUSION

Colonic diseases are not uncommon in our part of the world. Colonoscopy is a rewarding procedure in those patients referred with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, mass lesions, polyps and diarrhea. The procedure is less rewarding in patients with lower abdominal pain and in those undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. Patient selection on the basis of the presenting complaint may help to utilize the limited resources available to gastroenterologists. About 63% of the procedures were done for indications found to have a low yield. Inflammatory bowel disease is seen with increasing frequency in our population.

Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness

BACKGROUND

Open-access endoscopy allows physicians to directly schedule endoscopic procedures for their patients without prior consultation. Evaluation of both appropriateness and diagnostic yield of endoscopic procedures is critical when assessing the costs and benefits of endoscopy in an open-access setting. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open-access system and to establish the yield of diagnostic information relevant to patient care.

METHODS

Overall, 1123 consecutive patients referred for open-access colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in the study. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines were used to assess the relationship between the appropriate use of colonoscopy and the presence of relevant endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

The rate of colonoscopies "generally not indicated" according to ASGE guidelines was 29% (39% for primary care physicians and 23% for specialists; p < 0.0001). A relevant endoscopic finding was detected in 338 examinations (35%). The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for "generally indicated" colonoscopies (43%) compared with "generally not indicated" procedures (16%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the rate of inappropriate use of colonoscopy was high, open-access colonoscopy was effective in detecting neoplastic lesions. Because most of these were detected during examinations performed for appropriate indications, the appropriateness of the indication emerges as crucial to the cost-effectiveness of an open-access system.

Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy in a European primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Efforts to decrease overuse of health care may result in underuse. Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy have never been simultaneously evaluated in the same patient population.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, the appropriateness and necessity of referral for colonoscopy were evaluated by using explicit criteria developed by a standardized expert panel method. Inappropriate referrals constituted overuse. Patients with necessary colonoscopy indications who were not referred constituted underuse. Consecutive ambulatory patients with lower gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from 22 general practices in Switzerland, a country with ready access to colonoscopy, were enrolled during a 4-week period. Follow-up data were obtained at 3 months for patients who did not undergo a necessary colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Eight thousand seven hundred sixty patient visits were screened for inclusion; 651 patients (7.4%) had lower GI symptoms (mean age 56.4 years, 68% women). Of these, 78 (12%) were referred for colonoscopy. Indications for colonoscopy in 11 patients (14% of colonoscopy referrals or 1.7% of all patients with lower GI symptoms) were judged inappropriate. Among 573 patients not referred for the procedure, underuse ranged between 11% and 28% of all patients with lower GI symptoms, depending on the criteria used.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying criteria from an expert panel of nationally recognized experts indicates that underuse of referral for colonoscopy exceeds overuse in primary care in Switzerland. To improve quality of care, both overuse and underuse of important procedures must be addressed.