Detection of cancers and advanced adenomas in asymptomatic participants in colorectal cancer screening: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess detection rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenomas in asymptomatic CRC screening participants and bowel symptoms in association with CRC and advanced adenoma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two screening centres. PARTICIPANTS: 42 554 men and women, aged 50-74 years, participating in a randomised CRC screening trial. 36 059 participants underwent a sigmoidoscopy (and follow-up colonoscopy if positive sigmoidoscopy) and 6495 underwent a colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of asymptomatic participants diagnosed with CRC or advanced adenomas. Prevalence of bowel symptoms (rectal bleeding, change in bowel habits, diarrhoea, constipation, bloating, alternating bowel habits, general symptoms, other bowel symptoms) recorded by the endoscopist and their association with CRC and advanced adenomas. RESULTS: Among sigmoidoscopy participants, 7336 (20.3%) reported at least one symptom. 120 (60%) out of 200 individuals with screen-detected CRC and 1301 (76.5%) out of 1700 with advanced adenoma were asymptomatic. Rectal bleeding was associated with detection of CRC and advanced adenoma (OR 4.3, 95% CI 3.1 to 6.1 and 1.8, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.1, respectively), while change in bowel habits only with CRC detection (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.4 to 6.1). Among the FIT positives, 2173 (33.5%) reported at least one symptom. Out of 299 individuals with screen-detected CRC and 1639 with advanced adenoma, 167 (55.9%) and 1 175 (71.7%) were asymptomatic, respectively. Detection of CRC was associated with rectal bleeding (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.3), change in bowel habits (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.5) and abdominal pain (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: Some bowel symptoms increased the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC or advanced adenoma. However, the majority of individuals with these findings were asymptomatic. Asymptomatic individuals should be encouraged to participate in CRC screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01538550.

Electronic checklists improve referral letters in gastroenterology: a randomized vignette survey.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate whether gastroenterologists rate the quality of referral letters higher if electronic dynamic checklist items are added to a standard free-text referral letter. Assess how this affects the gastroenterologists' assessment of the patient's need for healthcare and the agreement between their assessments. DESIGN: Randomized vignette study. SETTING: Norwegian primary gastroenterology services. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two Norwegian gastroenterologists. INTERVENTION: Between June 2015 and January 2016, participants were recruited through an open invitation to all members of the Norwegian Society of Gastroenterology. They were asked to rate 16 referral letters (vignettes) in a web interface: eight letters in free text following a general template and eight letters based on a general referral template combined with diagnosis-specific checklist items. The study was completed in two subsequent rounds ≥3 months apart. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of referral letters assessed on a rating scale from 0 to 10. Agreement in the referral assessment and accuracy of the selection of correct preliminary diagnosis and appropriate work-up. RESULTS: The mean quality assesses on the rating scale was 7.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-7.2) for all letters combined (n = 511), 6.5(CI 6.2-6.8) for the free-text referrals (n = 256) and 7.5(CI 7.3-7.7) for the checklist referrals (n = 255) (P < 0.001, paired t-test). No difference was observed in the triage of the patients, but fewer gastroenterologists felt the need to collect additional information about the patients in the checklist group. CONCLUSION: Checklist items may ease the assessment of the referrals for gastroenterologists. We were not able to show that checklists significantly influence the management of patients.

Assessment of the effect of an Interactive Dynamic Referral Interface (IDRI) on the quality of referral letters from general practitioners to gastroenterologists: a randomised cross-over vignette trial.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether interactive, electronic, dynamic, diagnose-specific checklists improve the quality of referral letters in gastroenterology and assessed the general practitioners' (GPs') acceptance of the checklists. DESIGN: Randomised cross-over vignette trial. SETTING: Primary care in Norway. PARTICIPANTS: 25 GPs. INTERVENTION: The GPs participated in the trial and were asked to refer eight clinical vignettes in an internet-based electronic health record simulator. A referral support, consisting of dynamic diagnose-specific checklists, was created for the generation of referral letters to gastroenterologists. The GPs were randomised to refer the eight vignettes with or without the checklists. After a minimum of 3 months, they repeated the referral process with the alternative method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in quality of the referral letters between referrals with and without checklists, measured with an objective Thirty Point Score (TPS).Difference in variance in the quality of the referral letters and GPs' acceptance of the electronic dynamic user interface. RESULTS: The mean TPS was 15.2 (95% CI 13.2 to 16.3) and 22.0 (95% CI 20.6 to 22.8) comparing referrals without and with checklist assistance (p<0.001), respectively. The coefficient of variance was 23.3% for the checklist group and 39.6% for the non-checklist group. Two-thirds (16/24) of the GPs thought they had included more relevant information in the referrals with checklists, and considered implementing this type of checklists in their clinical practices, if available. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic, diagnose-specific checklists improved the quality of referral letters significantly and reduced the variance of the TPS, indicating a more uniform quality when checklists were used. The GPs were generally positive to the checklists.

First quality score for referral letters in gastroenterology-a validation study.

OBJECTIVE: To create and validate an objective and reliable score to assess referral quality in gastroenterology. DESIGN: An observational multicentre study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 25 gastroenterologists participated in selecting variables for a Thirty Point Score (TPS) for quality assessment of referrals to gastroenterology specialist healthcare for 9 common indications. From May to September 2014, 7 hospitals from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority participated in collecting and scoring 327 referrals to a gastroenterologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correlation between the TPS and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for referral quality. RESULTS: The 327 referrals had an average TPS of 13.2 (range 1-25) and an average VAS of 4.7 (range 0.2-9.5). The reliability of the score was excellent, with an intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.87 and inter-rater ICC of 0.91. The overall correlation between the TPS and the VAS was moderate (r=0.42), and ranged from fair to substantial for the various indications. Mean agreement was good (ICC=0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.57)), ranging from poor to good. CONCLUSIONS: The TPS is reliable, objective and shows good agreement with the subjective VAS. The score may be a useful tool for assessing referral quality in gastroenterology, particularly important when evaluating the effect of interventions to improve referral quality.

European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy II guidelines help in selecting and prioritizing patients referred to colonoscopy--a quality control study.

OBJECTIVE: To use information from the referral letters to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies in a primary open-access referral center, according to the criteria from the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II, and to compare with the first EPAGE guidelines. Second, to evaluate how the appropriateness and other patient- or doctor-related factors affected the diagnostic yield (DY). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A set of variables; symptoms, referring physician and final diagnosis, for 323 referrals accepted for colonoscopy were recorded prospectively and later on assessed using the EPAGE and EPAGE II criteria, respectively. Patients with incomplete visualization of the entire colon or colonoscopic findings as indication were excluded. RESULTS: EPAGE and EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 287 (95.3%) and 295 (98.0%) referrals, respectively. A total of 166 (57.8%) patients were considered appropriate by EPAGE and 240 (81.4%) patients were considered appropriate by EPAGE II. DY for appropriate versus uncertain/inappropriate referrals was 34.9% versus 17.4% for EPAGE (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8-4.4, p = 0.003) and 31.3% versus 10.9% for EPAGE II (OR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.4-8.9, p = 0.007). Sensitivity was higher for EPAGE II (92.6% vs. 73.4%). According to EPAGE II, 68 (23.1%) patients were referred due to lesions identified on other diagnostic procedures, producing a DY of 39.7%. In this group, 70% presented symptoms appropriate for a primary referral to colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of colonoscopies were found appropriate by EPAGE II. There was a clear association between high appropriateness of the indication and a high DY. EPAGE II is a guideline-improvement that may be useful for both referring physicians and gastroenterologists when considering referrals.