Screening for Prediabetes and Diabetes in a National Network of Federally Qualified Health Centers: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening for prediabetes and diabetes among adults aged 35-70 years with overweight or obesity. Studying dysglycemia screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that serve vulnerable patient populations is needed to understand health equity implications of this recommendation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate screening practices among FQHC patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study analyzing electronic health records from a national network of 282 FQHC sites. PARTICIPANTS: We included 183,329 patients without prior evidence of prediabetes or diabetes, who had ≥ 1 office visit from 2018-2020. MAIN MEASURES: Screening eligibility was based on age and measured body mass index (BMI). The primary outcome, screening completion, was ascertained using hemoglobin A1c or fasting plasma glucose results from 2018-2020. KEY RESULTS: Among 89,543 patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation, 53,263 (59.5%) were screened. Those who completed screening had higher BMI values than patients who did not (33.0 ± 6.7 kg/m2 vs. 31.9 ± 6.2 kg/m2, p < 0.001). Adults aged 50-64 years had greater odds of screening completion relative to younger patients (OR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.10-1.17). Patients from racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as those without health insurance, were more likely to complete screening than White patients and insured patients, respectively. Clinical risk factors for diabetes were also associated with dysglycemia screening. Among patients who completed screening, 23,588 (44.3%) had values consistent with prediabetes or diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of FQHC patients who would be eligible according to the 2021 USPSTF recommendation were screened. Screening completion was higher among middle-aged patients, those with greater BMI values, as well as vulnerable groups with a high risk of developing diabetes. Future research should examine adoption of the 2021 USPSTF screening recommendation and its impact on health equity.

Cecal retroflexion is infrequently performed in routine practice and the retroflexed view is of poor quality.

BACKGROUND: As right colon polyps are challenging to detect, a retroflexed view of right colon (RV) may be useful. However, cecal retroflexion (CR) without a RV to the hepatic flexure (HF) is inadequate. We aimed to determine the frequency of CR and quality of the RV in routine practice. METHODS: This prospective observational study performed at an academic medical center assessed colonoscopy inspection technique of endoscopists who had performed ≥ 100 annual screening colonoscopies. We video recorded ≥ 28 screening/surveillance colonoscopies per endoscopist and randomly evaluated 7 videos per endoscopist. Six gastroenterologists blindly reviewed the videos to determine if CR was performed and HF withdrawal time (cecum to HF time, excluding ileal/polypectomy time). RESULTS: Reviewers assessed 119 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists. The median HF withdrawal time was 3 min and 46 s. CR was performed in 31% of colonoscopies. CR frequency varied between endoscopists with 9 never performing CR and 2 performing CR in all colonoscopies. When performed, nearly half (43%) of RVs did not extend to the HF with median RV duration of 16 s (IQR 9-30 s). Three polyps were identified in the RV (polyp detection rate of 8.1%), all identified prior to a forward view. CONCLUSIONS: CR is performed infrequently in routine practice. When CR is performed, the RV is of low quality with a very short inspection duration and insufficient ascending colon examination. Further education is required to educate endoscopists in optimal technique to improve overall colonoscopy quality.

Deaths from hepatocellular carcinoma are more likely to occur in medical facilities than deaths from other cancers: 2003-2018.

Place of death is a key indicator of quality of end-of-life care, and most people with a terminal diagnosis prefer to die at home. Home has surpassed the hospital as the most common location of all-cause and total cancer-related deaths in the United States. However, trends in place of death due to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which is uniquely comanaged by hepatologists and oncologists, have not been described. We analysed US death certificate data from 2003 to 2018 for the proportion of deaths over time at medical facilities, nursing facilities, hospice facilities and home, for HCC and non-HCC cancer. The proportion of deaths increased from 0.6% to 15.2% in hospice facilities (P trend < 0.0001) but did not change at home. In multivariable analysis, persons with HCC were more likely than persons with non-HCC cancer to die in medical facilities, while persons with HCC were less likely to die at home.

Colonoscopy education delivered via the patient portal does not improve adherence to scheduled first-time screening colonoscopy.

Background and study aims Non-adherence to scheduled colonoscopy burdens endoscopic practices and innovative approaches to improve adherence are needed. We aimed to assess the effect of an educational video emphasizing colonoscopy importance delivered through the electronic health record patient portal upon "no-show" and late cancellation rates (non-adherence) in patients scheduled for first-time screening colonoscopy. Patients and methods We conducted a single center randomized controlled trial among patients scheduled for their first screening colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to routine care ("control") or video education ("video"). Control patients received a portal message 14 days prior to colonoscopy date; video patients additionally received a link to the educational video. Results In total, 830 patients (59 % female, median age 55 years) were randomized ("control": 406; "video": 424). Nearly all (88 %) opened the message; in the video arm, most (72 %) watched a majority of the video. Overall, 80 % attended their scheduled colonoscopy appointment (late cancel: 18 %, "no show": 1 %) and 90 % underwent colonoscopy within 3 months of appointment. Adherence rates did not differ between video and control arms for the scheduled appointment (OR 1.2, CI 0.9-1.8) or for colonoscopy within 3 months of scheduled appointment (OR 1.3, CI 0.8-2.1). Bowel preparation quality did not differ between the groups. Conclusion Most patients scheduled for colonoscopy will open a patient portal message and, when delivered, watch an educational video. However, delivery of an educational video two weeks prior to screening colonoscopy appointment did not improve adherence.

Association between improved adenoma detection rates and interval colorectal cancer rates after a quality improvement program.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, interval CRCs (iCRCs) still occur. We aimed to determine iCRC incidence, assess the relationship between adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and iCRC rates, and evaluate iCRC rates over time concomitant with initiation of an institutional colonoscopy quality improvement (QI) program. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy at an academic medical center (January 2003 to December 2015). We identified iCRCs through our data warehouse and reviewed charts to confirm appropriateness for study inclusion. iCRC was defined as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 60 months and early iCRC as a cancer diagnosed 6 to 36 months after index colonoscopy. We measured the relationship between provider ADRs and iCRC rates and assessed iCRC rates over time with initiation of a QI program that started in 2010. RESULTS: A total of 193,939 colonoscopies were performed over the study period. We identified 186 patients with iCRC. The overall iCRC rate was .12% and the early iCRC rate .06%. Average-risk patients undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the highest ADR quartile (34%-52%) had a 4-fold lower iCRC risk (relative risk, .23; 95% confidence interval, .11-.48) than those undergoing colonoscopy by endoscopists in the lowest quartile (12%-21%). After QI program initiation, overall iCRC rates improved from .15% to .08% (P < .001) and early iCRC rates improved from .07% to .04% (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that iCRC rate is inversely correlated with provider ADR. ADRs increased and iCRC rates decreased over time, concomitant with a QI program focused on split-dose bowel preparation, quality metric measurement, provider education, and feedback. iCRC rate measurement should be considered a feasible, outcomes-driven institutional metric of colonoscopy quality.

Colon polypectomy report card improves polypectomy competency: results of a prospective quality improvement study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polypectomy competency varies significantly among providers. Poor polypectomy technique may lead to interval cancer and/or adverse events. Our aim was to determine the effect of a polypectomy skills report card on subsequent polypectomy performance. METHODS: We conducted a 3-phase, prospective, single-blinded study. In phase 1 ("baseline"), we graded 10 polypectomies per endoscopist using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool (scores 1-4); mean overall scores ≥3 are competent. In phase 2 ("pre-report card"), we selected 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist. We subsequently gave endoscopists a report card with baseline scores and instructional videos demonstrating optimal polypectomy technique. In phase 3 ("post-report card"), 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist were selected. Raters, blinded to study phase, graded 10 pre- and 10 post-report card polypectomies per endoscopist. We compared mean DOPyS scores and rate of competent polypectomy in the pre- and post-report card phases. RESULTS: We graded 110 pre- and 110 post-report card polypectomies performed by 11 endoscopists. The mean DOPyS score increased between the pre- and post-report card phases (2.7 ± .9 vs 3.0 ± .8, P = .01); this improvement was seen for diminutive (P < .0001) but not for small-to-large polyps. Rate of competent polypectomy significantly improved from the pre- to post-report card phase (56% vs 69%, P = .04); this improvement was seen for diminutive (57% vs 81%, P = .001) but not for small-to-large polyps (55% vs 36%, P = .2). CONCLUSIONS: Report cards with educational videos effectively improved polypectomy technique, primarily because of improvements in resecting diminutive polyps. The improved competency and decreased piecemeal resection may reduce the risk of polyp recurrence. Further education is needed to improve larger polyp resection.

Video-Based Assessments of Colonoscopy Inspection Quality Correlate With Quality Metrics and Highlight Areas for Improvement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) vary significantly among colonoscopists. Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) is the quality with which a colonoscopist inspects for polyps and may explain some of this variation. We aimed to determine the relationship between CIQ and historical ADRs and SDRs in a cohort of colonoscopists and assess whether there is variation in CIQ components (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) among colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to assess CIQ among 17 high-volume colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we video-recorded >28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 7 colonoscopies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Six raters graded CIQ using an established scale, with a maximum whole colon score of 75. RESULTS: We evaluated 119 colonoscopies. The median whole-colon CIQ score was 50.1/75. Whole-colon CIQ score (r=0.71; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.74; cleaning r=0.67; distension r=0.77; all P<.01) correlated with ADR. Proximal colon CIQ score (r=0.67; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.71; cleaning r=0.62; distension r=0.65; all P<.05) correlated with SDR. CIQ component scores differed significantly between colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs for most of the CIQ skills. CONCLUSION: In a prospective observational study, we found CIQ and CIQ components to correlate with ADR and SDR. Colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs differ in their performance of the 3 CIQ components-specific, actionable feedback might improve colonoscopy technique.

Comparison of endoscopy and radiographic imaging for detection of esophageal inflammation and remodeling in adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Eosinophil predominant mucosal inflammation is central to the diagnosis and activity assessment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Esophageal mural remodeling is an important consequence of EoE that is responsible for adverse events of dysphagia, food impaction, and esophageal stenosis. The aim of this study was to compare upper endoscopy (EGD) with barium upper GI study (UGI) for the detection of esophageal inflammation and remodeling in adults with EoE. METHODS: A retrospective review on a single-center database of adults with confirmed EoE identified those with EGD and UGI performed within 6 months of each another. Studies were reviewed for mucosal inflammatory and remodeling abnormalities. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included. Initial UGI results were consistent with EoE in 10% and suggestive of EoE in 39%. Review of UGI by a senior GI radiologist increased detection of changes consistent with EoE (34%). EGD identified characteristic abnormalities in 93%, which was significantly greater than UGI (67%). Inflammatory features were more frequently appreciated on EGD (74%) compared with UGI (21%). There was no significant difference in fibrostenotic changes observed on EGD (84%) versus UGI (73%). CONCLUSIONS: EGD and UGI have similar sensitivity for identifying the remodeling consequences of EoE; however, inflammatory features are better assessed on EGD. Inadequate sensitivity of UGI for composite features of EoE limits its capabilities as a diagnostic test, although radiologists' awareness significantly increases the diagnostic yield of UGI. UGI and EGD may identify fibrostenotic changes unappreciated by its counterpart and thus provide complementary information in select patients.

An Automated Inpatient Split-dose Bowel Preparation System Improves Colonoscopy Quality and Reduces Repeat Procedures.

BACKGROUND/GOALS: Inpatient colonoscopy preparations are often inadequate, compromising patient safety and procedure quality, while resulting in greater hospital costs. The aims of this study were to: (1) design and implement an electronic inpatient split-dose bowel preparation order set; (2) assess the intervention's impact upon preparation adequacy, repeated colonoscopies, hospital days, and costs. STUDY: We conducted a single center prospective pragmatic quasiexperimental study of hospitalized adults undergoing colonoscopy. The experimental intervention was designed using DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control) methodology. Prospective data collected over 12 months were compared with data from a historical preintervention cohort. The primary outcome was bowel preparation quality and secondary outcomes included number of repeated procedures, hospital days, and costs. RESULTS: On the basis of a Delphi method and DMAIC process, we created an electronic inpatient bowel preparation order set inclusive of a split-dose bowel preparation algorithm, automated orders for rescue medications, and nursing bowel preparation checks. The analysis data set included 969 patients, 445 (46%) in the postintervention group. The adequacy of bowel preparation significantly increased following intervention (86% vs. 43%; P<0.01) and proportion of repeated procedures decreased (2.0% vs. 4.6%; P=0.03). Mean hospital days from bowel preparation initiation to discharge decreased from 8.0 to 6.9 days (P=0.02). The intervention resulted in an estimated 1-year cost-savings of $46,076 based on a reduction in excess hospital days associated with repeated and delayed procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our interdisciplinary initiative targeting inpatient colonoscopy preparations significantly improved quality and reduced repeat procedures, and hospital days. Other institutions should consider utilizing this framework to improve inpatient colonoscopy value.

Design and participant characteristics for a randomized effectiveness trial of an intensive lifestyle intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in adults with type 2 diabetes: The I-D-HEALTH study.

Intervening in Diabetes with Healthy Eating, Activity and Linkages To Healthcare (I-D-HEALTH) is a community-based randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based adaption of the Look AHEAD intensive lifestyle intervention. Most potentially eligible patients were identified through electronic medical record queries or referral to a diabetes resource hub. Trial enrollees had a usual source of primary care, elevated body mass index (BMI) and type 2 diabetes. I-D-HEALTH participants were randomized to either standard care alone or standard care plus free-of-charge access to a group-based lifestyle intervention (GLI) offered by the YMCA. GLI participation was encouraged, but not required, for the latter group. The primary outcome is percent weight change over 6, 12 and 24months. Secondary outcomes include direct intervention costs and direct medical and non-medical expenditures, as well as changes in systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c and cholesterol. Among 331 I-D-HEALTH participants, 167 were randomized to standard care and 164 to GLI. The mean age (±standard deviation) in each group was 57.1years (±12.2) and 57.6years (±10.5), respectively. Mean BMI was 34.9kg/m(2) (±7.3) among standard care participants and 36.2kg/m(2) (±7.8) among GLI participants. In both groups, approximately one third of participants were non-Hispanic Whites. We detected no significant differences between groups in mean systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c or total cholesterol (P >0.05 for all characteristics above). The I-D-HEALTH study enrolled a diverse sample of adults with diabetes and offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of offering a community-based intensive lifestyle intervention.

Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adequate bowel preparation is essential to safe and effective inpatient colonoscopy. Predictors of poor inpatient colonoscopy preparation and the economic impacts of inadequate inpatient preparations are not defined. The aims of this study were to (1) determine risk factors for inadequate inpatient bowel preparations, and (2) examine the association between inadequate inpatient bowel preparation and hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy preparation over 12 months (1/1/2013-12/31/2013). RESULTS: Of 524 identified patients, 22.3% had an inadequate preparation. A multiple logistic regression model identified the following potential predictors of inadequate bowel preparation: lower income (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.04, 1.22), opiate or tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) use (OR 1.55; 0.98, 2.46), and afternoon colonoscopy (OR 1.66; 1.07, 2.59); as well as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (OR 1.15; 1.05, 1.25) and symptoms of nausea/vomiting (OR 1.14; 1.04, 1.25) when a fair preparation was considered inadequate. Inadequate bowel preparation was associated with significantly increased hospital LOS (model relative mean estimate 1.25; 95% CI 1.03, 1.51) and hospital costs (estimate 1.31; 1.03, 1.67) when compared to adequate preparations. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of inadequate inpatient bowel preparations is high and associated with a significant increase in hospital LOS and costs. We identified five potential predictors of inadequate inpatient preparation: lower socioeconomic class, opiate/TCA use, afternoon colonoscopies, ASA class ≥3, and pre-preparation nausea/vomiting; these data should guide future initiatives to improve the quality of inpatient bowel preparations.