Wait times for gastroenterology consultation in Canada: the patients' perspective.

Long wait times for health care have become a significant issue in Canada. As part of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology's Human Resource initiative, a questionnaire was developed to survey patients regarding wait times for initial gastroenterology consultation and its impact. A total of 916 patients in six cities from across Canada completed the questionnaire at the time of initial consultation. Self-reported wait times varied widely, with 26.8% of respondents reporting waiting less than two weeks, 52.4% less than one month, 77.1% less than three months, 12.5% reported waiting longer than six months and 3.6% longer than one year. One-third of patients believed their wait time was too long, with 9% rating their wait time as 'far too long'; 96.4% believed that maximal wait time should be less than three months, 78.9% believed it should be less than one month and 40.3% believed it should be less than two weeks. Of those working or attending school, 22.6% reported missing at least one day of work or school because of their symptoms in the month before their appointment, and 9.0% reported missing five or more days in the preceding month. A total of 20.2% of respondents reported being very worried about having a serious disease (ie, scored 6 or higher on 7-point Likert scale), and 17.6% and 14.8%, respectively, reported that their symptoms caused major impairment of social functioning and with the activities of daily living. These data suggest that a significant proportion of Canadians with digestive problems are not satisfied with their wait time for gastroenterology consultation. Furthermore, while awaiting consultation, many patients experience an impaired quality of life because of their gastrointestinal symptoms.

The Quebec Association of Gastroenterology position paper on colorectal cancer screening - 2003.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of death and the third most common cancer in Canada. Evidence suggests that screening can reduce mortality rates and the cost effectiveness of a program compares favourably with initiatives for breast and cervical cancer. The objectives of the Association des gastro-entérologues du Québec Task Force were to determine the need for a policy on screening for colorectal cancer in Quebec, to evaluate the testing methods available and to propose one or more of these alternatives as part of a formal screening program, if indicated. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), endoscopy (including sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy), barium enema and virtual colonoscopy were considered. Although most clinical efficacy data are available for FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, there are limitations to programs based on these strategies. FOBT has a high false positive rate and a low detection yield, and even a combination of these strategies will miss 24% of cancers. Colonoscopy is the best strategy to both detect and remove polyps and to diagnose colorectal cancer, with double contrast barium enema also being a sensitive detection method. The Task Force recommended the establishment, in Quebec, of a screening program with five- to 10-yearly double contrast barium enema or 10-yearly colonoscopy for individuals aged 50 years or older at low risk. The program should include outcome monitoring, public and professional education to increase awareness and promote compliance, and central coordination with other provincial programs. The program should be evaluated; specific billing codes for screening for colorectal cancer would help facilitate this. Formal feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies in Quebec are now warranted.

The cost-effectiveness of high-dose oral proton pump inhibition after endoscopy in the acute treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest a role for high-dose oral proton pump inhibition in ulcer bleeding. AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of oral high-dose proton pump inhibition to both high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition and placebo administration. METHODS: The model adopted a 30-day time horizon, and focused on patients with ulcer haemorrhage initially treated endoscopically for high-risk stigmata. Re-bleeding rates were set a priori based on non-head-to-head data from the literature, and charges and lengths of stay from a national American database. Sensitivity analyses were carried across a broad range of clinically relevant assumptions. RESULTS: Re-bleeding rates for patients receiving intravenous, oral, or placebo therapies were 5.9%, 11.8%, and 27%, respectively. The mean lengths of stay and costs for admitted patients with and without re-bleeding were 4.7 and 3 days; $11,802, and $7993, respectively. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition was more effective and less costly (dominant) than high-dose oral proton pump inhibition with incremental savings of $136.40 per patient treated. The oral high-dose strategy in turn dominated placebo administration. Results remained robust according to one- and two-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing endoscopic haemostasis, subsequent high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition is more cost-effective than high-dose oral proton pump inhibition, which in turn dominates placebo. The results from this exploratory-type cost analysis require confirmation by head-to-head prospective trials performed in Western populations.

High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition following endoscopic therapy in the acute management of patients with bleeding peptic ulcers in the USA and Canada: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition has recently been shown, yet its cost-effectiveness remains poorly studied. AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach separately for American and Canadian health care settings. METHODS: A validated decision model included patients with bleeding ulcers after successful endoscopic haemostasis. Probabilities were determined from the literature, and charges and lengths of stay from national databases. A third-party payer perspective was adopted over a 30-day time horizon. RESULTS: Re-bleeding rates were 5.9% for patients who received high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition and 22.9% for those who did not. Hospitalization costs for patients with and without re-bleeding were 11,802 US dollars and 7993 US dollars, and 5220 Canadian dollars and 2696 Canadian dollars, respectively. High-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition was more effective and less costly than the alternative of not administering it. The cost-effectiveness ratios for high-dose and no high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition were 9112 US dollars and 11,819 US dollars (3293 dollars and 4284 dollars for the Canadian case), respectively. Sensitivity and threshold analyses showed that the results were robust across a wide range of clinically relevant assumptions. CONCLUSION: In the USA and Canada, administering high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibition for 3 days is both more effective and less costly than not doing so for patients with bleeding ulcers after successful endoscopic haemostasis.

Costs and effectiveness of extracorporeal gallbladder stone shock wave lithotripsy versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized clinical trial. McGill Gallstone Treatment Group.

Thirty-five patients were randomized to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and 25 to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Stone disappearance occurred in only 12 of 32 ESWL patients [38% (95% CI: 21-56%)] during a 15-month follow-up. Greater incremental gains in quality of life after 6 months were observed among LC patients (p < .01). Total duration of disability was 6.8 +/- 8.5 days for ESWL, and 22.7 +/- 16.6 days for LC (p < .01). Nine (28%) patients crossed over electively to the LC group, but only 44% of these underwent LC within the next 3 years. ESWL cost Can $58.9/ day of disability saved. ESWL is limited by its selective applicability and modest stone disappearance rate. Its cost-effectiveness is largely dependent on patient acceptance of recurrent episodes of biliary colic due to the persistence of stone fragments.

Technology assessment in laparoscopic general surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy: science or convenience?

Gastrointestinal endoscopy and laparoscopic general surgery have been significantly affected by the emergence of new techniques. These two disciplines share many similarities, including the use of sophisticated and expensive technologies. Their proper assessment is essential because they are developed amidst ever-decreasing health care budgets. Gastroenterologists and general surgeons must both participate in such evaluations and feel confident in interpreting pertinent published data. The present review uses a clinician's point of view with relevant examples to discuss the methodologies adopted in technology assessment and to highlight common pitfalls encountered in study design, patient selection, timing and selection of the study, blinding, and outcome measurement. Cost and statistical considerations, as well as ethical issues, are also reviewed in the context of technology assessment.

The bedside assessment of splenic enlargement.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical assessment of splenic enlargement using specific bedside maneuvers including Traube's space percussion, the splenic percussion sign, Middleton's maneuver, supine palpation, and right lateral decubitus palpation. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental prospective study of cases and controls selected according to the results of abdominal ultrasonographic examinations. SETTING: Selected inpatients of a tertiary care hospital. MAIN RESULTS: Comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for each bedside maneuver demonstrated that Traube's space percussion and palpation were significant discriminators (p less than 0.001) of splenic enlargement with respective areas of 0.70 +/- 0.04 and 0.76 +/- 0.04. No one palpation maneuver was superior to another, and right lateral decubitus palpation was not useful when performed after supine palpation. The splenic percussion sign (sensitivity 79%, specificity 46%) was no better than Traube's space percussion (sensitivity 62% and specificity 72%) in assessing splenic enlargement. The palpation maneuvers appeared more sensitive and more specific than Traube's space percussion. Palpation was a significant clinical discriminator when performed on patients who exhibited percussion dullness of Traube's space (area = 0.87 +/- 0.04, p less than 0.0001) but was of little value among those without percussion dullness (area = 0.55 +/- 0.08). Also, palpation was significantly more accurate when performed on lean patients versus obese patients (areas = 0.83 +/- 0.04 versus 0.65 +/- 0.08, p less than 0.05). When a positive bedside examination was defined as positive palpation and positive percussion (concordant-positive), the combined test sensitivity and specificity were 46% and 97% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal clinical assessment of splenic enlargement includes the percussion of Traube's space. If Traube's space is dull, palpation of the spleen is warranted. This assessment is most accurate in lean patients.