Access to specialist gastroenterology care in Canada: comparison of wait times and consensus targets

Regional variations and associations between colonoscopy resource availability and colonoscopy utilisation: a population-based descriptive study in Ontario, Canada

Objective

There is substantial variation in colonoscopy use and evidence of long wait times for the procedure. Understanding the role of system-level resources in colonoscopy utilisation may point to a potential intervention target to improve colonoscopy use. This study characterises colonoscopy resource availability in Ontario, Canada and evaluates its relationship with colonoscopy utilisation.

Design

We conducted a population-based study using administrative health data to describe regional variation in colonoscopy availability for Ontario residents (age 18–99) in 2013. We identified 43 colonoscopy networks in the province in which we described variations across three colonoscopy availability measures: colonoscopist density, private clinic access and distance to colonoscopy. We evaluated associations between colonoscopy resource availability and colonoscopy utilisation rates using Pearson correlation and log binomial regression, adjusting for age and sex.

Results

There were 9.4 full-time equivalent colonoscopists per 100 000 Ontario residents (range across 43 networks 0.0 to 21.8); 29.5% of colonoscopies performed in the province were done in private clinics (range 1.2%–55.9%). The median distance to colonoscopy was 3.7 km, with 5.9% travelling at least 50 km. Lower colonoscopist density was correlated with lower colonoscopy utilisation rates (r=0.53, p<0.001). Colonoscopy utilisation rates were 4% lower in individuals travelling 50 to <200 km and 11% lower in individuals travelling ≥200 km to colonoscopy, compared to <10 km. There was no association between private clinic access and colonoscopy utilisation.

Conclusion

The substantial variations in colonoscopy resource availability and the relationship demonstrated between colonoscopy resource availability and use provides impetus for health service planners and decision-makers to address these potential inequalities in access in order to support the use of this medically necessary procedure.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy Facilities: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing international recognition of the impact of variability in endoscopy facilities on procedural quality and outcomes. There is also growing precedent for assessing the quality of endoscopy facilities at regional and national levels by using standardized rating scales to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of facilities where endoscopic care is provided to children. Consensus was reached via an iterative online Delphi process and subsequent in-person meeting. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 27 standards for facilities supporting pediatric endoscopy, as well 10 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopic care in children. These standards were subcategorized into three subdomains: Quality of Clinical Operations (15 standards, 5 indicators); Patient and Caregiver Experience (9 standards, 5 indicators); and Workforce (3 standards).

DISCUSSION

The rigorous PEnQuIN process successfully yielded standards and indicators that can be used to universally guide and measure high-quality facilities for procedures around the world where endoscopy is performed in children. It also underscores the current paucity of evidence for pediatric endoscopic care processes, and the need for research into this clinical area.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Canada has among the highest incidence and prevalence rates of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the world. While access to IBD specialty care can have a direct impact on health-related outcomes, the complexity of accessing IBD specialty care within Canada is not well understood and presents a barrier to implementation and evaluation of IBD specialty care.

Aim

The IBD Summit was held in partnership with Crohn’s & Colitis Canada to identify barriers and facilitators of IBD specialty care by exploring the perceptions and experiences of key stakeholders of IBD care across Canada.

Results

A total of 20 key stakeholders attended, including gastroenterologists, patients, researchers and policymakers. Perceptions and experiences of stakeholders were transcribed, coded and thematically analyzed. Three key categories relating to access to IBD care arose: (1) inadequate system structure, (2) process inefficiencies and (3) using outcomes to guide system change. The IBD Summit identified similar perceptions and experiences among stakeholders and across provinces, highlighting common barriers and facilitators that transcended provincial and health care system boundaries.

Conclusions

Key suggestions identify the clinical importance of comprehensive integrated multidisciplinary care approaches with enhanced communication between patient and health care providers, greater information sharing among team members, streamlined referral and triage processes, and improved incorporation of best practice into clinical care. Stakeholders across Canada and in other countries may benefit from the suggestions presented herein, as well as the successful use of collaborative and inclusive methods of gathering the perceptions and experiences of key stakeholders from diverse backgrounds.

Colonoscopy resource availability and its association with the colorectal cancer diagnostic interval: A population-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a key resource used to diagnose colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluated the relationship between colonoscopy availability and the length of the CRC diagnostic interval.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of CRC patients diagnosed in Ontario, Canada, in 2008-2012. We used administrative health data to characterise colonoscopist density, private colonoscopy clinic access, distance to the closest colonoscopist and the diagnostic interval, defined as the time from patients' first cancer-related healthcare encounter to their cancer diagnosis date. We used multivariable quantile regression to evaluate the association between colonoscopy availability and the diagnostic interval, modelling the median and 90th percentile.

RESULTS

The median diagnostic interval was 84 days (90th percentile 323 days). The diagnostic interval was longer in patients residing in areas with lower colonoscopists density or private clinic access (adjusted median difference = 9 and 19 days, respectively), with evidence of effect modification by symptom status. Increased distance to a colonoscopist was associated with a longer diagnostic interval in asymptomatic patients, but a shorter diagnostic interval in symptomatic patients (adjusted median difference = 29 and -25 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that reduced colonoscopy resource availability is associated with longer diagnostic intervals for CRC patients.

Access to Specialists and Emergency Department Visits in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The number of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]-related visits to the emergency department [ED] is increasing in North America. This study evaluates the relationship between access to specialists and utilization of ED services.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based study of all IBD patients in Ontario in 2014-2015 to measure utilization of non-emergency IBD care by specialists [NICS] and ED visits. After characterizing regional variation in access to gastroenterologists and region-wide implementation of NICS, we constructed regression models to determine whether they were predictors of individual utilization of NICS and ED services.

RESULTS

The number of gastroenterologists per 1000 IBD patients varied geographically, ranging from 1.13 to 10.65, as did the region-wide proportion of patients who received NICS, ranging from 21% to 52%. Compared with those with low access to gastroenterologists, those living in areas with moderate (odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.27-2.47) and high [OR, 1.83; 95% CI: 1.71-1.95] access were more likely to receive NICS. The risk of visits to the ED was lower among those residing in regions with moderate [OR, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.75-0.82] and high access [OR, 0.74; 95% CI: 0.69-0.80] to gastroenterologists and in regions where implementation of NICS was not low [OR, 0.78; 95% CI: 0.75-0.81].

CONCLUSIONS

Poor access to outpatient IBD specialist care contributes to IBD-related ED visits. Strategies to increase specialist access may reduce the utilization of emergency services.

Examining the Association Between Referral Quality, Wait Time and Patient Outcomes for Patients Referred to an IBD Specialty Program

Background

Most speciality inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care can only be accessed through a referral. Timely access to specialty care has been associated with improved disease-related outcomes. To receive appropriate care, the referral needs to include high-quality information. To date, no research has explored the association between referral quality and IBD patient outcomes. The study objectives were to determine if the quality of referrals to a collaborative IBD program influenced triage accuracy, wait times and patient outcomes.

Methods

Two hundred referrals to a collaborative IBD program in Canada for patients with confirmed or suspected IBD were reviewed. Referral quality was evaluated using an evidence- and consensus-based metric. The association between referral quality and patient outcomes (wait time, hospitalizations, disease flares and additional referrals) for semi-urgent referrals was assessed through multivariate analysis.

Results

The majority of referrals for IBD speciality care were categorized as being low quality. Referral quality was not significantly associated with any of the patient outcomes; however, longer wait times significantly increased the occurrence of disease flares, hospitalizations and additional referrals while waiting for an IBD specialist appointment.

Conclusion

Prolonged wait times for IBD patients are significantly associated with poor patient outcomes and increased costs for the health care system. Although there is literature that suggests that referral quality may be associated with wait time, it is still unclear how it relates to wait time and patient outcomes. Moving forward, the current referral process needs to be critically addressed in order to improve wait times and patient outcomes.

Appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Analytical Study

Introduction

Extensive use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) with the advent of open access centers has resulted in inappropriate endoscopies. Our study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines for UGE and to assess the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in a tertiary care center in South India.

Methods

The study was conducted as a prospective analytical study. Indications for endoscopy were classified as “ASGE appropriate” and “ASGE inappropriate”. The significance of association of ASGE guidelines and other categorical variables with endoscopic findings were assessed.

Results

ASGE appropriate indications and inappropriate indications accounted for 85.9% and 14.1% of endoscopies, respectively. The most common appropriate indication was persistent dyspepsia despite adequate proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (28.1%) and the only inappropriate indication for endoscopy was isolated dyspepsia without adequate PPI therapy (14.1%). The diagnostic yield of endoscopy for appropriate indications was 69.5% and for inappropriate indications was 55.1%, the difference was statistically significant (P= 0.003; OR-1.857). The sensitivity and specificity of ASGE guidelines was 88.5% and 19.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

According to our study, ASGE guidelines may be considered as appropriate guidelines for UGE in our population and these guidelines were followed 85.9% of the times in referring patients for the same. However, the high diagnostic yield even in inappropriate endoscopies indicates the necessity of further studies that might identify other relevant indications for endoscopy, thus avoiding misutilization of resources without missing out on relevant cases.

Patient-ly Waiting: A Review of Patient-Centered Access to Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care in Canada

Canada has one of the highest prevalence estimates of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the world. Like other chronic illnesses, access to specialist care is required for disease management. Traditionally, access to care is evaluated through wait times (actual access); however, new patient-oriented definitions of access (perceived access) highlight other equally important facets of access to care (e.g., appropriateness). Aim: How does access to gastroenterology speciality care influence disease-related outcomes for IBD patients in Canada? A comprehensive literature review was undertaken. Cochrane, PubMed and CINHAL databases were searched for peer-reviewed English language articles published between 2006 and 2016. Inclusion/exclusion criteria focussed on access to IBD care in Canada. Included articles were classified using Levesque et al.’s patient-centered access framework (e.g., affordability, accessibility, appropriateness, acceptability, availability and accommodation). Eight articles were found, including six which addressed patient-centered access. Most of the articles addressed issues of availability (e.g., wait times), appropriateness and affordability. Only one article addressed approachability and acceptability of IBD care. All articles emphasized a need for greater patient-centered measures (e.g., multidisciplinary clinics) with a goal to improve patient access and, ultimately, patient outcomes. Understanding patient-centered access to IBD care is important for managing IBD and improving patient outcomes. Literature examining access to gastroenterology services is limited. Increased investment in patient-oriented research should be made to better understand the relationship between access to specialist care and patient outcomes.

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer in men worldwide and the second most common in women. The purpose of this study was to determine both barriers established by primary health care providers (PHCPs) and barriers perceived by them and to produce solutions for achieving the desired results. A four-part questionnaire was administered to family physicians (FPs) and family health personnels (FHPs) in Samsun, Turkey on 01-15 May, 2016. Sixty-six percent of PHCPs were contacted. Data were evaluated as numbers and percentages, and statistical significance was analyzed using the Chi square and t tests. 478 PHCPs participated; 49.4 % were FPs and 50.6 % FHPs. Of the participants, 86.6 % stated that they performed CRC screening on patients. The level of participants knowing that screening should start at age 50 and conclude at age 70 was 49.7 %. The level of subjects requesting the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) at the correct intervals was 29.7 %, but only 6.9 % recommended colonoscopy at the correct intervals. Additionally, 18.2 % of subjects knew that the test used is immunochemical FOBT, and 60.5 % reported not using reminders. PHCPs' low levels of knowledge, awareness and advice compatible with guidelines concerning CRC screening may represent an obstacle to such screening. Barriers perceived by PHCPs include patients' inability to access definite medical information, deficiencies in the reminder system and patients' lack of interest in CRC screening. Additions to the screening program will be useful in overcoming barriers.

Nurse-Performed Endoscopy: Implications for the Nursing Profession in Australia

Increasing demands for health care globally often lead to discussions about expanding the involvement of nurses in a range of nontraditional roles. Several countries have introduced nurse endoscopists as a means of easing the burden of demand for a range of endoscopic procedures. A shortage of medical staff in Australia combined with increasing demand for endoscopy led to the implementation of nurse endoscopists as a pilot program in the state of Queensland, where a nurse practitioner model was implemented, and Victoria, where an advanced practice model was used. This article will discuss the implementation of and responses from the nursing, medical, and policy community to nurse-performed endoscopy in this country. Regarding health policy, access to cancer screening may be improved by providing nurses with advanced training to safely perform endoscopy procedures. Moreover, issues of nurse credentialing and payment need to be considered appropriate to each country's health system model.

Factors associated with mode of colorectal cancer detection and time to diagnosis: a population level study

Background

Although it is well-known that early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is important for optimal patient survival, the relationship of patient and health system factors with delayed diagnosis are unclear. The purpose of this study was to identify the demographic, clinical and healthcare factors related to mode of CRC detection and length of the diagnostic interval.

Methods

All residents of Alberta, Canada diagnosed with first-ever incident CRC in years 2004–2010 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Population-based administrative health datasets, including hospital discharge abstract, ambulatory care classification system and physician billing data, were used to identify healthcare services related to CRC diagnosis. The time to diagnosis was defined as the time from the first CRC-related healthcare visit to the date of CRC diagnosis. Mode of CRC detection was classified into three groups: urgent, screen-detected and symptomatic. Quantile regression was performed to assess factors associated with time to diagnosis.

Results

9626 patients were included in the study; 25% of patients presented as urgent, 32% were screen-detected and 43% were symptomatic. The median time to diagnosis for urgent, screen-detected and symptomatic patients were 6 days (interquartile range (IQR) 2–14 days), 74 days (IQR 36–183 days), 84 days (IQR 39–223 days), respectively. Time to diagnosis was greater than 6 months for 27% of non-urgent patients. Healthcare factors had the largest impact on time to diagnosis: 3 or more visits to a GP increased the median by 140 days whereas 2 or more visits to a GI-specialist increased it by 108 days compared to 0–1 visits to a GP or GI-specialist, respectively.

Conclusion

A large proportion of CRC patients required urgent work-up or had to wait more than 6 months for diagnosis. Actions are needed to reduce the frequency of urgent presentation as well as improve the timeliness of diagnosis. Findings suggest a need to improve coordination of care across multiple providers.

The 2012 SAGE wait times program: Survey of Access to GastroEnterology in Canada

BACKGROUND

Periodically surveying wait times for specialist health services in Canada captures current data and enables comparisons with previous surveys to identify changes over time.

METHODS

During one week in April 2012, Canadian gastroenterologists were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) recording demographics, reason for referral, and dates of referral and specialist visits for at least 10 consecutive new patients (five consultations and five procedures) who had not been seen previously for the same indication. Wait times were determined for 18 indications and compared with those from similar surveys conducted in 2008 and 2005.

RESULTS

Data regarding adult patients were provided by 173 gastroenterologists for 1374 consultations, 540 procedures and 293 same-day consultations and procedures. Nationally, the median wait times were 92 days (95% CI 85 days to 100 days) from referral to consultation, 55 days (95% CI 50 days to 61 days) from consultation to procedure and 155 days (95% CI 142 days to 175 days) (total) from referral to procedure. Overall, wait times were longer in 2012 than in 2005 (P<0.05); the wait time to same-day consultation and procedure was shorter in 2012 than in 2008 (78 days versus 101 days; P<0.05), but continued to be longer than in 2005 (P<0.05). The total wait time remained longest for screening colonoscopy, increasing from 201 days in 2008 to 279 days in 2012 (P<0.05).

DISCUSSION

Wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed recommended targets, remain unchanged since 2008 and exceed wait times reported in 2005.

Endoscopy reporting standards

OBJECTIVES

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published consensus recommendations for safety and quality indicators in digestive endoscopy. The present article focuses specifically on the identification of key elements that should be found in all electronic endoscopy reports detailing recommendations adopted by the CAG consensus group.

METHODS

A committee of nine individuals steered the CAG Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group, which had a total membership of 35 voting individuals with knowledge on the subject relating to endoscopic services. A comprehensive literature search was performed with regard to the key elements that should be found in an electronic endoscopy report. A task force reviewed all published, full-text, adult and human studies in French or English.

RESULTS

Components to be entered into the standardized report include identification of procedure, timing, procedural personnel, patient demographics and history, indication(s) for procedure, comorbidities, type of bowel preparation, consent for the procedure, pre-endoscopic administration of medications, type and dose of sedation used, extent and completeness of examination, quality of bowel preparation, relevant findings and pertinent negatives, adverse events and resulting interventions, patient comfort, diagnoses, endoscopic interventions performed, details of pathology specimens, details of follow-up arrangements, appended pathology report(s) and, when available, management recommendations. Summary information should be provided to the patient or family.

CONCLUSION

Continuous quality improvement should be the responsibility of every endoscopist and endoscopy facility to ensure improved patient care. Appropriate documentation of endoscopic procedures is a critical component of such activities.

The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy

BACKGROUND

Adherence to surveillance colonoscopy guidelines is important to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) and unnecessary workload.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how well Canadian gastroenterologists adhere to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines after adenoma removal or treatment for CRC.

METHODS

Patients with a history of adenomas or CRC who had surveillance performed between October 2008 and October 2010 were retrospectively included. Time intervals between index colonoscopy and surveillance were compared with the 2008 guideline recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association and regarded as appropriate when the surveillance interval was within six months of the recommended time interval.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were included (52% men; mean age 58 years). Among patients with a normal index colonoscopy (n=110), 42% received surveillance on time, 38% too early (median difference = 1.2 years too early) and 20% too late (median difference = 1.0 year too late). Among patients with nonadvanced adenomas at index (n=96), 25% underwent surveillance on time, 61% too early (median difference = 1.85) and 14% too late (median difference = 1.1). Among patients with advanced neoplasia at index (n=59), 29% underwent surveillance on time, 34% too early (median difference = 1.86) and 37% later than recommended (median difference = 1.61). No significant difference in adenoma detection rates was observed when too early surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (34% versus 33%; P=0.92) and too late surveillance versus appropriate surveillance (21% versus 33%; P=0.11) were compared.

CONCLUSION

Only a minority of surveillance colonoscopies were performed according to guideline recommendations. Deviation from the guidelines did not improve the adenoma detection rate. Interventions aimed at improving adherence to surveillance guidelines are needed.

General anesthetic versus light sedation: effect on pediatric endoscopy wait times

BACKGROUND

Wait times are an important measure of health care system effectiveness. There are no studies describing wait times in pediatric gastroenterology for either outpatient visits or endoscopy. Pediatric endoscopy is performed under light sedation or general anesthesia. The latter is hypothesized to be associated with a longer wait time due to practical limits on access to anesthesia in the Canadian health care system.

OBJECTIVE

To identify wait time differences according to sedation type and measure adverse clinical outcomes that may arise from increased wait time to endoscopy in pediatric patients.

METHODS

The present study was a retrospective review of medical charts of all patients <18 years of age who had been assessed in the pediatric gastroenterology clinic and were scheduled for an elective outpatient endoscopic procedure at McMaster Children's Hospital (Hamilton, Ontario) between January 2006 and December 2007. The primary outcome measure was time between clinic visit and date of endoscopy. Secondary outcome measures included other defined waiting periods and complications while waiting, such as emergency room visits and hospital admissions.

RESULTS

The median wait time to procedure was 64 days for general anesthesia patients and 22 days for patients who underwent light sedation (P<0.0001). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the number of emergency room visits or hospital admissions, both pre- and postendoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lack of pediatric anesthetic resources, patients who were administered general anesthesia experienced a longer wait time for endoscopy compared with patients who underwent light sedation. This did not result in adverse clinical outcomes in this population.

Knowledge and management of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis among family physicians, pediatricians, chiropractors and physiotherapists in Québec, Canada: An exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Health professionals (HPs) are likely to encounter adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. Best practice dictates that early detection leads to better decision making regarding optimal management. The aim of our study was to appraise the basic knowledge, evaluation and management skills concerning AIS care among family physicians, pediatricians, chiropractors, and physiotherapists.

METHODS

A semi-structured questionnaire including 3 clinical scenarios was developed. Telephone interviews were conducted with 51 HPs to assess their knowledge of the clinical signs, risk factors, and management options of AIS and their preferences in clinical guidelines for AIS care.

RESULTS

The majority of HPs (70-90%) would refer the patient who required prompt referral, but only 38-60% actually rated the case as requiring prompt referral. Forty percent of HPs (predominantly physiotherapists and family physicians) stated that they would not be comfortable providing AIS patient follow-up. Access to specialized care was considered a problem, and nearly all believed that establishment of clinical guidelines would be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable gaps exist regarding the knowledge of the clinical signs and risk factors of AIS. The importance of a patient in need of a prompt referral is recognized by the majority of the HPs, but they believe that there are problems regarding accessibility to a specialist. Interprofessional collaboration is discussed as a promising approach to improve the management of AIS.

Colorectal cancer surveillance after index colonoscopy: guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology

BACKGROUND

Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care.

METHODS

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines.

RESULTS

The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonoscopy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonoscopy at an interval of five to 10 years.

DISCUSSION

The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.

Prospective Study of the Quality of Colonoscopies Performed by Primary Care Physicians: The Alberta Primary Care Endoscopy (APC-Endo) Study

BACKGROUND

The quality of colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians (PCPs) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether PCP colonoscopists achieve colonoscopy quality benchmarks, and patient satisfaction with having their colonoscopy performed by a primary care physician.

DESIGN

Prospective multi-center, multi-physician observational study. Colonoscopic quality data collection occurred via completion of case report forms and pathological confirmation of lesions. Patient satisfaction was captured by a telephone survey.

SETTING

Thirteen rural and suburban hospitals in Alberta, Canada.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of successful cecal intubations, average number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, proportion of patients with at least one adenoma, and serious adverse event rates; patient satisfaction with their wait time and procedure, as well as willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care endoscopist.

RESULTS

In the two-month study period, 10 study physicians performed 577 colonoscopies. The overall adjusted proportion of successful cecal intubations was 96.5% (95% CI 94.6-97.8), and all physicians achieved the adjusted cecal intubation target of ≥90%. The average number of ademonas detected per colonoscopy was 0.62 (95% CI 0.5-0.74). 46.4% (95% CI 38.5-54.3) of males and 30.2% (95% CI 22.3-38.2) of females ≥50 years of age having their first colonoscopy, had at least one adenoma. Four serious adverse events occurred (three post polypectomy bleeds and one perforation) and 99.3% of patients were willing to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care colonoscopist.

LIMITATIONS

Two-month study length and non-universal participation by Alberta primary care endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physician colonoscopists can achieve quality benchmarks in colonoscopy. Training additional primary care physicians in endoscopy may improve patient access and decrease endoscopic wait times, especially in rural settings.

The endoscopy Global Rating Scale-Canada: development and implementation of a quality improvement tool

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality highlight the need for endoscopy facilities to review the quality of the service they offer.

OBJECTIVE

To adapt the United Kingdom Global Rating Scale (UK-GRS) to develop a web-based and patient-centred tool to assess and improve the quality of endoscopy services provided.

METHODS

Based on feedback from 22 sites across Canada that completed the UK endoscopy GRS, and integrating results of the Canadian consensus on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy and other Canadian consensus reports, a working group of endoscopists experienced with the GRS developed the GRS-Canada (GRS-C).

RESULTS

The GRS-C mirrors the two dimensions (clinical quality and quality of the patient experience) and 12 patient-centred items of the UK-GRS, but was modified to apply to Canadian health care infrastructure, language and current practice. Each item is assessed by a yes⁄no response to eight to 12 statements that are divided into levels graded D (basic) through A (advanced). A core team consisting of a booking clerk, charge nurse and the physician responsible for the unit is recommended to complete the GRS-C twice yearly.

CONCLUSION

The GRS-C is intended to improve endoscopic services in Canada by providing endoscopy units with a straightforward process to review the quality of the service they provide.

Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services

BACKGROUND

Current quality improvement tools for endoscopy services, such as the Global Rating Scale (GRS), emphasize the need for patient-centred care. However, there are no studies that have investigated patient expectations and/or perceptions of quality indicators in endoscopy services.

OBJECTIVES

To identify quality indicators for colonoscopy services from the patient perspective; to rate indicators of importance; to determine factors that influence indicator ratings; and to compare the identified indicators with those of the GRS.

METHODS

A two-phase mixed methods study was undertaken in Montreal (Quebec), Calgary (Alberta) and Hamilton (Ontario) among patients ≥18 years of age who spoke and read English or French. In phase 1, focus group participants identified quality indicators that were then used to construct a survey questionnaire. In phase 2, survey questionnaires, which were completed immediately after colonoscopy, prompted respondents to rate the 20 focus group-derived indicators according to their level of importance (low, medium, high) and to list up to nine additional items. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors that influenced focus group-derived indicator ratings. Patient-identified indicators were compared with those used in the GRS to identify novel indicators.

RESULTS

Three quality indicator themes were identified by 66 participants in 12 focus groups: communication, comfort and service environment. Of the 828 surveys distributed, 402 (48.6%) were returned and 65% of focus group-derived indicators were rated highly important by at least 55% of survey respondents. Indicator ratings differed according to age, sex, site and perceived colorectal cancer risk. Of the 29 patient-identified indicators, 17 (58.6%) were novel.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients identified 17 novel quality indicators, suggesting that patients and health professionals differ in their perspectives with respect to quality in colonoscopy services.

The 'natural history' of declined outpatient gastroenterology referrals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 'natural history' of outpatients who were referred to the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Alberta Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta) for gastrointestinal problems and were subsequently declined.

METHODS

Patients were tracked for 12 months after they were referred and declined for the following indications: abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, fecal occult blood test-positive stools and iron deficiency. For each patient, data regarding consultations by other gastroenterologists or surgeons working in the region, clinically relevant diagnoses and the number of gastrointestinal-related x-rays performed were obtained.

RESULTS

Of a total sample size of 230 patients, 110 (47.8%) were seen by another gastroenterologist or surgeon after decline. A significant diagnosis was made in 21 patients (9.1%), which had immediate clinical consequences in 29%. Forty per cent of patients underwent one or more gastointestinal-related x-rays before being declined, which increased to 55% after decline.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 50% of declined patients were seen by other gastroenterologists or surgeons in the region. In 9.1% of these patients, a clinically important diagnosis was made, of which one-quarter had immediate medical consequences.

The Global Rating Scale in clinical practice: a comprehensive quality assurance programme for endoscopy departments

BACKGROUND

The Global Rating Scale is an endoscopy quality assurance programme, successfully implemented in England. It remains uncertain whether it is applicable in another health care setting.

AIM

To assess the applicability of the Global Rating Scale as benchmark tool in an international context.

METHODS

Eleven Dutch endoscopy departments were included for a Global Rating Scale-census, performed as a cross-sectional evaluation, July 2010. Two Global Rating Scale-dimensions - 'clinical quality' and 'patient experience' - were assessed across six items using a range of levels: from level-D (basic) to level-A (excellent). Construct validity was assessed by comparing department-specific colonoscopy audit data to GRS-levels.

RESULTS

For 'clinical quality', variable scores were achieved in items 'safety' (9%=B, 27%=C, 64%=D) and 'communication' (46%=A, 18%=C, 36%=D). All departments achieved a basic score in 'quality' (100%=D). For 'patient experience', variable scores were achieved in 'timeliness' (18%=A, 9%=B, 73%=D) and 'booking-choice' (36%=B, 46%=C, 18%=D). All departments achieved basic scores in 'equality' (100%=D). Departments obtaining level-C or above in 'information', 'comfort', 'communication', 'timeliness' and 'aftercare', achieved significantly better audit outcomes compared to those obtaining level-D (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The Global Rating Scale is appropriate to use outside England. There was significant variance across departments in dimensions. Most Global Rating Scale-levels were in line with departments' audit outcomes, indicating construct validity.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.

DISCUSSION

The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Criteria for Referring Patients With Outpatient Gastroenterological Disease for Specialist Consultation: A Review of the Literature

Background

Demands on gastroenterology are growing, as a result of the high prevalence of digestive diseases, the impact of colon cancer screening programs and an aging population. Prioritizing referrals to gastroenterology would assist in managing wait times. Our objectives were (1) to assess whether there were consistent criteria to guide referrals from family physicians for gastroenterological outpatient consultation and (2) to determine if there were different levels of urgency or priority in referral criteria.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review, searching Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from 1997 to 2009, using the terms referral, triage, consultation and at least one from a list of gastroenterology-specific search terms. Of 2978 initial results, 51 papers were retrieved, and 20 were retained after review by two reviewers. Additional publications were identified through hand searches of retained papers, website searches and nomination by a panel of specialists.

Results

Thirty-four papers, reports or websites were retained. No referral criteria covered the spectrum of disorders that might be referred by family physicians to gastroenterologists. Criteria for referral were most commonly listed for suspected colorectal cancer, followed by suspected upper GI cancer, hepatitis, and functional disorders.

Conclusions

A clinical panel comprised of gastroenterologists and primary care providers, informed by this literature review, are completing the work of formulating a Gastroenterology Priority Referral Score, and plan to test the reliability and validity of the tool for determining the relative urgency for referral from primary care to gastroenterology.

Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program--Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a colonoscopists' practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback.

METHODS

A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smartphones with automated data upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates.

RESULTS

Over a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference -11.3% [95% CI -2.8% to -19.9%]; P=0.01).

DISCUSSION

Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations.

CONCLUSION

Real-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.

Physician barriers to population-based, fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening programs for average-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an efficacious but underused means to reduce the burden of CRC. Population-based CRC screening programs are currently being implemented in Canada and physicians are key partners in increasing screening uptake. The current study identified physician attitudes and barriers that need to be addressed by provincial programs.

METHODS

A mailed survey of primary care physicians in Alberta.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 42.4% (806 of 1903). The majority of physicians suggested CRC screening as part of a routine periodic examination; however, the approach to test selection and the type of tests recommended varied by geographical region. The majority of physicians agreed (48%) or strongly agreed (36%) that a provincewide screening program is the best approach to reducing mortality from CRC. However, there were many serious concerns identified - the most common was endoscopic capacity for follow-up of patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT), which was cited by 55% to 69% of the physicians surveyed. The barriers to three commonly available tests (FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy) varied according to health region, and the types of barriers identified varied according to the specific test.

INTERPRETATION

Screening for CRC is gradually being accepted among primary care physicians in Alberta. A key finding of the present descriptive study was the regional variation in practices, perceived barriers and concerns about provincial population-based screening programs based on FOBT as the primary screening test. Provincial programs will need to address the issue of endoscopic capacity and perceived barriers to FOBT to gain primary care physician acceptance of FOBT-based CRC screening programs.

Wait times for gastroenterology consultation in Canada: the patients' perspective

Long wait times for health care have become a significant issue in Canada. As part of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology's Human Resource initiative, a questionnaire was developed to survey patients regarding wait times for initial gastroenterology consultation and its impact. A total of 916 patients in six cities from across Canada completed the questionnaire at the time of initial consultation. Self-reported wait times varied widely, with 26.8% of respondents reporting waiting less than two weeks, 52.4% less than one month, 77.1% less than three months, 12.5% reported waiting longer than six months and 3.6% longer than one year. One-third of patients believed their wait time was too long, with 9% rating their wait time as 'far too long'; 96.4% believed that maximal wait time should be less than three months, 78.9% believed it should be less than one month and 40.3% believed it should be less than two weeks. Of those working or attending school, 22.6% reported missing at least one day of work or school because of their symptoms in the month before their appointment, and 9.0% reported missing five or more days in the preceding month. A total of 20.2% of respondents reported being very worried about having a serious disease (ie, scored 6 or higher on 7-point Likert scale), and 17.6% and 14.8%, respectively, reported that their symptoms caused major impairment of social functioning and with the activities of daily living. These data suggest that a significant proportion of Canadians with digestive problems are not satisfied with their wait time for gastroenterology consultation. Furthermore, while awaiting consultation, many patients experience an impaired quality of life because of their gastrointestinal symptoms.

Survey of access to gastroenterology in Canada: the SAGE wait times program

BACKGROUND

Assessment of current wait times for specialist health services in Canada is a key method that can assist government and health care providers to plan wisely for future health needs. These data are not readily available. A method to capture wait time data at the time of consultation or procedure has been developed, which should be applicable to other specialist groups and also allows for assessment of wait time trends over intervals of years.

METHODS

In November 2008, gastroenterologists across Canada were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) that included personal demographics and data from one week on at least five consecutive new consultations and five consecutive procedure patients who had not previously undergone a procedure for the same indication. Wait times were collected for 18 primary indications and results were then compared with similar survey data collected in 2005.

RESULTS

The longest wait times observed were for screening colonoscopy (201 days) and surveillance of previous colon cancer or polyps (272 days). The shortest wait times were for cancer-likely based on imaging or physical examination (82 days), severe or rapidly progressing dysphagia or odynophagia (83 days), documented iron deficiency anemia (90 days) and dyspepsia with alarm symptoms (99 days). Compared with 2005 data, total wait times in 2008 were lengthened overall (127 days versus 155 days; P<0.05) and for most of the seven individual indications that permitted data comparison.

CONCLUSION

Median wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed consensus conference recommended targets and have significantly worsened since 2005.

Wait times from presentation to treatment for colorectal cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The wait time from cancer diagnosis to treatment has been a recent focus of cancer care in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the trends in wait times from patient presentation to treatment (overall health system wait time [OWT]) for colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Patients with colorectal adenocarcinomas, diagnosed between 2001 and 2005, and their first definitive treatments were identified from the population-based Manitoba Cancer Registry (Winnipeg, Manitoba). By linkage to Manitoba Health and Healthy Living's administrative databases, a patient's first gastrointestinal investigation (abdominal radiological imaging, lower gastrointestinal endoscopy or fecal occult blood test) before CRC diagnosis was identified. The index contact with the health care system was estimated from the date of the visit with the physician who ordered the first gastroenterological investigation. The OWT was defined as the time from the index contact to the first treatment, while diagnostic delay was defined as the time from the index contact to the diagnosis of CRC. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of OWT.

RESULTS

The OWT was estimated for 2552 cases of CRC over the five years that were examined. The median OWT increased from 61 days in 2001 to 95 days in 2005 (P<0.001). Most of the increase was in diagnostic wait times (median of 44 days in 2001 versus 64 days in 2005 [P<0.001]). Year of diagnosis, older age, urban residence and diagnosis at a teaching facility were independent predictors of OWT.

CONCLUSIONS

The OWT from presentation to treatment of CRC in Manitoba steadily increased between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to diagnostic delays.

The quality of screening colonoscopies in an office-based endoscopy clinic

BACKGROUND

Wait times for hospital screening colonoscopy have increased dramatically in recent years, resulting in an increase in patient referrals to office-based endoscopy clinics. There is no formal regulation of office endoscopy, and it has been suggested that the quality of service in some office locations may be inferior to hospital procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of office-based screening colonoscopies at a clinic in Oakville, Ontario, with published benchmarks for cecal intubation, withdrawal times, polyp detection, adenoma detection, cancer detection and patient complications.

METHODS

Demographic information on consecutive patients and colonoscopy reports by all nine gastroenterologists at the Oakville Endoscopy Centre between August 2006 and December 2007 were prospectively obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 3741 colonoscopies were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 57.1 years and 51.9% were women. The cecal intubation rate was 98.98% with an average withdrawal time of 9.75 min. A total of 3857 polyps were retrieved from 1725 patients (46.11%), and 1721 adenomas were detected in 953 patients (25.47%). A total of 126 patients (3.37%) had advanced polyps and 18 (0.48%) were diagnosed with colon cancer. One patient (0.027%) had a colonic perforation and two patients had postpolypectomy bleeding (0.053%). These results meet or exceed published benchmarks for quality colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ontario Endoscopy Centre data demonstrate that office-based colonoscopies, performed by well-trained physicians using adequate sedation and hospital-grade equipment, result in outcomes at least equal to or better than those of published academic/community hospital practices and are therefore a viable option for the future of screening colonoscopy in Canada.

Report from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Board

On behalf of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Board, I am pleased to provide you with this report summarizing the activities and directions of the organization on behalf of its members. It is an honour to participate in the affairs of the organization and interact with groups and individuals from across the country dedicated to advancing science and care in the field of digestive health and disease. This is a challenging time in medicine, and the organization has been working hard to enhance the benefits, programs and services available to its members. The goal is to provide the highest level of services possible to meet your needs.