Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Integrated Treatment Approach Versus Standard Model of Care for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (FGIDS): A Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) are linked to a variety of potential causes, and treatments include reassurance, life-style (including diet), psychological, or pharmacologic interventions. AIMS: To assess whether a multidisciplinary integrated treatment approach delivered in a dedicated integrated care clinic (ICC) was superior to the standard model of care in relation to the gastrointestinal symptom burden. METHODS: A matched cohort of 52 consecutive patients with severe manifestation of FGID were matched with 104 control patients based upon diagnosis, gender, age, and symptom severity. Patients in the ICC received structured assessment and 12-weeks integrated treatment sessions provided as required by gastroenterologist and allied health team. Control patients received standard medical care at the same tertiary center with access to allied health services as required but no standardized interprofessional team approach. Primary outcome was reduction in gastrointestinal symptom burden as measured by the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scale (SAGIS). Secondary outcome was reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Mixed models estimated the within ICC change in SAGIS total as -9.7 (95% CI -13.6, -5.8; p < 0.0001), compared with -1.7 (95% CI -4.0, 0.6; p = 0.15) for controls. The difference between groups reached statistical significance, -7.6 (95% CI -11.4, -3.8; p < 0.0001). Total HADS scores in ICC patients were 3.4 points lower post-intervention and reached statistical significance (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This matched cohort study demonstrates superior short-term outcomes of FGID patients in a structured multidisciplinary care setting as compared to standard care.

Improving the Quality of Bowel Preparation: Rewarding Patients for Success or Intensive Patient Education?

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The quality of the bowel preparation is a critical parameter for the outcome of colonoscopies. It is well established that the bowel preparation modality (e.g., split or larger volume preparation) significantly improves the quality of the bowel preparation. Patient compliance is another important factor impacting on the quality of bowel preparations that receives relatively little research attention. We aimed to explore if intensified education or a lottery ticket as reward for good bowel preparation could improve outcomes. METHODS: After informed consent, all patients received a standardized printed information booklet. In a randomized fashion, patients were offered (a) a lottery scratchy ticket with an opportunity to win $25,000 as "reward" for good bowel preparation, (b) an education session delivered over the phone by a trained nurse, or (c) no additional measure. RESULTS: Overall, the quality of the bowel preparation was rated good or very good in 69.1% (95% CI 61.7-75.7%) of patients. Reward intervention did not influence the quality of bowel preparation (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09-1.91, p = 0.260); however, bowel preparation quality decreased in patients randomized to receive the additional education (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, p = 0.042). Neither intervention significantly impacted on polyp detection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasting general beliefs, additional interventions (e.g., incentives or phone consultation) did not improve the quality of the bowel preparation. The unexpected result shows that utilizing extra resources must be balanced against real-world outcomes and may not always provide the expected result.

An Evidence-based Approach Towards Targeted Patient Education to Improve Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Quality of bowel preparation is an important factor influencing adenoma detection. Patient education is believed to improve the quality of bowel preparation but might be resource-intensive. We aimed to (a) identify risk factors for failed bowel preparations and (b) develop and test the efficacy of a screening tool that allows to prospectively identify and target patients at increased risk. STUDY: Part 1: 76 consecutive outpatients with poor bowel preparation were compared with 76 age-matched and gender-matched outpatients with good preparation from the same procedure lists. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from centralized databases. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for poor bowel preparation. Part 2: on the basis of results of part 1, a screening tool for prospectively identifying patients at high risk was developed, and targeted education tested. RESULTS: We identified the use of opioids or other constipating agents and low socioeconomic status as risk factors for poor bowel preparation [odds ratio (OR)=2.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-6.80 and OR=2.43; 95% CI: 1.25-4.72]. Diabetes, hypothyroidism, age, and gender were found to have no effect on quality. When education was provided only to patients at increased risk, the targeted approach did not negatively affect the proportion of poor preparation (OR=6.12%; 95% CI: 4.79%-7.78% vs. OR=5.73%; 95% CI: 4.61%-7.10%). CONCLUSIONS: Poor bowel preparation is associated with specific risk factors. Identifying and specifically targeting education at patients with these risk factors appears to facilitate more efficient use of education resources in endoscopy.

Influence of Simethicone Added to the Rinse Water during Colonoscopies on Polyp Detection Rates: Results of an Unintended Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Simethicone is a common antifoaming agent that is added to endoscopic rinse solutions, but data regarding its effect on polyp detection rates is lacking. In this study, we report the effect of discontinuation of this practice on polyp detection rates. METHODS: Procedure data of 4,254 consecutive colonoscopies were used. Patients underwent standard bowel preparation with polyethyleneglycol (Glycoprep®). Colonoscopies were performed utilising Olympus EVIS EXERA III, CV-190 equipment, while quality data (withdraw times, polyp detection rates, quality of bowel preparation) was assessed utilising an endoscopy reporting system (Provation®). Following an educational event that highlighted that simethicone may form deposits in the channels of endoscopes, the practice to add simethicone (InfacolR, Nice Pak) to the auxiliary channel water pump was abandoned, but endoscopists were not notified about this change. After 5 days and performing 75 colonoscopies, the change of practice was identified and addition of simethicone recommenced. RESULTS: The discontinuation of simethicone use reduced the polyp detection rate from 55% (95% CI 53-56) to 45% (95% CI 34-56, 1-sided, p = 0.028); the polyp detection rate returned to the pre-intervention levels of 55% (95% CI 52-58) upon resumption of normal practice. CONCLUSION: The addition of simethicone to the auxiliary water pump during colonoscopy results in a 10% increase in polyp detection rates.