Appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy in a non-academic hospital

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.

Open-Access Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy as an Effective and Safe Strategy for Patients With Non-alarming Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Open-access oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OAO) is defined as the performance of oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) requested by referring physicians without a prior specialist consultation. With the increasing demand for specialist appointments, the use of OAO has helped to reduce healthcare utilization by decreasing prior clinic visits. This also allows endoscopies to be scheduled and performed earlier. This study aims to evaluate our experience in providing OAO services to patients with non-alarming dyspepsia symptoms under the age of 60.

METHODS

The records of patients scheduled for OAO from January 2019 to December 2022 at Singapore General Hospital (SGH) Department of Gastroenterology were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-nine patients were scheduled for OAO, and 436 patients underwent the procedure. The mean age of patients was 45.7 (SD=10.9) years old. Thirty-six percent were males, and there were 80.8% Chinese, 5.3% Malay, 8.6% Indian, and 5.3% others. The median waiting time for endoscopy was 23 days (IQR 16-36), and no major adverse events were reported. Over half of the endoscopies were unremarkable (n=231, 53%). There were 25 (5.7%) patients with major findings; three had upper gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma (one oesophageal and two gastric), one had oesophageal varices, and 21 had peptic ulcer disease (10 gastric and 11 duodenal ulcers). A rapid urease test was conducted on 409 patients, and 55 (13.4%) were positive.

CONCLUSION

OAO is a safe and effective strategy for providing timely diagnostic OGD to normal-risk patients at our center. Primary care physicians are encouraged to refer non-alarming dyspepsia symptoms patients under 60 years for OAO over the conventional route.

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

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric gastrointestinal procedures are performed when clinically indicated and defined by their successful performance by skilled providers in a safe, comfortable, child-oriented, and expeditious manner. The process of pediatric endoscopy begins when a plan to perform the procedure is first made and ends when all appropriate patient follow-up has occurred. Procedure-related standards and indicators developed to date for endoscopy in adults emphasize cancer screening and are thus unsuitable for pediatric medicine.

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 endoscopic procedures. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. 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 14 standards for pediatric endoscopic procedures, as well as 30 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality procedures. These were subcategorized into three subdomains: Preprocedural (3 standards, 7 indicators), Intraprocedural (8 standards, 18 indicators), and Postprocedural (3 standards, 5 indicators). A minimum target for the key indicator, "rate of adequate bowel preparation," was set at ≥80%.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all facilities and individual providers performing pediatric endoscopy worldwide initiate and engage with the procedure-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN to identify gaps in quality and drive improvement.

Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Advances in endoscopy and open-access systems led to an increase in endoscopic procedures. However, overuse of endoscopy has been consistently reported. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy referral in the private and public setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter study at 2 public and 5 private endoscopy units. Patients scheduled for elective EGD or colonoscopy were enrolled. Clinical data and endoscopy findings were recorded. Appropriateness of endoscopy was defined according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines (for EGD) and the European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (for colonoscopy).

RESULTS

Regarding EGD: 215 patients enrolled (43.7% were males) with a mean age of 61.0 ± 15.1 years; 54.0% (n = 116) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 34.9% (n = 75). Appropriate indications were made for 62.3% (n = 134): 42.4% in private versus 79.3% in public endoscopy units (odds ratio [OR] 5.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85-9.49; p < 0.01). Rate of appropriate EGD was 74.7% for gastroenterologist referral and 56.1% for other specialties (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.24-4.28; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield for relevant findings was 47.9%. No association between indication appropriateness, gastroenterologist referral, and relevant endoscopic findings was found. Regarding colonoscopy: 287 patients enrolled (49.1% were males) with a mean age of 60.4 ± 14.4 years; 48.1% (n = 138) were in public hospitals. Referral by a gastroenterologist was made for 20.6% (n = 59). Appropriate indications were made for 70.0% (n = 201): 53.0% in private vs. 88.4% in public endoscopy units (OR 6.75; 95% CI 3.66-12.47; p < 0.01). Diagnostic yield was 57.1%. Relevant endoscopic diagnosis was associated with indication: 63.2% in the appropriate vs. 43.0% in the nonappropriate indication group (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

A significant percentage of endoscopies, mainly in the private setting, were performed without an appropriate indication. This influenced the diagnostic yield. The use of adequate criteria is fundamental for the rational use of an open-access system.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the appropriateness of colonoscopy increases the probability of relevant findings and cancer while reducing unnecessary exams

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is frequently performed in industrialised countries. Inappropriate colonoscopies might lead to unnecessary exams, increasing risks and costs.

AIM

To estimate the impact of colonoscopy appropriateness in terms of gain in additional diagnoses and sparing of unnecessary exams.

METHODS

Systematic review including studies reporting the prevalence of relevant findings, colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) according to colonoscopy appropriateness as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies with 19,822 patients were included. Colonoscopy was appropriate in 15,162 (71%, CI 64%-78%). Appropriateness significantly increased the probability of relevant findings (34% vs. 18%; RR 1.81, CI 1.53-2.14), CRC (7% vs. 2%; RR 3.62, CI 2.44-5.37) and IBD (6% vs. 4%; RR 1.86, CI 1.09-3.19). Appropriateness had sensitivity 88% (CI 85%-91%), 97% (CI 93%-98%) and 89% (CI 80%-94%), and specificity 24% (CI 20%-29%), 22% (CI 18%-26%) and 24% (CI 20%-28%) for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. On average, performing colonoscopy with appropriate indication would find 15 (CI 10-21) more relevant findings, five (CI 3-9) more CRCs and three (CI 1-9) more diagnoses of IBD per 100 patients, and save 24 (CI 20-29), 22 (CI 18-26) and 24 (CI 20-28) examinations per 100 patients for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriateness affects the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy for CRC, IBD and relevant findings. Appropriateness criteria are useful, although integrated with clinical evaluation of the patient.

Diagnostic yield of upper endoscopy according to appropriateness: A systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIM

Despite some official guidelines are available, a substantial rate of inappropriateness for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopies has been reported. This study aimed to estimate the inappropriate rate of UGI in different countries, also including the diagnostic yield.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies on UGI endoscopy appropriateness was performed by adopting official guidelines as reference standard. Diagnostic yield of relevant endoscopic findings and cancers was compared between appropriate and inappropriate procedures. The Odd Ratio (OR) values and the Number-Needed-to-Scope (NNS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Data of 23 studies with a total of 53,392 patients were included. UGI indications were overall inappropriate in 21.7% (95% CI = 21.4-22.1) of the patients. The inappropriateness rate significantly (P < 0.0001) decreased from 35.1% in the earlier studies to 22.1%-23% in the more recent ones. A relevant finding was found in 43.3% of appropriate and in 35.1% of inappropriate endoscopies (P < 0.0001; OR: 1.42, 95% CI = 1.36-1.49; NNS = 12). Prevalence of cancers was also higher in appropriate than in inappropriate UGIs (2.98% vs. 0.09%, P < 0.0001; OR = 3.33; NNS = 48). The prevalence of detected cancers significantly (P < 0.004) increased from 1.38% in the earlier studies to 2.11% in the more recent ones, whilst prevalence of other relevant findings remained similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Rate of inappropriate UGI endoscopies is still high. Diagnostic yield of appropriate endoscopies is higher than that of inappropriate procedures, including upper GI cancers. Therefore, implementation of guidelines in clinical practice is urged.

Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health-care problem all over the world and CRC screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing the 5-year survival. Colonoscopy has a central role in CRC screening. It can be performed as a primary test, as a recall policy after a positive result of another screening test, and for surveillance. Since effectiveness of endoscopic screening depends on adequate detection and removal of colonic polyps, consistent quality measures, which are useful in enhancing the diagnostic yield of examination, are essential. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to analyze current evidence from literature supporting quality measures able to refine endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer. Expert commentary: Quality measures namely a) time slot allotted to colonoscopy, b) assessment of indication, c) bowel preparation, d) Cecal intubation, e) withdrawal time, f) adenoma detection rate, g) proper management of lesions (polypectomy technique, polyps retrieval rate and tattooing of resection sites), and h) adequate follow-up intervals play a key role in identifying malignant and at-risk lesions and improving the outcome of screening. Adherence to these quality measures is critical to maximize the effectiveness of CRC screening, as well as, a proper technique of colonoscopy and a quality report of the procedure. Among all recommended measures, adenoma detection rate is the most important and must be kept above the recommended quality threshold by all physicians practicing in the setting of screening.

The diagnostic yield of open-access endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Since the introduction of open-access esophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OAE) there is an increase in the total number of performed OAEs whilst the frequency of clinical relevant findings has decreased. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriate use and the diagnostic yield of OAE in the Netherlands and to determine which patient variables are able to predict a malignant finding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all referrals for diagnostic OAE between October 2012 and October 2016 at the Northwest Clinics was performed. The indications were recorded from the referral letter and were classified as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" according to the NHG guideline. Logistic regression was used to detect significant predictive variables for a malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 2006 patients were included, of whom 59.6 % had an 'appropriate' referral indication. The diagnostic yield of finding a clinical relevant finding was significantly higher for OAEs with an "appropriate" referral indication. Independent risk factors for malignancy were alarm symptoms, age and male gender with a combined AUC of 0.868.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 3.8 % of the malignancies would be missed by strict adherence to the guideline. This indicates that the open-access system in the Netherlands works well. Further improvement of the system can be achieved by only accepting appropriate indications for OAE and by treating patients under the age of 40 without OAE. We showed that a risk-prediction model based on the variables age, alarm symptoms and male gender is a good predictor of malignant finding.

Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world

Overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a pervasive problem. Direct measurement of overuse through documentation of delivery of inappropriate services is challenging given the difficulty of defining appropriate care for patients with individual preferences and needs; overuse can also be measured indirectly through examination of unwarranted geographical variations in prevalence of procedures and care intensity. Despite the challenges, the high prevalence of overuse is well documented in high-income countries across a wide range of services and is increasingly recognised in low-income countries. Overuse of unneeded services can harm patients physically and psychologically, and can harm health systems by wasting resources and deflecting investments in both public health and social spending, which is known to contribute to health. Although harms from overuse have not been well quantified and trends have not been well described, overuse is likely to be increasing worldwide.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Open-access endoscopy

OAE is commonly used. The majority of patients referred for OAE are considered appropriate for endoscopy according to ASGE guidelines. Most patients undergoing OAE procedures are knowledgeable about the study and are satisfied with the experience. Several potential problems have been identified, including inappropriate referrals, communication errors, and inadequately prepared or informed patients. OAE can be safely used if preprocedure assessment, informed consent, information transfer, patient safety, and satisfaction are addressed in all cases.

Quality assurance for gastrointestinal endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review concerns quality assurance for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, especially colonoscopy and will emphasize research and guidelines published since January 2011. Important articles from previous years have been included for background.

RECENT FINDINGS

Critical lapses in endoscope processing and administration of intravenous sedation alerted us to the infection risk of endoscopy. Increases in cost of colonoscopy, evidence for overuse and studies demonstrating missed cancers have led some to question the value of endoscopy. Despite these setbacks, the National Polyp Study (NPS) consortium published their long-term follow-up of the original NPS patients and confirmed that colonoscopy with polyp removal can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer for an extended period. In this article, we will focus on ways to improve the value of outpatient colonoscopy.

SUMMARY

The United States national quality improvement agenda recently became organized into a more coordinated effort spearheaded by several public and private entities. They comprise the infrastructure by which performance measures are developed and implemented as accountability standards. Understanding wherein a gastroenterology (GI) practice fits into this infrastructure and learning ways we can improve our endoscopic practice is important for physicians who provide this vital service to patients. This article will provide a roadmap for developing a quality assurance program for endoscopic practice.