Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based colorectal cancer screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with 4 key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas, non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI practitioner, comparing their outcomes with those of GI providers. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using a P value of less than .05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all P values were 2-sided. RESULTS: No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged from 98% to 100% for cecal intubation; 97.4% to 100% for bowel preparation; 57.4% to 88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7% to 62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10 to 0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: As a result of this analysis, we can expect non-GI practitioner to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI practitioner given the performance outcomes for the key quality metrics.

Provider- and System-Level Barriers and Facilitators to Colonoscopy and Multi-Target Stool DNA for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural/Remote Alaska Native Communities.

The Alaska Tribal Health System is working to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among Alaska Native people, who experience the highest CRC rates in the world. This study examined CRC screening provider- and system-level barriers and facilitators from the perspective of healthcare providers serving Alaska Native people in rural/remote communities. A total of 28 provider (physicians, advanced practice, and Community Health Aides/Practitioners) interviews were held from 1 February to 30 November 2021. Colonoscopy provider-level barrier themes included time, competing priorities, and staffing, while system-level barriers included travel costs, weather, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) barrier themes included test viability and unfamiliarity, and previous stool tests experiences. For both tests, limited medical record reminders was a major barrier. Facilitator themes for both tests included community outreach, cultural competency and patient navigation, and clinic/system improvements. In-depth interviews with tribal health providers showed that adding mt-sDNA testing may help address system-level colonoscopy barriers such as waitlists and travel costs, but other barriers remain. Further research is needed into patient barriers and facilitators, as well as the effectiveness of integrating mt-sDNA into a geographically dispersed tribal health system to reduce cancer disparities and build equity in CRC prevention among Alaska Native people.

Development of a colorectal cancer screening intervention for Alaska Native people during a pandemic year.

Objectives: Alaska Native (AN) people experience twice the rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) as US Whites. There is a need for increased screening and early detection. We describe the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial of the multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA; Cologuard® Exact Sciences, Madison WI) to increase CRC screening among AN people. Methods: A total of 32 rural/remote AN communities were randomized to a varied intensity intervention (patient navigation vs mailed health education) compared to 14 communities receiving usual opportunistic care. Outcome measures include screening completion and method used (mt-sDNA vs colonoscopy). Health care provider interviews and AN patient focus groups will be used to assess patient-, provider-, and system-level CRC screening promoters and barriers. Results: The study began in April 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a number of challenges and study adaptations. These included difficulty finding laboratory space, lack of timely mail service due to flight reductions across the state, and travel restrictions that led to postponement of in-person focus groups. Videoconferencing platforms for Tribal engagement replaced face-to-face interactions. After an extensive search, a laboratory with space available was identified and the preprocessing laboratory established. Study staff will work closely with patients to monitor mail service to get mt-sDNA kits sent on time. We are also exploring the use of videoconferencing platforms as alternatives to in-person focus groups. Conclusions: Despite the challenges encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, we successfully initiated the intervention and established the first mt-sDNA preprocessing laboratory in Alaska.