Gastroenterologists attitude in various clinical settings in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: An online Uni-National Israeli Survey.

ABSTRACT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted our clinical practice. Many gastroenterologists have changed their attitudes toward various gastroenterological clinical settings. The aim of the present study is to explore the gastroenterologist's attitudes in several clinical settings encountered in the clinical practice.An online based survey was completed by 101 of 250 Israeli gastroenterologists (40.5%).Most of the participants were males (76.2%), and most of them were in the age range of 40 to 50 (37.6%). For all questionnaire components, the 2 most common chosen options were "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without preendoscopy severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing" and "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-CoV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite." Notably, 12 (11.9%) gastroenterologists were infected by Coronavirus disease 2019 during their work. Classifying the clinical settings to either elective and non-elective, most gastroenterologists (77.4%) chose the attitude of "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without SARS-COV-2 testing" in the nonelective settings as compared to 54.2% for the elective settings, (P < .00001), whereas 32.9% of the responders chose the attitude of "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-COV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite" in the elective settings (P < .00001).Gastroenterologists' attitude in various gastroenterological settings was based on the clinical indication. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term consequences of the different attitudes.

Provider Viewpoints in the Management and Referral of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer treated at specialized or high-volume hospitals have better outcomes, but a minority of these patients are treated there. Physician recommendations are important considerations for patients with rectal cancer when making treatment decisions, yet little is known about the factors that affect these physician referral patterns. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in 2018-2019 with Iowa gastroenterologists (GIs) and general surgeons (GSs) who performed colonoscopies in a community setting. A thematic approach was used to analyze and code qualitative data. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 GIs and 6 GSs with self-reported averages of 15.5 y in practice, 1100 endoscopic procedures annually, and 6 rectal cancer diagnoses annually. Physicians believed surgeon experience and colorectal specialization were directly related to positive outcomes in rectal cancer resections. Most GSs performed resections on patients they diagnosed and typically only referred patients to colorectal surgeons (CRS) in complex cases. Conversely, GIs generally referred to CRS in all cases. Adhering to existing referral patterns due to the pressure of health care networks was a salient theme for both GIs and GSs. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents believe that high volume/specialization is related to improved surgical outcomes, referral recommendations are heavily influenced by existing referral networks. Referral practices also differ by diagnosing specialty and suggest rural patients may be less likely to be referred to a CRS because more GSs perform colonoscopies in rural areas and tend to keep patients for resection. System-level interventions that target referral networks may improve rectal cancer outcomes at the population level.

Hepatocellular carcinoma from the view of gastroenterologist/hepatologist.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the major complications of chronic liver disease, mostly of liver cirrhosis. Liver diseases from different causes differ in the risks of HCC development. Different mechanisms of carcinogenesis are involved in HCC development in different liver diseases as well. Generally, two main pathways are distinguished: the cause of liver disease itself (e.g. viral infections, accumulation of heavy metals etc.) and chronic liver inflammation and fibrogenesis, including mechanisms of oxidative stress. Rare cases of HCC in liver without underlying cirrhosis are likely the consequences of the mechanisms directly linked with particular etiological factor (e.g. protein X in chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection). The key approach which can lead to significantly better results of any treatment used in HCC cases is HCC screening and surveillance. The appropriate method of HCC surveillance is abdominal ultrasonography in 6-month intervals. There is still one question to be solved: the correct definition of target population which should undergo this method of surveillance. Currently, the target population in the developed world is defined as all patients with liver cirrhosis. Unfortunately, the only method of primary prevention of HCC is available: universal HBV vaccination. Antiviral treatment of hepatitis B or C is considered as a method of secondary prevention. Adjuvant therapy of HCC after its primary therapy (antiviral therapy after HCC resection etc.) and other measures able to reduce HCC recurrence risk are usually mentioned as tertiary prevention approach. The BCLC staging system is the most common system used in Europe for the classification of HCC at the dia-gnosis. This classification combines the stage of HCC itself with other parameters, such as liver disease severity (Child - Pugh classification), portal hypertension etc. BCLC is a system which guides the physicians to optimal treatment options in every HCC stage. The only potentially curable approaches are surgical resection or liver transplantation. These options may be used in 1/3 of all HCC patients. Unfortunately, the vast majority of HCC patients can be treated only by palliative treatment options with transarterial chemoembolisation being the most common one.

COVID-19 from the Perspective of a Gastroenterologist.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the worldwide pandemic of Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) On March 11, 2020, just three months after the first outbreak of COVID-19 caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in China in December 2019. COVID-19 is a contagious disease that can affect anyone, anytime, anywhere, and has had a huge impact on our lives, including social, economic, educational, and cultural life. In this paper, I would like to explore the issues related to COVID-19 in the gastroenterology and share the experiences of domestic and overseas gastroenterologists, and ultimately to seek ways to effectively prepare for and cope with the pandemic era of COVID-19.

Impact of Endoscopists' Personality Traits on Adenoma and Polyp Detection Rates in Colonoscopy: A KASID Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The personality traits of endoscopists have been suggested to affect the adenoma detection rate (ADR). We thus evaluated the relationship between endoscopists' personality traits and the ADR during colonoscopy using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). METHODS: In total, 1230 patients (asymptomatic and aged 50-80 years) who underwent screening or surveillance (≥ 5 years) colonoscopy were recruited from 13 university hospitals by 20 endoscopists between September 2015 and December 2017. We retrospectively measured the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). All 20 endoscopists completed all 567 true/false MMPI-2 items. RESULTS: The overall mean colonoscopy withdrawal time, PDR, ADR, and APC were 7.3 ± 2.8 min, 55%, 45.3%, and 0.97 ± 1.58, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the MMPI-2 clinical scales (e.g., hypochondriasis and psychasthenia), content scales (e.g., obsessiveness and type A character), or supplementary scales (e.g., dominance and social responsibility) between the high ADR group (ADR ≥45%, n = 10) and the low ADR group (ADR < 45%, n = 10). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the ADR was associated significantly with patient age and sex. The ADR was related significantly to endoscopists' colonoscopy experience and the per-minute increase in the colonoscopy withdrawal time (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.38, p = 0.005). In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for patient factors, the ADR was associated significantly with ego strength (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.09, p = 0.044), as measured by the MMPI-2. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of ego strength, the endoscopists' personality traits were not associated with adenoma or polyp detection.

Identifying IBD Providers' Knowledge Gaps Using a Prospective Web-based Survey.

BACKGROUND: As treatments, management strategies, and the role of advanced practice providers (APPs) have evolved in recent years, the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation sought to understand the educational and resource needs of clinicians caring for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). The aim of this study was to describe the self-identified IBD knowledge and resource gaps of clinicians to inform the development of future programming. METHODS: A survey containing 19 questions created by the foundation's Professional Education Committee, a subset of its National Scientific Advisory Committee, was conducted from September 7, 2018 to October 15, 2018. Responses were included from providers if they were currently seeing any IBD patients in a clinical setting. The foundation distributed the survey by email and various social media channels to encourage a diverse response. The survey included questions on comfort levels around diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with IBD, in addition to preferences and utilization of educational resources. The × 2 test was used to evaluate significant differences among respondents in the various domains surveyed. RESULTS: There were 197 eligible responses, of which 75% were from MD/Dos, followed by 25% APN/PA/RN/MSN/PhD/other; and 70% of respondents provide care for adult patients. The amount of time in practice was divided evenly among respondents. Fifty-seven percent of respondents practice in an academic/university setting, and approximately 75% indicated that ≥21% of their practice consisted of patients with IBD. Forty-four percent and 46% of respondents reported access to IBD based mental health providers and social workers in their practice, respectively. Seventy-two percent reported access to radiologists, 69% had access to dietitians, and 62% had access to advance practice providers. The areas of greatest educational need were prescribing medical cannabis (if approved locally) for pain management (62%); caring for patients with prior malignancy (35%); caring for pregnant patients and family planning (33%); caring for elderly patients (30%); and therapy decisions, including use of JAK inhibitors (29%), drug holidays (25%), and use of biosimilars (24%). More than 50% of respondents stated they do not participate in shared decision-making, citing time as the most common limiting factor. The majority of providers cited live education as their preferred learning format, and they wish to earn continuing medical education (CME) hours. CONCLUSION: This survey helped identify current IBD educational needs in our professional community. With a rapidly changing treatment landscape and an increase in the diversity of providers delivering care, additional opportunities to keep abreast of practice changes are critical to providing comprehensive, quality care in IBD. Our survey demonstrated that shared decision-making is underutilized in practice due to a need for resources that aid in its efficient integration into practice. Based on our results, a focus on creating live learning opportunities that offer CME are needed in the areas of therapeutic decision-making and treating IBD in special subsets (eg, prior malignancy, pregnancy, elderly).

Prevalence of burnout syndrome in gastroenterologists and endoscopists: results of a national survey in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Burnout syndrome (BOS) is characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment. It affects doctors, patients and their inter-relationship. There is a lack of data on BOS in Mexico. The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the prevalence of BOS in physician members of the Mexican gastroenterological association (MGA) and Mexican association for gastrointestinal endoscopy (MAGE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross sectional, prospective study through anonymous electronic survey via e-mail, sent to members of the MGA (n = 1192) and MAGE (n = 600). The survey included questions about basic sociodemographic information, Maslach Burnout Inventory, and factors potentially associated with BOS. Continuous variables were summarized as means and ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare groups. Nominal variables were summarized as proportions and Fisher's exact test or Χ2 test were used, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 1792 e-mail invitations were delivered and 411 answers were received with a response rate of 22.9%. The prevalence of BOS according to the Maslach Burnout Inventory was 26.3% (108/411). The prevalence of BOS according to the single-item self-defined burnout question (SISDBOQ) was 32.6% (134/411). The Kappa coefficient for emotional exhaustion between the SISDBOQ and Maslach inventory was 0.48 (p = 0.0001). Factors associated with BOS included performing endoscopic procedures (OR 2.9 (1.2-6.6); p = 0.008), lack of support from colleagues upon complications (OR 0.2 (0.1-0.4); p = 0.0001), receiving frequent reprimands from superiors (OR 2.4 (1.5-3.8); p = 0.0001), work unrelated to medicine (OR 2.4 (1.4-3.9); p = 0.0001), work violence/harassment (OR 3.0 (1.9-4.9); p = 0.0001) and living in a big city (OR 1.9 (1.2-3); p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: BOS is a frequent entity in Mexican gastroenterologists and endoscopists. There are potentially modifiable factors associated with BOS.

COVID-19: médicos, gastroenterología y emociones / COVID-19: doctors, gastroenterology and emotions

La enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) se convirtió en una pandemia con implicaciones clínicas y emo-cionales, a veces invisibles para los gastroenterólogos. Aunque morir es parte de la vida, el riesgo para algunos médicos puede ser mayor. Específicamente, los gastroenterólogos nos vemos afectados por el temor a reiniciar nuestras consultas y procedimientos endoscópicos. En medio de un mar de información ­incluso con contradicciones entre diferentes expertos­, seguir los lineamientos de las Asociaciones Colombianas del Aparato Digestivo podría ayudar a tranquilizar a los médicos y pacientes. Aunque las patologías seguirán apareciendo, el miedo de la población a contagiarse puede generar consecuencias como el retraso en el tratamiento de un cáncer de vías digestivas. El autocuidado físico mediante estrategias de protección y el cuidado emocional son clave para ayudar a nuestro sistema inmunológico. Adaptarnos a funcionar en medio de la pandemia por medio de la teleorientación en plataformas digitales es una forma creativa de disminuir la angustia colectiva.(AU)

COVID-19 is a pandemic with clinical and emotional implications, sometimes invisible to gastroenterologists. Although dying is part of life, the risk for some doctors may be greater. Specifically, gastroenterologists are affected by the fear of restarting medical check-ups and endoscopic procedures. Amid a sea of information ­even with contradictions between different experts­ following the guidelines of the Colombian Associations of the Digestive Tract could help reassure doctors and patients. Although the pathologies will continue to appear, the fear of the population to be infected can generate consequences such as delaying the treatment of digestive tract cancers. Physical self-care through protection strategies and the emotional care, are important to help our immune system. Adapting to function during the pandemic, using tele-orientation through digital platforms, is a creative way to reduce collective anxiety.(AU)

Physicians' Perspectives on Palliative Care for Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease: A National Survey Study.

Specialty palliative care (PC) is underused for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). We sought to examine attitudes of hepatologists and gastroenterologists about PC for patients with ESLD. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of these specialists who provide care to patients with ESLD. Participants were recruited from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases membership directory. Using a questionnaire adapted from prior studies, we examined physicians' attitudes about PC and whether these attitudes varied based on patients' candidacy for liver transplantation. We identified predictors of physicians' attitudes about PC using linear regression. Approximately one-third of eligible physicians (396/1236, 32%) completed the survey. Most (95%) believed that centers providing care to patients with ESLD should have PC services, and 86% trusted PC clinicians to care for their patients. Only a minority reported collaborating frequently with inpatient (32%) or outpatient (11%) PC services. Most believed that when patients hear the term PC, they feel scared (94%) and anxious (87%). Most (83%) believed that patients would think nothing more could be done for their underlying disease if a PC referral was suggested. Physicians who believed that ESLD is a terminal condition (B = 1.09; P = 0.006) reported more positive attitudes about PC. Conversely, physicians with negative perceptions of PC for transplant candidates (B = -0.22; standard error = 0.05; P < 0.001) reported more negative attitudes toward PC. In conclusion, although most hepatologists and gastroenterologists believe that patients with ESLD should have access to PC, they reported rarely collaborating with PC teams and had substantial concerns about patients' perceptions of PC. Interventions are needed to overcome misperceptions of PC and to promote collaboration with PC clinicians for patients with ESLD.

Establishing a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Tens of millions of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed every year in China, but the quality varies significantly and related factors are complex. Individual endoscopist- and endoscopy division-related factors may be useful to establish a model to measure and predict the quality of endoscopy. AIM: To establish a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in mainland China. METHODS: Selected data on endoscopy experience, equipment, facility, qualification of endoscopists, and other relevant variables were collected from the National Database of Digestive Endoscopy of China. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the potential predictive variables for occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. Linear and nonlinear regressions were used to establish models to predict incidence of endoscopic complications. RESULTS: In 2012, gastroscopy/colonoscopy-related complications in mainland China included bleeding in 4,359 cases (0.02%) and perforation in 914 (0.003%). Endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography-related complications included severe acute pancreatitis in 593 cases (0.3%), bleeding in 2,151 (1.10%), perforation in 257 (0.13%) and biliary infection in 4,125 (2.11%). Moreover, 1,313 (5.0%) endoscopists encountered with medical malpractice, and 5,243 (20.0%) encountered with the disturbance from patients. The length of endoscopy experience, weekly working hours, weekly night shifts, annual vacation days and job satisfaction were predictors for the occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. However, the length of endoscopy experience and the ratio of endoscopists to nurses were not adequate to establish an effective predictive model for endoscopy complications. CONCLUSION: The workload and job satisfaction of endoscopists are valuable predictors for medical malpractice or patient disturbance. More comprehensive data are needed to establish quality-predictive models for endoscopic complications.

Five common errors to avoid in clinical practice: the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) Choosing Wisely Campaign.

Modern medicine provides almost infinite diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities if compared to the past. As a result, patients undergo a multiplication of tests and therapies, which in turn may trigger further tests, often based on physicians' attitudes or beliefs, which are not always evidence-based. The Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign to promote an informed, evidence-based approach to gastroenterological problems. The aim of this article is to report the five recommendations of the AIGO Choosing Wisely Campaign, and the process used to develop them. The AIGO members' suggestions regarding inappropriate practices/interventions were collected. One hundred and twenty-one items were identified. Among these, five items were selected and five recommendations were developed. The five recommendations developed were: (1) Do not request a fecal occult blood test outside the colorectal cancer screening programme; (2) Do not repeat surveillance colonoscopy for polyps, after a quality colonoscopy, before the interval suggested by the gastroenterologist on the colonoscopy report, or based on the polyp histology report; (3) Do not repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with reflux symptoms, with or without hiatal hernia, in the absence of different symptoms or alarm symptoms; (4) Do not repeat abdominal ultrasound in asymptomatic patients with small hepatic haemangiomas (diameter < 3 cm) once the diagnosis has been established conclusively; (5) Do not routinely prescribe proton pump inhibitors within the context of steroid use or long-term in patients with functional dyspepsia. AIGO adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign and developed five recommendations. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of these recommendations in clinical practice with regards to clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Physicians' attitude and perception regarding celiac disease: A questionnaire-based study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Despite its high prevalence, affecting about 1% of the general population, celiac disease (CD) remains heavily underdiagnosed. Among the reasons for underdiagnosis, awareness among medical professionals has been little studied. The aim of this survey was to determine physicians' knowledge in regard to CD in adult patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 18-items questionnaire pointing out general features, clinical presentation, diagnosis and management of CD patients was addressed to physicians from different medical specialties, in training or board-certified, from one universitary center. RESULTS: Altogether 153 physicians were invited to complete the survey (69.3% female, 35.9% gastroenterologists). Overall, 69.9% of the physicians questioned considered CD as a rare disorder. Lymphoma increased risk was highlighted in significant higher proportion by gastroenterologists when compared with physicians of other medical specialty. Chronic diarrhea, weight loss, iron-deficiency anemia, and abdominal pain were the first four conditions recognized as associated with CD, by 94.1%, 76.5%, 61.4%, and 54.2% study participants, respectively. About one-third of respondents (34.5%) affirmed to perform total serum IgA testing in all patients tested for CD. Intestinal biopsy confirmation of a positive celiac serology was reported by 65.4% physicians, with a higher proportion among gastroenterologists: 81.5% versus 56.6%. In regard to CD management, both groups concluded that referral to specialized centers should be recommended. CONCLUSION: This study highlights poor awareness among the physicians' in regard to important CD features and diagnostic recommendations in adult patients. More efforts are warranted to improve awareness on CD features among physicians of different medical specialties.

Physicians' Perspectives on Cost, Safety, and Perceived Efficacy Determine Aminosalicylate Use in Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Aminosalicylates are the most commonly prescribed therapy in Crohn's disease (CD), despite uncertainty in the evidence to support their efficacy. AIMS: To examine physicians' perspectives on aminosalicylate use for CD and explore the discordance between clinical practice and the evidence base. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was performed amongst physicians with at least 4 years of independent experience in managing CD patients. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted using an exploratory interview guide. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed to elucidate concepts pertaining to treatment strategies for CD, motivations for prescribing aminosalicylates, perceived benefits and harms of aminosalicylate use, and the relationship between the evidence and real-world prescribing practices. RESULTS: A representative sample of thirty physicians from four different countries and multiple practice environments (university/teaching hospitals, public practice, private/community practice, and subspecialty gastroenterology clinics) participated. Nearly all physicians (93.3%, 28/30) reported prescribing aminosalicylates for CD. Aminosalicylates were endorsed as first-line therapy for mild CD by nearly half of participants (13/30, 43.3%). A favorable safety profile, possible efficacy in mild colonic CD, and patient reluctance to step-up to other therapies were primary motivators for aminosalicylate use. Almost half of respondents (46.7%) expressed that the evidence informing aminosalicylate efficacy in CD differed substantially from their own clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' beliefs about efficacy in subgroups of CD patients, safety, and patient preferences primarily motivate aminosalicylate prescription in CD. There is a lack of confidence in published clinical trials, and a desire for more robust evidence to inform 5-ASA use in CD.

Do recent reports about the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors change providers' prescription practice?

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are utilized for a variety of indications, including treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Several studies have documented an increasing prevalence of inappropriate PPI use. Furthermore, recent media reports have highlighted new research data suggesting a possible association between chronic PPI use and several adverse medical outcomes, leading to frequent patient inquiries about these associations. Thus, providers face the challenge of counseling patients about the balance of risks and benefits related to PPI use. We aimed to explore providers' knowledge and attitudes toward reported adverse effects of PPI use and compare providers' prescription practices. A comprehensive, non-incentivized electronic survey was sent to all providers (residents, fellows, advanced practice providers, and consultants across 8 internal medicine specialties) at our tertiary academic medical center. The survey contained 21 questions covering provider demographics and responses to challenging clinical scenarios dealing with PPI use. Chi-square was used to compare responses from providers. The survey was distributed to 254 providers, of which 94 (24 GI and 70 non-GI) completed the survey (37% response rate). Among those 94 providers, 48 were consultants, 17 were advanced practice providers, and 29 were trainees. Non-GI providers included cardiology, pulmonary, endocrinology, family medicine, general internal medicine, hematology/oncology, and nephrology. Over half of the providers (51 [54%]) described their practice as outpatient setting, 29 (31%) providers defined their practice as a mixed setting (inpatient and outpatient), while 14 (15%) designated it as inpatient only. Nineteen (80%) GI providers and 48 (69%) non-GI providers discussed the risks and benefits with patients (P = 0.64). Fifteen (63%) GI providers and 33 (47%) non-GI providers indicated that recent reports changed their practice (P = 0.49). More GI providers (5 [21%]) lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI (1[1%]) (P = 0.004); 18 (26%) of non-GI and 3 (13%) of GI providers discontinued PPI and substituted it with a histamine 2 (H2) blocker (P = 0.29). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of trainees (8 [28%]) switched PPI to H2 blockers compared with consultants (8 [17%]; P = 0.39). Six (25%) of GI providers and 14 (20%) of non-GI providers were concerned about Clostridium difficile infection (P = 0.58). Twenty-four (34%) of the non-GI were worried about kidney diseases compared with 3 (13%) of the GI providers (P = 0.1). Ten (21%) consultants were concerned about risk of osteoporosis compared with 3 (10%) trainees (P = 0.38), while 8 (28%) trainees were worried about the risk of C. difficile infection compared with 10 (21%) consultants (P = 0.69). Most providers (85 [90%]) agreed that educational activities would be helpful to address these challenges. More GI providers lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI; non-GI providers were more likely to discontinue PPI and substitute it with an H2 blocker. Educating patients and providers about potential adverse effects of PPI is imperative.

Fellows' perspective of HPB training programs in North America: results of a survey.

BACKGROUND: Sixteen hepatopancreatobiliary fellowship programs in North America are accredited by the Fellowship Council. This study aims to assess fellows' perceptions of their training program. METHODS: A multiple-choice questionnaire was sent to 35 fellows to assess how they perceived their training: academics, research, operative experiences, autonomy, mentorship, program quality and weaknesses. The survey was developed using the SurveyMonkey® tool. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 35 fellows completed the survey. Sixteen fellows reported structured didactics; 10 reported mandatory research. As to operative experiences; 9 fellows reported exposure to minimally-invasive liver surgery; 5 reported exposure to robotics. Fourteen fellows reported using ablation; 5 reported using ablation laparoscopically; 8 reported using mostly radiofrequency ablation; 1 reported using irreversible electroporation. Eighteen fellows reported excellent training; 20 reported mentorship; 19 reported operative autonomy. Limited exposure to medical oncology/multidisciplinary care, portal hypertension surgery, and robotics surgery were perceived as program weaknesses by 7, 9, and 7 fellows, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most fellows ranked their program quality and academic content as excellent, but they perceived a need for more exposure to medical oncology, portal hypertension surgery, and minimally-invasive surgery, with an emphasis on robotics. Fellowship training may need to integrate fellows' desires for enhanced proficiency in these clinical areas.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. RESULTS: Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.

Priority and prejudice: does low socioeconomic status bias waiting time for endoscopy? A blinded, randomized survey.

INTRODUCTION: An unwanted socioeconomic health gap is observed in Western countries with easily accessible, government-financed health care systems. Survival rates from several malignancies differ between socioeconomic clusters and the disparities remain after adjusting for major co-morbidities and health related behavior. The possibility of biased conduct among health care workers has been proposed as a contributing factor, but evidence is sparse. METHODS: A blinded, randomized online questionnaire survey was conducted among specialists in gastroenterology in Norway. Each respondent was asked to give priority for colonoscopy to three different referrals. By randomized sequence, half the referrals contained a discreet piece of information indicating low socioeconomic status (SES). The SES information given was focused on known low-status clusters in Norway, namely the morbidly obese and receivers of disability pensions. RESULTS: There were 107 respondents giving a response rate of 67%. A lower priority was consistently given to the referrals containing information on low SES, but the difference only reached statistical significance (p = .018) for one of the referrals. CONCLUSION: Information on low SES may influence how referrals for endoscopy are prioritized.