Evaluating Disparities in Colon Cancer Survival in American Indian/Alaskan Native Patients Using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrate higher mortality rates from colon cancer in American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) patients compared to non-Hispanic White (nHW). We aim to identify factors that contribute to survival disparities. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify AI/AN (n = 2127) and nHW (n = 527,045) patients with stage I-IV colon cancer from 2004 to 2016. Overall survival among stage I-IV colon cancer patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis; Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to identify independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: AI/AN patients with stage I-III disease had significantly shorter median survival than nHW (73 vs 77 months, respectively; p < 0.001); there were no differences in survival for stage IV. Adjusted analyses demonstrated that AI/AN race was an independent predictor of higher overall mortality compared to nHW (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.33, p = 0.002). Importantly, compared to nHW, AI/AN were younger, had more comorbidities, had greater rurality, had more left-sided colon cancers, had higher stage but lower grade tumors, were less frequently treated at an academic facility, were more likely to experience a delay in initiation of chemotherapy, and were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III disease. We found no differences in sex, receipt of surgery, or adequacy of lymph node dissection. CONCLUSION: We found patient, tumor, and treatment factors that potentially contribute to worse survival rates observed in AI/AN colon cancer patients. Limitations include the heterogeneity of AI/AN patients and the use of overall survival as an endpoint. Additional studies are needed to implement strategies to eliminate disparities.

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.

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.

Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in the elderly: updates and controversies.

Colorectal cancer is common worldwide, and the elderly are disproportionately affected. Increasing age is a risk factor for the development of precancerous adenomas and colorectal cancer, thus raising the issue of screening and surveillance in older patients. Elderly patients are a diverse and heteroge-neous group, and special considerations such as comorbid medical conditions, functional status and cognitive ability play a role in deciding on the utility of screening and sur-veillance. Colorectal cancer screening can be beneficial to patients, but at certain ages and under some circumstances the harm of screening outweighs the benefits. Increasing ad-verse events, poorer bowel preparation and more incomplete examinations are observed in older patients undergoing colo-noscopy for diagnostic, screening and surveillance purposes. Decisions regarding screening, surveillance and treatment for colorectal cancer require a multidisciplinary approach that accounts not only for the patient's age but also for their overall health, preferences and functional status. This review provides an update and examines the challenges surround-ing colorectal cancer diagnosis, screening, and treatment in the elderly.

Colorectal cancer of the elderly.

OPINION STATEMENT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) disproportionately affects the elderly. Older age is a strong risk factor for both the development of precancerous adenomas and CRC, thus raising the issue of screening and surveillance in older patients. However, screening and surveillance decisions in the elderly can be complex and challenging. Elderly patients are a diverse and heterogeneous group and special considerations such as co-morbid medical conditions, functional status, and cognitive ability play a role in one's decisions regarding the utility of screening and surveillance. Such considerations also play a role in factors related to screening modalities, such as colonoscopy, as well as CRC treatment options and regimens. This review addresses many of the unique factors associated with CRC of the elderly and critically examines many of the controversies and challenges surrounding CRC in older patients.

Optimizing efficiency and operations at a California safety-net endoscopy center: a modeling and simulation approach.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in endoscopy center efficiency are needed, but scant data are available. OBJECTIVE: To identify opportunities to improve patient throughput while balancing resource use and patient wait times in a safety-net endoscopy center. SETTING: Safety-net endoscopy center. PATIENTS: Outpatients undergoing endoscopy. INTERVENTION: A time and motion study was performed and a discrete event simulation model constructed to evaluate multiple scenarios aimed at improving endoscopy center efficiency. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Procedure volume and patient wait time. RESULTS: Data were collected on 278 patients. Time and motion study revealed that 53.8 procedures were performed per week, with patients spending 2.3 hours at the endoscopy center. By using discrete event simulation modeling, a number of proposed changes to the endoscopy center were assessed. Decreasing scheduled endoscopy appointment times from 60 to 45 minutes led to a 26.4% increase in the number of procedures performed per week, but also increased patient wait time. Increasing the number of endoscopists by 1 each half day resulted in increased procedure volume, but there was a concomitant increase in patient wait time and nurse utilization exceeding capacity. By combining several proposed scenarios together in the simulation model, the greatest improvement in performance metrics was created by moving patient endoscopy appointments from the afternoon to the morning. In this simulation at 45- and 40-minute appointment times, procedure volume increased by 30.5% and 52.0% and patient time spent in the endoscopy center decreased by 17.4% and 13.0%, respectively. The predictions of the simulation model were found to be accurate when compared with actual changes implemented in the endoscopy center. LIMITATIONS: Findings may not be generalizable to non-safety-net endoscopy centers. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of minor, cost-effective changes such as reducing appointment times, minimizing and standardizing recovery time, and making small increases in preprocedure ancillary staff maximized endoscopy center efficiency across a number of performance metrics.

Non-physician performance of lower and upper endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Demand for endoscopic procedures worldwide has increased while the number of physicians trained to perform endoscopy has remained relatively constant. The objective of this study was to characterize non-physician performance of lower and upper endoscopic procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Bibliographical searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were included where patients underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or upper endoscopy done by a non-physician (nurse, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) and outcome measures were reported (detection of polyps, adenomas, cancer, and/or adverse events). Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups. RESULTS: Most studies involved nurses performing flexible sigmoidoscopies for colorectal cancer screening. Nurses and nurse-practitioners/physician assistants performing flexible sigmoidoscopies showed pooled polyp detection rates of 9.9 % and 23.7 %, adenoma detection rates of 2.9 % and 7.2 %, colorectal cancer detection rates of 1.3 % and 1.2 %, and adverse event rates of 0.3 and 0 per 1000 sigmoidoscopies, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp and adenoma detection rates in sigmoidoscopy performance studies comparing nurses or nurse-practitioners/physician assistants with physicians. For the 3 studies of non-physician performance of colonoscopy, pooled adenoma detection rate was 26.4 %, cecal intubation rate was 93.5 %, and adverse event rate was 2.2 /1000 colonoscopies. In the few studies examining upper endoscopies, 99.4 % of upper endoscopy procedures performed by nurses were successful with no reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Available studies suggest that when non-physicians perform endoscopic procedures, especially lower endoscopies, outcomes and adverse events are in line with those of physicians.