Factors Contributing to Non-Attendance of GI Endoscopic Procedures in a Tertiary Care Center in the Middle East.

INTRODUCTION: The cancer burden in the Middle East is high and growing. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer for both men and women in the UAE. Although early diagnosis of malignancy reduces morbidity and increases the survival rates, non-attendance of gastroenterology (GI) endoscopic procedures is a significant global problem, which can lead to delay in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Several factors have been found to contribute to non-attendance behavior, including socioeconomic, cultural, and organizational related barriers. The purpose of this study was to identify factors contributing to non-attendance behavior among outpatients scheduled for GI endoscopic procedures in a tertiary hospital in the United Arab Emirates. We conclude with recommendations that can help in reducing the rate of patient no-shows for GI endoscopic procedures in the region. METHODS: In a tertiary medical center in the Middle East, we surveyed patients who did not attend their scheduled GI endoscopic procedures over a period of one year. The questionnaire sought to identify possible reasons for patient's non-attendance. Descriptive measures including means, standard deviation, frequencies, and percentages were used to analyze the demographic characteristics of the study participants. The chi-square test was performed to analyze gender differences. RESULTS: Of 314 outpatients who met study inclusion criteria, 168 agreed to participate (53.5% response rate). The majority of participants were women (n=96, 60.4 %), aged 18 to 73, with a mean of 42 years. The largest age group was between 35 and 44 (n=46, 28.9 %). Approximately equal numbers of non-attendance appointments were scheduled for combined colonoscopy and upper endoscopy (36.3 %), colonoscopy alone (31.3 %), or upper endoscopy alone (31.3 %). The most common causes for cancellation or non-attendance included concerns about the appointment (35.5%), inconvenient timing of the appointment (27.9%) and changes in medical status (26.4%). Gender differences were noted for non-attendance behaviors, with women significantly more likely than men to report feelings of embarrassment (Chi-square 6.261, df=1, p=.012). CONCLUSION: Our study has identified several barriers to patient attendance of endoscopic procedures, as well as opportunities to reduce the rate of patient no-shows, including patient education, scheduling options, and protocols to minimize discomfort and misconceptions around GI endoscopic procedures, particularly accommodating for same gender endoscopists, with the ultimate goal of increasing early cancer screening and prevention.

"Rescue" of Nonparticipants in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Noninvasive Test Options.

Few studies have directly targeted nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening to identify effective engagement strategies. We undertook a randomized controlled trial that targeted nonparticipants in a previous trial of average-risk subjects which compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, a blood test or a choice of either. Nonparticipants (n = 899) were randomized to be offered a kit containing a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), directions on how to arrange a blood DNA test, or the option of doing either. Screening participation was assessed 12 weeks after the offer. To assess the cognitive and attitudinal variables related to participation and invitee choice, invitees were surveyed after 12 weeks, and associations were investigated using multinomial logistic regression. Participation rates were similar between groups (P = 0.88): 12.0% for FIT (35/292), 13.3% for the blood test (39/293), and 13.4% for choice (39/290). Within the choice group, participation was significantly higher with FIT (9.7%, 28/290) compared with the blood test (3.8%, 11/290, P = 0.005). The only variable significantly associated with participation was socioeconomic status when offered FIT, and age when offered choice but there was none when offered the blood test. Survey respondents indicated that convenience, time-saving, comfort, and familiarity were major influences on participation. There was no clear advantage between a fecal test, blood test, or choice of test although, when given a choice, the fecal test was preferred. Differences in variables associated with participation according to invitation strategy warrant consideration when deciding upon an invitation strategy for screening nonparticipants. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This trial of screening for those at average risk for colorectal cancer targeted past fecal-test nonparticipants and compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, blood test, or choice of either. Although there was no clear advantage between strategies, factors associated with participation differed between each strategy.

Patient Engagement with Interactive Text Message System Improves Successful Colonoscopy Rates in an Outpatient Endoscopy Center.

INTRODUCTION: Text message-based interventions reduce colonoscopy no-show rates and improve bowel preparation scores. In this non-randomized study, we assessed whether an interactive text messaging system could improve colonoscopy outcomes. METHODS: Colonoscopy pre-procedural instructions were programmed into a dedicated software platform created for this study. In the intervention arm, text messages were sent to veterans during a 4-week study period. Validated pre-procedural satisfaction questionnaires were completed by patients during standard protocol and intervention periods. Demographics and colonoscopy outcomes data were compared between the standard protocol and intervention arms, including procedure completion rate on scheduled date, Boston bowel preparation score (BPPS), adenoma detection rate, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 241 patients, 128 were in the standard protocol arm and 113 in the intervention arm. Higher proportions of patients receiving text messages underwent colonoscopy on their scheduled date (69.9%) compared to the ones in the standard protocol (50.8%, p = 0.015). Patients with ≥3 interactions with the system had 80.6% likelihood of completing colonoscopy on the scheduled date compared to 56.9% with <3 interactions and 50.8% with standard protocol (p < 0.001). Frequency of interaction with the system was similar between older (>65 years) and younger patients (p = 1.0). Among older patients, colonoscopy was completed successfully in 84.2% when alert-based human interactions occurred compared to 65.6% in those without and 47.9% with standard protocol (p = 0.018). More than 90% indicated they would recommend the system to patients undergoing future colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: An interactive text messaging system improves successful colonoscopy rates in a VA setting, with greatest impact in older patients.

How does COVID-19 fear and anxiety affect chemotherapy adherence in patients with cancer.

Aim: To investigate how COVID-19 fear and anxiety (COV-FA) affects chemotherapy adherence in patients with cancer. Materials & methods: The records of 3661 patients with chemotherapy (CT) appointments were retrospectively reviewed. Results: The CT postponement rates before and after COVID-19 were 11.6% and 14.2%, respectively (p = 0.017). The rate of COV-FA-related CT postponement after telemedicine was lower than that before (4.6% vs 17.4%; p = 0.012). The median time to come back to treatment of the COV-FA group was 47 days (range 19-72 days). Advanced age (≥60 years) was found to be the independent factor that was predictive of time to come back to treatment (p = 0.043). Conclusion: The CT postponement rate increased after COVID-19. COV-FA-related CT postponement decreased after telemedicine. Advanced age could be predictive of time to come back to treatment.

Factors Influencing Nonadherence to Recommended Postdischarge Follow-Up After Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Historically, trauma patients have low adherence to recommended outpatient follow-up plans, which is crucial for improved long-term clinical outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics associated with nonadherence to recommended outpatient follow-up visits. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective examination of inpatient trauma survivors admitted to a level 1 trauma center (March 2017-March 2018). Patients with known alternative follow-up were excluded. All outpatient visits within 1 y from the index admission were identified. The primary outcome was nonadherence, which was noted if a patient failed to follow-up for any specialty recommended in the discharge instructions. Factors for nonadherence studied included age, injury severity score, mechanism, length of stay, number of referrals made, and involvement with a Trauma Recovery Services program. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of498 patients were identified (69% men, median age 43 y [range, 26-58 y], median injury severity score 14 [range, 9-19]). Among them, 240 (47%) were nonadherent. The most common specialties recommended were orthopedic surgery (56% referred, 19% nonadherent), trauma (54% referred, 35% nonadherent), and neurosurgery (127 referred, 35% nonadherent). Lowest levels of follow-up were seen for nonsurgical referrals. In adjusted analysis, a higher number of referrals made (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.95-3.05) and older age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) were associated with nonadherence. Trauma Recovery Service participants and penetrating trauma patients were more likely to be adherent (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The largest contributor to nonadherence was the number of referrals made; patients who were referred to multiple specialists were more likely to be nonadherent. Peer support services may lower barriers to follow-up.

Analysis of patients attitude to undergo urgent endoscopic procedures during COVID-19 outbreak in Italy.

We conducted a survey to investigate to what extent the fear of COVID-19 has influenced the patients decision to undergo or to cancel endoscopic procedures. We collected data from 847 patients from 13 centres. The main indication for endoscopy was anemia, followed by pain and unexplained weight loss. The percentage of not presenters progressively increased throughout the three weeks of study, from 15.1% at the beginning to 48.2% at the end. 37 (34.2%) upper GI endoscopies and 112 (56.3 %) colonoscopies showed an organic cause explaining the symptoms presented by the patients, respectively; 5 cases of gastric cancer (4.6%) and 16 cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) (6.0%), respectively, were detected; during the second week the percentage of organic diseases found at upper endoscopy was 19 (33.3%) with 5 cancer (8.7%), and 61 (49.1% ) at colonoscopy, with 2 CRC (1.6%); finally, during the third week the corresponding figures were 19 (48.7%) for upper GI examinations, with 3 gastric cancers (7.7%), and 43 (60.5%) with 4 (6.5%) CRC cases found.We conclude that patients weighted the fear of having a clinically relevant disease with the fear of becoming infected by coronavirus, and a relevant percentage of them (29.4%) decided not to attend the endoscopy suites at the scheduled date.

Did psychosocial status, sociodemographics and smoking status affect non-attendance in control participants in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial? A nested observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated if psychosocial status, sociodemographics and smoking status affected non-attendance in the control group in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST). DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was an observational study nested in the DLCST. Due to large non-attendance in the control group in the second screening round we made an additional effort to collect questionnaire data from non-attenders in this group in the third screening round. We used a condition-specific questionnaire to assess psychosocial status. We analysed the differences in psychosocial status in the third and preceding rounds between non-attenders and attenders in the control group in multivariable linear regression models adjusted for sociodemographics and smoking status reported at baseline. Differences in sociodemographics and smoking status were analysed with χ2 tests (categorical variables) and t-tests (continuous variables). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was psychosocial status. PARTICIPANTS: All control persons participating in the third screening round in the DLCST were included. RESULTS: Non-attenders in the third round had significantly worse psychosocial status than attenders in the scales: 'behaviour' 0.77 (99% CI 0.18 to 1.36), 'self-blame' 0.59 (99% CI 0.14 to 1.04), 'focus on airway symptoms' 0.22 (99% CI 0.08 to 0.36), 'stigmatisation' 0.51 (99% CI 0.16 to 0.86), 'introvert' 0.56 (99% CI 0.23 to 0.89) and 'harms of smoking' 0.35 (99% CI 0.11 to 0.59). Moreover, non-attenders had worse scores than attendees in the preceding screening rounds. Non-attenders also reported worse sociodemographics at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Non-attenders had a significantly worse psychosocial status and worse sociodemographics compared with attenders. The results of our study contribute with evidence of non-response and attrition driven by psychosocial status, which in turn may be influenced by the screening intervention itself. This can be used to adjust cancer screening trial results for bias due to differential non-attendance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov Protocol Registration System (NCT00496977).

Winter cancellations of elective surgical procedures in the UK: a questionnaire survey of patients on the economic and psychological impact.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the economic and psychological impact of the cancellation of operations due to winter pressures on patients, their families and the economy. DESIGN: This questionnaire study was designed with the help of patient groups. Data were collected on the economic and financial burden of cancellations. Emotions were also quantified on a 5-point Likert scale. SETTING: Five NHS Hospital Trusts in the East Midlands region of England. PARTICIPANTS: We identified 796 participants who had their elective operations cancelled between 1 November 2017 and 31 March 2018 and received responses from 339 (43%) participants. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were posted a modified version of a validated quality of life questionnaire with a prepaid return envelope. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were the financial and psychological impact of the cancellation of elective surgery on patients and their families. RESULTS: Of the 339 respondents, 163 (48%) were aged <65 years, with 111 (68%) being in employment. Sixty-six (19%) participants had their operations cancelled on the day. Only 69 (62%) of working adults were able to return to work during the time scheduled for their operation, with a mean loss of 5 working days (SD 10). Additional working days were lost subsequently by 60 (54%) participants (mean 7 days (SD 10)). Family members of 111 (33%) participants required additional time off work (mean 5 days (SD 7)). Over 30% of participants reported extreme levels of sadness, disappointment, anger, frustration and stress. At least moderate concern about continued symptoms was reported by 234 (70%) participants, and 193 (59%) participants reported at least moderate concern about their deteriorating condition. CONCLUSIONS: The cancellation of elective surgery during the winter had an adverse impact on patients and the economy, including days of work lost and health-related anxiety. We recommend better planning, and provision of more notice and better support to patients.

Reasons For Lack of Follow-up Colonoscopy Among Persons With A Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Result: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Follow-up colonoscopy rates among persons with positive fecal occult blood test results (FOBT + ) remain suboptimal in many jurisdictions. In Ontario, Canada, primary care providers (PCPs) are responsible for arranging follow-up colonoscopies. The objectives were to understand the reasons for a lack of follow-up colonoscopy and any action plans to address follow-up. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 FOBT+ persons and 30 PCPs in Ontario. Eligible FOBT+ persons were identified through administrative databases and included those aged 50-74, with a 6-12 month old FOBT+, no follow-up colonoscopy, and no prior colorectal cancer diagnosis or colectomy. Eligible PCPs had ≥1 rostered FOBT+ person without follow-up colonoscopy. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Nvivo 11 (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2015). RESULTS: Reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy were: person and/or provider believed the FOBT + was a false positive; person was afraid of colonoscopy; person had other health issues; and breakdown in communication of FOBT+ results or colonoscopy appointments. PCPs who initially recommended follow-up colonoscopy did not change the minds of the persons who dismissed the FOBT+ as a false positive and/or who were afraid of the procedure. These FOBT+ persons negotiated an alternative follow-up action plan including repeating the FOBT or not following-up. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs may not adequately counsel FOBT+ persons who believe the FOBT+ is a false positive and/or fear colonoscopy. PCPs may lack fail-safe systems to communicate FOBT+ results and colonoscopy appointments. Using navigators may help address these barriers and increase follow-up rates.

Understanding Why Patients No-Show: Observations of 2.9 Million Outpatient Imaging Visits Over 16 Years.

PURPOSE: To understand why patients "no-show" for imaging appointments, and to provide new insights for improving resource utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of nearly 2.9 million outpatient examinations in our radiology information system from 2000 to 2015 at our multihospital academic institution. No-show visits were identified by the "reason code" entry "NOSHOW" in our radiology information system. We restricted data to radiography, CT, mammography, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine examinations that included all studied variables. These variables included modality, patient age, appointment time, day of week, and scheduling lead time. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with no-show visits. RESULTS: Out of 2,893,626 patient visits that met our inclusion criteria, there were 94,096 no-shows during the 16-year period. Rates of no-show visits varied from 3.36% in 2000 to 2.26% in 2015. The effect size for no-shows was strongest for modality and scheduling lead time. Mammography had the highest modality no-show visit rate of 6.99% (odds ratio [OR] 5.38, P < .001) compared with the lowest modality rate of 1.25% in radiography. Scheduling lead time greater than 6 months was associated with more no-show visits than scheduling within 1 week (OR 3.18, P < .001). Patients 60 years and older were less likely to miss imaging appointments than patients under 40 (OR 0.70, P < .001). Mondays and Saturdays had significantly higher rates of no-show than Sundays (OR 1.52 and 1.51, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Modality type and scheduling lead time were the most predictive factors of no-show. This may be used to guide new interventions such as targeted reminders and flexible scheduling.

An interview-based study of nonattendance at screening for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in older women: Nonattendees' perspectives.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study explored nonattendees' perspectives on a screening programme for cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus among women aged 60-77 years. BACKGROUND: Nonattendance in screening is a common concern and has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Whether nonattendees need targeted information to participate in screening is unknown. Thus, it is important to explore the reasons for nonattendance, particularly as nonattendees' perspectives have not been fully explored. DESIGN: An interview study. METHODS: The data were obtained through semistructured interviews with 10 women sampled from a population who declined to participate in a women's screening programme for cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus. Additionally, reflective notes on the interview context were documented. The data were collected in 2013. Kvale and Brinkmann's method for data analysis was applied. RESULTS: All informants found the screening offer personally irrelevant, but this belief was changeable. The informants' perceptions of screening were based on subjective health and risk beliefs, personal knowledge of diseases and the screening programme, and distrust in the healthcare system. CONCLUSION: Personal experiences, beliefs and self-protective strategies influence individuals' subjective interpretations of a screening programme's relevance. The perception that screening is irrelevant seems to be rooted in nonattendees' personal health-related assessment and knowledge. Consequently, whether nonattendance is determined by an informed decision is questionable. Negative experiences with the healthcare system led to hesitation towards screening in general. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study is relevant to healthcare workers as well as decision-makers from a screening and preventive perspective. The findings highlight important issues that should be addressed to encourage invitees to accept screening invitations and to facilitate informed decision-making about screening participation.

Flexible Sigmoidoscopy and CT Colonography Screening: Patients' Experience with and Factors for Undergoing Screening-Insight from the Proteus Colon Trial.

Purpose To compare the acceptability of computed tomographic (CT) colonography and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening and the factors predicting CT colonographic screening participation, targeting participants in a randomized screening trial. Materials and Methods Eligible individuals aged 58 years (n = 1984) living in Turin, Italy, were randomly assigned to be invited to screening for colorectal cancer with FS or CT colonography. After individuals who had died or moved away (n = 28) were excluded, 264 of 976 (27.0%) underwent screening with FS and 298 of 980 (30.4%) underwent CT colonography. All attendees and a sample of CT colonography nonattendees (n = 299) were contacted for a telephone interview 3-6 months after invitation for screening, and screening experience and factors affecting participation were investigated. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed by means of multivariable logistic regression. Results For the telephone interviews, 239 of 264 (90.6%) FS attendees, 237 of 298 (79.5%) CT colonography attendees, and 182 of 299 (60.9%) CT colonography nonattendees responded. The percentage of attendees who would recommend the test to friends or relatives was 99.1% among FS and 93.3% among CT colonography attendees. Discomfort associated with bowel preparation was higher among CT colonography than FS attendees (OR, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47, 5.24). CT colonography nonattendees were less likely to be men (OR, 0.36; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.71), retired (OR, 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.75), to report regular physical activity (OR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.70), or to have read the information leaflet (OR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.41). They were more likely to mention screening-related anxiety (mild: OR, 6.30; 95% CI: 2.48, 15.97; moderate or severe: OR, 3.63; 95% CI: 1.87, 7.04), erroneous beliefs about screening (OR, 32.15; 95% CI: 6.26, 165.19), or having undergone a recent fecal occult blood test (OR, 13.69; 95% CI: 3.66, 51.29). Conclusion CT colonography and FS screening are well accepted, but further reducing the discomfort from bowel preparation may increase CT colonography screening acceptability. Negative attitudes, erroneous beliefs about screening, and organizational barriers are limiting screening uptake; all these factors are modifiable and therefore potentially susceptible to interventions. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Advanced breast cancer rates in the epoch of service screening: The 400,000 women cohort study from Italy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate if mammography screening attendance is associated with a reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence. METHODS: The cohort included over 400,000 Italian women who were first invited to participate in regional screening programmes during the 1990s and were followed for breast cancer incidence for 13 years. We obtained individual data on their exposure to screening and correlated this with total and stage-specific breast cancer incidence. Socio-economic status and pre-screening incidence data were used to assess the presence of self-selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, screening attendance was associated with a 10% excess risk of in situ and invasive breast cancer (IRR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.14), which dropped to 5% for invasive cancers only (IRR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.01-1.09). There were significant reductions among attenders for specific cancer stages; we observed a 39% reduction for T2 or larger (IRR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.57-0.66), 19% for node positives (IRR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.76-0.86) and 28% for stage II and higher (IRR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.68-0.76). Our data suggest that the presence of self-selection bias is limited and, overall, invited women experienced a 17% reduction of advanced cancers compared with pre-screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing attenders' and non-attenders' stage-specific breast cancer incidence, we have estimated that screening attendance is associated with a reduction of nearly 30% for stages II+.

Analysis of neuro-theatre utilisation and reasons for cancellation to improve efficiency and productivity.

In neurosurgery, much emphasis has recently been placed on theatre cancellation and time utilization as a key hospital management performance indicator. We sought to evaluate our unit's theatre throughput efficiency and identify the causes of elective surgery cancellations. We retrospectively audited all scheduled elective neurosurgical procedures over a period of nine months. Mean theatre utilization time was 47.0%. The common causes of cancellations were lack of theatre time (32%), non-availability of beds in recovery room (18.6%), and insufficient preoperative patient preparation (5.5%). Inefficiencies were noted in turnover of patients and inaccurate prediction of operative time. Our theatre utilization time is consistent with available literature; however, cancellations of elective surgery waste valuable operative time and resources. The study concludes that a multi-dimensional approach must be taken to improve theatre utilization and reduce cancellation rates. A pre-assessment clinic has been introduced in order to reduce cancellation rates.

System-level and patient-level explanations for non-attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening in Sutton and Merton (London, UK): a qualitative analysis of a service evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Non-attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening has financial implications for screening programmes and potential clinical costs to patients. We sought to identify explanations for why patients had never attended a screening appointment (never attendance) in one programme. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of a service evaluation. SETTING: One South London (UK) diabetic eye screening programme. PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE: Patients who had been registered with one screening programme for at least 18 months and who had never attended screening within the programme were contacted by telephone to ascertain why this was the case. Patients' general practices were also contacted for information about why each patient may not have attended. Framework analysis was used to interpret responses. RESULTS: Of the 296 patients, 38 were not eligible for screening and of the 258 eligible patients, 159 were not contactable (31 of these had phone numbers that were not in use). We obtained reasons from patients/general practices/clinical notes for non-attendance for 146 (57%) patients. A number of patient-level and system-level factors were given to explain non-attendance. Patient-level factors included having other commitments, being anxious about screening, not engaging with any diabetes care and being misinformed about screening. System-level factors included miscommunication about where the patient lives, their clinical situation and practical problems that could have been overcome had their existence been shared between programmes. CONCLUSIONS: This service evaluation provides unique insight into the patient-level and system-level reasons for never attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening. Improved sharing of relevant information between providers has the potential to facilitate increased uptake of screening. Greater awareness of patient-level barriers may help providers offer a more accessible service.