Gastroscopy for dyspeptic symptoms in patients <65 years has a low yield of clinically important findings: a retrospective study.

Background: Dyspepsia is a common, generally low-risk gastrointestinal condition. The American College of Gastroenterology and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology recommend avoiding gastroscopy in healthy patients <60 years old. Many dyspeptic patients can be effectively managed in primary care. This study aimed to determine: (1) the proportion of gastroscopies performed for dyspepsia among patients <65 years old with no alarm symptoms or clinically appropriate indications and (2) to determine the frequency of clinically actionable findings and dyspepsia-related healthcare utilization in the year following gastroscopy. Methods: Outpatient endoscopy reports were sampled and reviewed retrospectively from 2019 to -2021 in Edmonton, Alberta to identify gastroscopies performed for the indication of dyspepsia. Gastroscopies were considered low-risk for significant endoscopic findings if age <65, no alarm symptoms or other concerning indications, and insufficient evidence that first-line treatments and diagnostic approaches had been tried prior to gastroscopy. Clinically important findings were defined as those impacting management, not otherwise identifiable non-invasively. Results: Of the 358 reviewed gastroscopies for dyspepsia, 293 (81.8%) had no alarm symptoms, and 130 (36.3%) had no alarm symptoms or other appropriate indications. Clinically important findings were identified in 9 (6.9%) of the 130 low-risk cases. In the year following, one patient (1/130) visited the emergency department 3 times for their symptoms and no patients required hospital admission. No malignancies were detected. Conclusions: Many gastroscopies are performed on patients <65 years old with dyspepsia, even when they lack alarm symptoms or other clinical indications, despite recommendations against this practice and low procedure yield. Strategies to improve the uptake of current guidelines may optimize endoscopy resource utilization.

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Review of an international pilot project to adapt the Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: The evidence-based Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) released in August 2020 were developed through a systematic literature review and patient-oriented research process. This CPG is considered a paradigm shift for obesity care as it introduced a new obesity definition that is based on health not body size, incorporates lived experiences of people affected by obesity, and addresses the pervasive weight bias and stigma that patients face in healthcare systems. The purpose of this pilot project was to assess the feasibility of adapting the Canadian CPG in Chile and Ireland. Methods: An International Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation Committee was established to oversee the project. The project was conducted through four interrelated phases: 1) planning and preparation; 2) pilot project application process; 3) adaptation; and 4) launch, dissemination, and implementation. Ireland used the GRADE-ADAPTE framework and Chile used the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach. Results: Chile and Ireland developed their adapted guidelines in one third of the time it took to develop the Canadian guidelines. In Ireland, 18 chapters, which underpin the 80 key recommendations, were contextually adapted. Chile adopted 18 chapters and 76 recommendations, adapted one recommendation, and developed 12 new recommendations.. Conclusion: The pilot project demonstrated it is feasible to adapt the Canadian CPG for use in other countries with different healthcare systems, languages, and cultural contexts, while retaining the Canadian CPG's key principles and values such as the treatment of obesity as a chronic disease, adoption of new clinical assessment approaches that go beyond anthropometric measurements, elimination of weight bias and stigma, shifting obesity care outcomes to improved health and well-being rather than weight loss alone, and the use of patient-centred, collaborative and shared-decision clinical care approaches.

Gastroscopy for dyspepsia: Understanding primary care and gastroenterologist mental models of practice: A cognitive task analysis approach.

Background: Gastroscopy to investigate dyspepsia without alarm symptoms rarely results in clinically actionable findings or sustained health-related quality-of-life improvements among patients aged 18-60 years and is, therefore, not recommended. Despite this, referrals for and performance of gastroscopy among this patient population remain high. The purpose of this study was to understand family physicians' and gastroenterologists' mental models of dyspepsia and the drivers behind referring or performing gastroscopy. Methods: Cognitive task analysis routine critical decision method interviews with family physicians (n = 8) and gastroenterologists (n = 4). Results: Family physicians and gastroenterologists hold rich mental models of dyspepsia that rely on sensemaking; however, gaps in information continuity affect their ability to plan and coordinate patient care. Drivers behind decisions to refer or perform gastroscopy were: eliminating risk for serious pathology, providing reassurance, perceived preference by patients to receive information and reassurance from gastroenterologists, maintaining relationships with patients, and saving costs to the health system. Conclusions: Family physicians refer for dyspepsia when they are seeking support from gastroenterologists, they believe that alternative factors may be impacting the patient's health or view it as a cost-saving measure. Likewise, gastroenterologists perform gastroscopy for dyspepsia when they perceive it as a cost-saving measure, they want to support their primary care colleagues and provide their colleagues and patients with reassurance. An improved degree of communication between speciality and primary care could allow for continuity in the transfer of information about patients and reduce referrals for dyspepsia.