A safe and effective multi-day colonoscopy bowel preparation for individuals with spinal cord injuries

Primary Care in the Spinal Cord Injury Population: Things to Consider in the Ongoing Discussion

Purpose of Review

Spinal cord injury (SCI) creates unique needs that if not recognized and addressed timely can have detrimental effects on the health and quality of life (QOL) of people living with a SCI. Primary preventive health care is shown to decrease morbidity and mortality, yet the SCI population reportedly faces challenges getting access to this care. This area in SCI health care is still largely understudied with no consensus on the ideal way or which health care provider is best to provide primary care for this population.

Findings

Preventive care is generally provided by general primary care providers, but not all primary care providers are trained in recognizing and addressing spinal cord injury-specific needs. SCI providers generally are not trained in addressing all aspects of preventive care. Knowing the recommended preventive care screenings, recognizing and managing specific conditions seen after a SCI, and seamless coordination of care between general practitioners and SCI specialists are some of the interventions to help prevent health complications, decrease morbidity and mortality, improve health outcomes, and promote QOL in this patient population.

Summary

Prioritized focus on preventive care is necessary for a positive impact on the overall health and QOL in this population. Addressing the knowledge gap reported by primary care providers and SCI providers may help increase the probability of SCI patients getting their preventive and specialty care needs addressed. We present a "cheat sheet" of recommendations for the preventive care evaluation of a person living with a SCI.

Autonomic Dysfunction and Management after Spinal Cord Injury: A Narrative Review

The autonomic nervous system (ANS), composed of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, acts to maintain homeostasis in the body through autonomic influences on the smooth muscle, cardiac muscles, blood vessels, glands and organs of the body. The parasympathetic nervous system interacts via the cranial and sacral segments of the central nervous system, and the sympathetic nervous system arises from the T1–L2 spinal cord segments. After a spinal cord injury (SCI), supraspinal influence on the ANS is disrupted, leading to sympathetic blunting and parasympathetic dominance resulting in cardiac dysrhythmias, systemic hypotension, bronchoconstriction, copious respiratory secretions and uncontrolled bowel, bladder, and sexual dysfunction. Further, afferent signals to the sympathetic cord elicit unabated reflex sympathetic outflow in response to noxious stimuli below the level of SCI. This article outlines the pathophysiology of SCI on the ANS, clinical ramifications of autonomic dysfunction, and the potential long-term sequelae of these influences following SCI.

A Primary Care Provider's Guide to Preventive Health After Spinal Cord Injury

Objective: Provide guidance for preventive health and health maintenance after spinal cord injury (SCI) for primary care providers (PCPs). Main message: Individuals with SCI may not receive the same preventive health care as the general population. Additionally, SCI-related secondary conditions may put their health at risk. SCI is considered a complex condition associated with many barriers to receiving quality primary care. Attention to routine preventive care and the unique health considerations of persons with SCI can improve health and quality of life and may prevent unnecessary health care utilization. Conclusion: PCPs are experts in preventive care and continuity of care, however individuals with SCI may not receive the same preventive care due to numerous barriers. This article serves as a quick reference for PCPs.

A Primary Care Provider's Guide to Accessibility After Spinal Cord Injury

Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) continue to have shorter life expectancies, limited ability to receive basic health care, and unmet care needs when compared to the general population. Primary preventive health care services remain underutilized, contributing to an increased risk of secondary complications. Three broad themes have been identified that limit primary care providers (PCPs) in providing good quality care: physical barriers; attitudes, knowledge, and expertise; and systemic barriers. Making significant physical alterations in every primary care clinic is not realistic, but solutions such as seeking out community partnerships that offer accessibility or transportation and scheduling appointments around an individual's needs can mitigate some access issues. Resources that improve provider and staff disability literacy and communication skills should be emphasized. PCPs should also seek out easily accessible practice tools (SCI-specific toolkit, manuals, modules, quick reference guides, and other educational materials) to address any knowledge gaps. From a systemic perspective, it is important to recognize community SCI resources and develop collaboration between primary, secondary, and tertiary care services that can benefit SCI patients. Providers can address some of these barriers that lead to inequitable health care practices and in turn provide good quality, patient-centered care for such vulnerable groups. This article serves to assist PCPs in identifying the challenges of providing equitable care to SCI individuals.

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening for people with spinal cord injuries and/or disorders: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Limited research has shown people with spinal cord injuries and/or disorders (SCID) are less likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and therefore more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage CRC compared to people without SCID.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to assess knowledge about CRC, CRC screening, and self-reported barriers to CRC screening for people with SCID.

METHODS

Interviews with 30 individuals with SCID were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide, audio recorded, and transcribed. Coding was performed using a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive analysis. Thematic analysis was used to identify, review, and modify themes and sub-themes.

RESULTS

Themes identified included barriers to CRC screening, such as socioeconomic, health system, transportation, psychological, and environmental or accessibility barriers. While most respondents were able to describe one CRC screening method (usually colonoscopy), knowledge of other screening modalities was limited. Low CRC literacy and misinformation about CRC screening appeared to increase respondent association between CRC screening and colonoscopy. While most respondents associated CRC screening with colonoscopy, almost half reported the colonoscopy preparation was the most substantial barrier to screening.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to addressing identified barriers such as accessibility and transportation, communication, and prevention interventions should be specifically targeted to ensure all people with SCID are informed about appropriate and various modalities and the benefits of screening. Specific, evidence-based guidelines on the use of stool specimens first with follow up direct visualization, if needed, should be developed for this population.

Preventive care among primary care patients living with spinal cord injury

Objective: Context/Objective: Family physicians may lack the knowledge or resources to adequately support patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Our objectives were to determine patterns of preventive care for patients with SCI in a primary care setting (i.e. cancer screening, influenza vaccinations, general physicals, bone mineral density tests), and determine physicians' level of comfort with providing primary care to patients with SCI.Design: i) Retrospective chart review, ii) Survey of physicians in the family practice.Setting: Six primary care practice sites in Ontario, Canada.Participants: All adult rostered patients of the family practice with SCI; All family physicians in the six sites.Outcome Measures: Proportion of patients up-to-date on cancer screening, proportion of patients with influenza vaccinations, general physicals, bone mineral density tests; physicians' level of comfort with providing care to patients with SCI.Results: Sixty patients were included in analyses. Rates of cancer screening were generally poor. The highest uptake was seen for cervical cancer screening, where 50% of eligible women were up-to-date on Pap tests. Only 36.7% of patients were up-to-date on colorectal cancer screening. Only 14 (23.3%) patients had a documented general physical exam in their electronic record. There was a recorded flu vaccination for 55% of patients, and of those, there was a median of 19 months since last vaccination. Fifteen physicians (21.4%) responded to the survey. Ten physicians reported at least one patient with SCI, with the maximum being 20 patients. Comfort level in managing SCI-relevant conditions varied and was lowest for spasticity, respiratory issues and autonomic dysreflexia, where only 27.3% of respondents had some level of comfort.Conclusion There are many opportunities to improve the preventive care of patients living with SCI.

Strategies to Improve Inpatients' Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims

Inpatients' bowel preparation before colonoscopy is frequently inadequate, and various interventions have been investigated to improve it, so far. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various interventions to improve inpatients' colon preparation quality.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the literature for publications on interventions aiming to improve the quality of inpatients' colon preparation until June, 2018. Significant heterogeneity—measured with I²—was detected at the level of P < 0.1. Adequacy rates were measured using inverse variance, and the size effect of different interventions was calculated using random effects model and expressed as odds ratio (OR).

Results

Seventeen studies enrolling 2733 inpatients were included. Overall, 67% (60-75%) of the participants achieved adequate colon cleansing (I² = 97%; P < 0.001). In six studies assessing the impact of educational interventions to patient/physician/nurse vs. no intervention, adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 77% (62-91%) vs. 50% (32-68%) of the patients (OR (95%CI) = 3.49 (1.67-7.28), P = 0.0009; I² = 74%; P = 0.002). Ten studies examined variations (qualitative and/or quantitative) in bowel preparation regimens with adequate preparation detected in 71% (60-81%) of the participants, and a single study examined the administration of preparation through an esophagogastroduodenoscope, resulting in adequate prep in 71% of the patients.

Conclusions

Despite several interventions, only two-thirds of inpatients achieve adequate colon preparation before colonoscopy. Educational interventions significantly improve inpatients' bowel preparation quality.

Colorectal cancer screening in patients with spinal cord injury yields similar results to the general population with an effective bowel preparation: a retrospective chart audit

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart audit.

OBJECTIVES

To compare adequacy of colonoscopy bowel preparation and diagnostic findings between persons with SCI receiving an extended inpatient bowel preparation and the general population.

SETTING

Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System, Seattle, WA, USA.

METHODS

We reviewed an electronic database of all colonoscopies performed at a tertiary Veterans Affairs medical center between 7/12/13 and 15/10/15. Patients with SCI received a multi-day bowel preparation with magnesium citrate, and 8-10 liters of polyethylene glycol-3350 and electrolyte colonic lavage solution (PEG-ELS) over two and one half days. The control population received a standard bowel preparation consisting of magnesium citrate and 4 liters of PEG-ELS over 1 day.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-five patients were included in the study, including 85 patients with SCI. Average risk screening was a more common colonoscopy indication in patients with SCI vs. the control population (24 vs. 13% p = 0.03). There was no difference in adequacy of bowel preparation (87 vs. 85%, p = 0.73) or adenoma detection rate (55 vs. 51%, p = 0.59) when comparing patients with SCI with the control population. No difference in polyp histopathology was detected (p = 0.748).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that an extended bowel preparation for patients with SCI produces similar bowel preparation results and diagnostic yield when compared to patients without SCI undergoing colonoscopy.