Improving the Quality of Inpatient Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients completing bowel preparation for colonoscopy typically have preparations of poorer quality when compared to outpatient populations. AIMS: Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a performance improvement program in improving colonoscopy preparation for an inpatient population. METHODS: We identified a cohort of adult patients (n = 641) undergoing an inpatient colonoscopy during a 12-month period at an academic medical center and compared a multifactor intervention group to a historical baseline group. During this 12-month period, a performance improvement program including use of a dedicated gastrointestinal nurse facilitator, implementation of standardized order sets, and introduction of split bowel preparations in the inpatient setting was made available to the cohort group. RESULTS: The primary outcome was quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy as rated by endoscopists using the modified Aronchick scale. When comparing the baseline group to the intervention group, the rate of acceptable preparations, characterized as excellent, good, or adequate, increased from 69.9 to 78.9%, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive performance improvement program improved the quality of colonoscopy preparation among inpatients. The use of a dedicated gastrointestinal nurse facilitator, implementation of standardized order sets, and introduction of split bowel preparations are recommended in the inpatient setting for an effective bowel preparation.

Hospital readmissions in decompensated cirrhotics: Factors pointing toward a prevention strategy.

AIM: To reduce readmissions and improve patient outcomes in cirrhotic patients through better understanding of readmission predictors. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study of patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 (n = 222). Primary outcomes were time to first readmission and 30-d readmission rate due to complications of cirrhosis. Clinical and demographic data were collected to help describe predictors of readmission, along with care coordination measures such as post-discharge status and outpatient follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to describe variables associated with readmission. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients (59.4%) were readmitted at least once during the study period. Median time to first and second readmissions were 54 and 93 d, respectively. Thirty and 90-d readmission rates were 20.7 and 30.1 percent, respectively. Predictors of 30-d readmission included education level, hepatic encephalopathy at index, ALT more than upper normal limit and Medicare coverage. There were no statistically significant differences in readmission rates when stratified by discharge disposition, outpatient follow-up provider or time to first outpatient visit. CONCLUSION: Readmissions are challenging aspect of care for cirrhotic patients and risk continues beyond 30 d. More initiatives are needed to develop enhanced, longitudinal post-discharge systems.