Postendoscopy Care for Patients Presenting With Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction: A Population-Based Multicenter Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal food bolus impactions (FBI) are a common gastrointestinal emergency. Appropriate management includes not only index endoscopy for disimpaction but also medical follow-up and treatment for the underlying esophageal pathology. We evaluated the appropriateness of postendoscopy care for patients with FBI and assessed patient-related, physician-related, and system-related factors that may contribute to loss to follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based, multicenter cohort study of all adult patients undergoing endoscopy for FBI in the Calgary Health Zone, Canada, from 2016 to 2018. Appropriate postendoscopy care was defined by a composite of a clinical or endoscopic follow-up visit, appropriate investigations (e.g., manometry), or therapy (e.g., proton-pump inhibitors or endoscopic dilation). Predictors of inappropriate care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 519 patients underwent endoscopy for FBI: 25.2% (131/519) did not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. Half of the patients (55.3%, 287/519) underwent follow-up endoscopy or attended clinic, and among this group, 22.3% (64/287) had a change in their initial diagnosis after follow-up, including 3 new cases of esophageal cancer. Patients in whom a suspected underlying esophageal pathology was not identified at the index endoscopy were 7-fold (adjusted odds ratio 7.28, 95% confidence interval 4.49-11.78, P < 0.001) more likely to receive inappropriate postendoscopy follow-up and treatment, even after adjusting for age, sex, rural residence, timing of endoscopy, weekend presentation, and endoscopic interventions. DISCUSSION: One-quarter of patients presenting with an FBI do not receive appropriate postendoscopy care. This is strongly associated with failure to identify a potential underlying pathology at index presentation.

Quality gaps in screening and monitoring for postoperative hyperglycemia in a Canadian hospital: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative glycemic management may reduce poor surgical outcomes. Previous studies suggest that quality gaps in perioperative glycemic management may be common. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used administrative health and laboratory data from a single center to estimate quality gaps in perioperative glycemic management in patients with and without diabetes between April 2019 and March 2020. We examined the proportion of patients with preoperative hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement, postoperative point-of-care testing (POCT) for glucose, hyperglycemia, and basal bolus insulin regimens. We compared the median length of stay (LOS) in patients with and without postoperative hyperglycemia, adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: There were 6576 patients in our cohort; 1165 (17.8%) had diabetes. Most patients with diabetes had an HbA1c measured prior to surgery (n=697, 59.8%). Postoperatively, 16.9% of patients with diabetes had no POCT monitoring (n=197) and 65.7% had hyperglycemia (n=636). Only 35.9% of patients who received insulin had a basal bolus insulin regimen (n=229). Patients with diabetes who had postoperative hyperglycemia had a longer median LOS compared with those who did not have postoperative hyperglycemia (8.4 days (95% CI 7.5 to 9.4) and 6.7 days (95% CI 6.3 to 7.1), respectively). In patients without diabetes, median LOS was 7.4 days (95% CI 4.4 to 10.4) for those with hyperglycemia and 5.2 days (95% CI 5.1 to 5.4) for those with in-target glucose. CONCLUSIONS: Quality gaps in perioperative glycemic management include measurement of blood glucose after surgery and treatment of postoperative hyperglycemia. These gaps may contribute to longer LOS.