RESUMO
Background: Colonoscopy is a first-line method for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, cost-effective noninvasive tests, such as high-sensitivity guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), are also used. The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on CRC screening rates. The James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Hospital (JAHVAH) continued socially distant CRC screening using FITs, but encountered inefficiencies due to high rates of incorrectly collected FIT samples. A quality improvement (QI) project was conducted to increase correctly collected and testable FIT kits upon initial laboratory submission. Observations: The ambulatory QI project sought out root causes for incorrectly returned FITs and proposed Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles based on a series of approved action plans. A multidisciplinary team of laboratory, nursing, administrative, and primary care staff worked together to discover 6 major root causes. Our multipronged PDSA cycle attempted to set up redundant patient reminders, centralize the FIT dispersal process, and make the patient-FIT interface more user-friendly. All PDSA solutions were implemented over 4 months. Lack of collection date was the most common reason for incorrectly returned FIT kits and the focus of PDSA improvements. The rate of FITs with missing collection dates dropped from 24% prior to PDSA to 14% in April 2021. The rate of correctly returned FIT kits rose from 38% before the project to 72% afterwards, surpassing the 20% improvement goal. Conclusions: FIT is a useful method for CRC screening that can be particularly helpful when in-person visits are limited, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase in demand for FITs during the pandemic revealed process deficiencies and gave JAHVAH an opportunity to improve workflow.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the most efficacious way to collect specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract and is performed with an internal stylet during puncture. However, its reinsertion into the needle is time-consuming. Controversy surrounds whether quality of cytology specimen improves with stylet use. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the use of stylet versus no stylet with EUS-FNA of gastrointestinal-related masses. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched from inception until April 28, 2016. Discordant findings from independent extractions were reviewed by at least 2 investigators. Methods were executed as per the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes assessed were diagnostic adequacy of individual specimen samples, accuracy, and yield. Secondary outcomes included overall diagnostic accuracy of per-malignant lesion, cellularity, contamination, and bloodiness of the sample, and adverse events. RESULTS: Five randomized control trials were identified comparing stylet versus no stylet use, which enrolled 504 patients, evaluated 537 lesions, and 1914 distinct specimens. There was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [risk ratio (RR)=1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.07], accuracy (RR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06), or yield (RR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03). No stylet use was favored in per-lesion malignant diagnosis (RR=0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96). There was no difference in representative cellularity, contamination, or bloodiness of specimens obtained with or without stylet use. CONCLUSIONS: Stylet use confers no significant advantage in diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, yield, contamination, bloodiness, or cellularity over no stylet. We reinforce that no stylet use may be used preferentially in EUS-FNA as a more convenient technique and is favored with a higher per-lesion malignant diagnosis.