Interventions to improve the performance of upper GI endoscopy quality indicators.

The promotion of quality and best practices in gastroenterology and endoscopy is an ongoing effort. For upper GI endoscopy, quality indicators derived from clinical studies and expert consensus have been long established but remain variably obtained. To date, data on interventions aimed to improve these indicators are scarce. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify interventions and measures demonstrated to improve the performance of previously established upper endoscopy quality indicators. We also identified evidence gaps and opportunities for improvement in this area.

Gastroenterologist and primary care perspectives on a post-endoscopy discharge policy: impact on clinic wait times, provider satisfaction and provider workload.

BACKGROUND: To reduce unnecessary ambulatory gastroenterology (GI) visits and increase access to GI care, San Francisco Health Network gastroenterologists and primary care providers implemented guidelines in 2013 that discharged certain patients back to primary care after endoscopy with formal written recommendations. This study assesses the longer-term impact of this policy on GI clinic access, workflow, and provider satisfaction. METHODS: An email-based survey assessed gastroenterologist and primary care provider (PCP) opinions about the discharge process. Administrative data and chart review were used to assess clinic access, intervention fidelity, and re-referral rates. RESULTS: 102/299 (34%) of PCPs and 5/7 (71%) of gastroenterologists responded to the survey. 74% of PCPs and 100% of gastroenterologists were satisfied or very satisfied with the discharge process. 80% of gastroenterologists believed the discharge process decreased their workload, while 53.5% of primary care providers believed it increased their workload. 6.7% of patients discharged to primary care in 2013 had re-referrals to GI. Wait time for the third-next-available new outpatient GI clinic appointment had previously decreased from 158 days (2012, pre-intervention) to 74 days (2013, post-intervention). In 2015, wait time was 19 days (p < 0.001 for 2012 vs. 2015). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers and gastroenterologists are satisfied with an intervention to discharge patients from gastroenterology to primary care after certain endoscopic procedures, although this conclusion is limited by a relatively low PCP survey response rate. Discharging appropriate patients using consensus criteria from the gastroenterology clinic was instrumental in sustainably reducing clinic wait times with low re-referral rates.

Inadequate Utilization of Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal FIT Results in an Integrated Safety-Net System.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is contingent on colonoscopy completion in patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Understanding system and patient factors affecting follow-up of abnormal screening tests is essential to optimize care for high-risk cohorts. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in an integrated safety-net system comprised of 11 primary-care clinics and one Gastroenterology referral unit and included patients 50-75 years, with a positive FIT between April 2012 and February 2015. RESULTS: Of the 2,238 patients identified, 1,245 (55.6%) completed their colonoscopy within 1-year of the positive FIT. The median time from positive FIT to colonoscopy was 184 days (interquartile range 140-232). Of the 13% of FIT positive patients not referred to gastroenterology, 49% lacked documentation addressing their abnormal result or counseling on the increased risk of CRC. Of the patients referred but who missed their appointments, 62% lacked documentation following up on the abnormal result in the absence of a completed colonoscopy. FIT positive patients never referred to gastroenterology or who missed their appointment after referrals were more likely to have comorbid conditions and documented illicit substance use compared with patients who completed a colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite access to colonoscopy and a shared electronic health record system, colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT is inadequate within this safety-net system. Inadequate follow-up is in part explained by inappropriate screening, but there is an absence of clear documentation and systematic workflow within both primary care and GI specialty care addressing abnormal FIT results.

Urgent colonoscopy in patients with lower GI bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lower GI bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is indicated in all hospitalized patients with LGIB, yet the time frame for performing colonoscopy remains unclear. Prior studies of outcomes in urgent versus elective colonoscopy have yielded conflicting results and were often underpowered. Our study objective was to compare several outcomes between urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients hospitalized for LGIB. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on studies that compared urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients with LGIB. Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes, and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of 10,172 patients in the urgent colonoscopy arm and 14,224 patients in the elective colonoscopy arm. Urgent colonoscopy was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic intervention (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.08-2.67). There were no significant differences in bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .92-1.25), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, .65-1.71), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, .74-1.78), transfusion requirement (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .73-1.41), or mortality (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .45-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Urgent colonoscopy appears to be safe and well tolerated, but there is no clear evidence that it alters important clinical outcomes.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary access versus precut papillotomy in patients with failed biliary cannulation: a retrospective study.

Background and aims Precut papillotomy is widely used after failed biliary cannulation. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary access techniques are newer methods to facilitate access and therapy in failed cannulation. We evaluated the impact of EUS-guided biliary access on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) success and compared these techniques to precut papillotomy. Patients and methods We retrospectively compared two ERCP cohorts. One cohort consisted of biliary ERCPs (n = 1053) attempted in patients with native papillae and surgically unaltered anatomy in whom precut papillotomy and/or EUS-guided biliary access were routinely performed immediately after failed cannulation. This cohort was compared with a similar ERCP cohort (n = 1062) in which only precut papillotomy was available for failed cannulation. The following outcomes were compared: conventional cannulation success, rates of attempted advanced access techniques (precut or EUS), precut success, EUS-guided biliary access success, and ERCP failure rates. Results Although conventional cannulation success, rates of attempted advanced access technique (precut or EUS), and precut success were similar, the ERCP failure rate was lower when both EUS-guided biliary access and precut were available (1.0 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.4 - 1.6]), compared with when only precut was possible for failed access (3.6 % [95 %CI 2.5 - 4.7]; P < 0.001). Success for EUS-guided biliary access (95.1 % [95 %CI 89.7 - 100]) was significantly higher than for precut (75.3 % [95 %CI 68.2 - 82.4]; P < 0.001), and mainly due to superiority in malignant obstruction (93.5 % vs. 64 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions EUS-guided biliary access decreases the rate of therapeutic biliary ERCP failure. Our results support the use of EUS-guided biliary access to optimize single-session ERCP success. In experienced hands, these techniques appear as effective, if not more so, than precut papillotomy.

Using Search Engine Query Data to Explore the Epidemiology of Common Gastrointestinal Symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Internet searches are an increasingly used tool in medical research. To date, no studies have examined Google search data in relation to common gastrointestinal symptoms. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare trends in Internet search volume with clinical datasets for common gastrointestinal symptoms. METHODS: Using Google Trends, we recorded relative changes in volume of searches related to dysphagia, vomiting, and diarrhea in the USA between January 2008 and January 2011. We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) during this time period and identified cases related to these symptoms. We assessed the correlation between Google Trends and these two clinical datasets, as well as examined seasonal variation trends. RESULTS: Changes to Google search volume for all three symptoms correlated significantly with changes to NIS output (dysphagia: r = 0.5, P = 0.002; diarrhea: r = 0.79, P < 0.001; vomiting: r = 0.76, P < 0.001). Both Google and NIS data showed that the prevalence of all three symptoms rose during the time period studied. On the other hand, the NHAMCS data trends during this time period did not correlate well with either the NIS or the Google data for any of the three symptoms studied. Both the NIS and Google data showed modest seasonal variation. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to the population burden of chronic GI symptoms may be tracked by monitoring changes to Google search engine query volume over time. These data demonstrate that the prevalence of common GI symptoms is rising over time.

Practice variation in PEG tube placement: trends and predictors among providers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Enteral access placement is performed among a variety of providers and specialties, yet there is a dearth of literature on trends and factors related to enteral access placement in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the incidence of enteral access procedures performed by gastroenterologists in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective review of upper endoscopic procedures that involved PEG tube placement between 2000 and 2010. SETTING: Endoscopy sites participating in the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI). PATIENTS: Patients undergoing upper endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: PEG tube placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of PEG tubes placed. RESULTS: Overall PEG tube placement by a provider from 2000 to 2010 was 1.7% (number of PEG tubes performed/number of upper endoscopies performed), with the majority of them being performed by gastroenterologists. Very young and very old, non-white racial background (Hispanic: odds ratio [OR] 1.21; 95% CI, 1.13-1.28; black: OR 2.24; 95% CI, 2.12-2.36), and men (OR 1.44; 95% CI, 1.39-1.50) were patient characteristics associated with greater PEG tube placement. In terms of practice setting, PEG tube placement occurred more frequently in community and/or health maintenance organization environments and on the East Coast. With respect to provider characteristics, male providers were less likely than female providers to perform a PEG tube insertion (OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71), and there was a trend that as providers were further out of medical school they were less likely to perform a PEG tube procedure. Interestingly, surgeons (OR 6.69; 95% CI, 6.18-7.24) and other providers (non-pediatric/non-general practice) (OR 3.22; 95% CI, 2.63-3.94) were more likely to perform PEG tube procedures than were gastroenterologists. LIMITATIONS: Participation in CORI is voluntary and may not capture data on non-gastroenterologist providers. CONCLUSION: Significant practice variation was noted in PEG tube placement in the United States with respect to patient and provider characteristics, geographic region, and endoscopy settings.

Prevalence and predictors of patient no-shows to outpatient endoscopic procedures scheduled with anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Demand for endoscopic procedures scheduled with anesthesia is increasing and no-show to appointments carries significant patient health and financial impact, yet little is known about predictors of no-show. METHODS: We performed a 16-month retrospective observational cohort study of patients scheduled for outpatient endoscopy with anesthesia at a county hospital serving the safety-net healthcare system of San Francisco. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate associations between attendance and predictors of no-show. RESULTS: In total, 511 patients underwent endoscopy with anesthesia during the study period. Twenty-seven percent of patients failed to attend an appointment and were considered "no-show". In multivariate analysis, higher no-show rates were associated with patients with a prior history of no-show (odds ratio [OR] 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4- 17.5), those with active substance abuse within the past year (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.4-3.6), those with heavy prescription opioids/benzodiazepines use (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.6) and longer wait-times (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.09). Inversely associated with patient no-show were active employment (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.81), patients who attended a pre-operative appointment with an anesthesiologist (OR 0.52; CI 0.32-0.85), and those undergoing an advanced endoscopic procedure (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.94). CONCLUSION: In a safety-net healthcare population, behavioral and social determinants of health, including missed appointments, active substance abuse, homelessness, and unemployment are associated with no-shows to endoscopy with anesthesia.