Health System-Provided Rideshare Is Safe and Addresses Barriers to Colonoscopy Completion.

In 2019, nearly 14 million colonoscopies were performed in the United States.1 In these settings, the accepted practice is that a responsible person drives and chaperones patients home after receiving procedural sedation, including colonoscopy.2 Lack of access to transportation and/or a chaperone is a persistent barrier to care in safety-net health systems and federally qualified health centers as a result of lower incomes, underinsurance, and higher social needs.3 Given racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in many digestive diseases that require colonoscopy for diagnosis and management, innovative solutions are needed to overcome logistical barriers to colonoscopy completion, especially in these settings.

Association Between Patient-Level, Clinic-Level, and Geographical-Level Factors and 1-Year Surveillance Colonoscopy Adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection for patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, and data on factors associated with lack of adherence are limited. Using surveillance colonoscopy data from Washington state, we aimed to determine the patient, clinic, and geographical factors associated with adherence. METHODS: Using administrative insurance claims linked to Washington cancer registry data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with stage I-III CRC between 2011 and 2018 with continuous insurance for at least 18 months after diagnosis. We determined the adherence rate to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy and conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with completion. RESULTS: Of 4,481 patients with stage I-III CRC identified, 55.8% completed a 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. The median time to colonoscopy completion was 370 days. On multivariate analysis, older age, higher-stage CRC, Medicare insurance or multiple insurance carriers, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and living without a partner were significantly associated with decreased adherence to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Among 29 eligible clinics, 51% (n = 15) reported lower-than-expected surveillance colonoscopy rates based on patient mix. DISCUSSION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection is suboptimal in Washington state. Patient and clinic factors, but not geographic factors (Area Deprivation Index), were significantly associated with surveillance colonoscopy completion. These data will inform the development of patient-level and clinic-level interventions to address an important quality-of-care issue across Washington.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: A survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of five national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: a survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand.

INTRODUCTION: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1,219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). DISCUSSION: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Analysis of Speaker Introduction Formality by Gender at the American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Gender-based differences in the use of professional titles during speaker introductions have been described in other medical specialties. AIMS: Our primary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker introductions at the American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Virtual Annual Scientific Meeting. Our secondary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker self-introductions. METHODS: Reviewed presentations from the American College of Gastroenterology Annual Meeting for gender-based differences in professional title use during speaker introductions and self-introductions. RESULTS: Speakers included 29 women (37.2%) and 49 men (62.8%). We found no significant gender differences in the use of professional titles by introducers (t(67) = - 0.775, p = 0.441) or in self-introductions (36.4% of women vs. 41.9% of men, t(63) = 0.422, p = 0.674). CONCLUSION: The lack of gender differences in professional title use may represent a novel advantage of virtual meeting formats or suggest increased attention to gender bias in introductions.

Impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer disparities and the way forward.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the U.S. Surgeon General advised all hospitals and ambulatory care centers to delay nonurgent medical procedures and surgeries. This recommendation, echoed by a multigastroenterology society guideline, led to the suspension of colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance. Although this temporary suspension was necessary to contain COVID-19 infections, we as gastroenterologists, patient advocates, and CRC researchers have witnessed the downstream impact of COVID-19 and this recommendation on CRC screening, research, and advocacy. These effects are particularly noticeable in medically underserved communities where CRC morbidity and mortality are highest. COVID-19-related pauses in medical care, as well as shifts in resource allocation and workforce deployment, threaten decades worth of work to improve CRC disparities in medically underserved populations. In this perspective, we present the unique challenges COVID-19 poses to health equity in CRC prevention and provide potential solutions as we navigate these uncharted waters.

Racial Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Mortality: the Role of Endoscopy Wait-Time and Stage at Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: In Western Washington (WA), colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality between 2012 and 2016 was highest in American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) and African-Americans (AA) at 20.7 and 18.7, respectively, compared with non-Hispanic Whites at 14.1/100,000 people. We hypothesized that time from billed encounters for CRC-associated symptoms to endoscopy completion or CRC stage at diagnosis contributed to observed differences. METHODS: Using administrative insurance claims linked to WA cancer registry data, we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with CRC between 2011 and 2017, with continuous insurance for 15 months prior to diagnosis and a billed encounter for CRC-associated symptoms. We determined the wait-time (days) and stage at diagnosis and conducted logistic regression analysis to identify the factors associated with endoscopy completion. RESULTS: Of the 3461 CRC patients identified, 57% had stage 2 or 3 disease with no differences in stage by race, and 84% completed an endoscopy after a billed encounter for CRC-associated symptoms. The median wait-time to endoscopy was 52 days (IQR 14-218) without differences by race. Compared with patients diagnosed with stage 1 CRC, patients with stage 4 CRC were more likely to complete an endoscopy within the first quartile of time (22.2% vs. 17.4%, p < 0.01). Living arrangement, insurance type, and comorbidity, but not race, were significant factors associated with endoscopy completion. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant differences in time from billed CRC-associated symptoms to endoscopy completion or in CRC stage among AA and AI/AN compared to Whites. This suggests that other factors are more likely to contribute to observed mortality disparities.

Effectiveness and Cost of Organized Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused, especially in safety-net systems. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of organized outreach using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) compared with usual care. METHODS: Patients age 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight participating primary care safety-net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention with usual care vs usual care alone. The intervention included a mailed postcard and call, followed by a mailed FIT kit, and a reminder phone call if the FIT kit was not returned. The primary outcome was screening participation at 1 year and a microcosting analysis of the outreach activities with embedded long-term cost-effectiveness of outreach. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 5386 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 5434 to usual care. FIT screening was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (57.9% vs 37.4%, P < .001; difference = 20.5%, 95% confidence interval = 18.6% to 22.4%). In the intervention group, FIT completion rate was higher in patients who had previously completed a FIT vs those who had not (71.9% vs 35.7%, P < .001). There was evidence of effect modification of the intervention by language, and clinic. Outreach cost approximately $23 per patient and $112 per additional patient screened. Projecting long-term outcomes, outreach was estimated to cost $9200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs usual care. CONCLUSION: Population-based management with organized FIT outreach statistically significantly increased CRC screening and was cost-effective in a safety-net system. The sustainability of the program and any impact of economies of scale remain to be determined.

Inadequate Utilization of Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal FIT Results in an Integrated Safety-Net System.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is contingent on colonoscopy completion in patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Understanding system and patient factors affecting follow-up of abnormal screening tests is essential to optimize care for high-risk cohorts. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in an integrated safety-net system comprised of 11 primary-care clinics and one Gastroenterology referral unit and included patients 50-75 years, with a positive FIT between April 2012 and February 2015. RESULTS: Of the 2,238 patients identified, 1,245 (55.6%) completed their colonoscopy within 1-year of the positive FIT. The median time from positive FIT to colonoscopy was 184 days (interquartile range 140-232). Of the 13% of FIT positive patients not referred to gastroenterology, 49% lacked documentation addressing their abnormal result or counseling on the increased risk of CRC. Of the patients referred but who missed their appointments, 62% lacked documentation following up on the abnormal result in the absence of a completed colonoscopy. FIT positive patients never referred to gastroenterology or who missed their appointment after referrals were more likely to have comorbid conditions and documented illicit substance use compared with patients who completed a colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite access to colonoscopy and a shared electronic health record system, colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT is inadequate within this safety-net system. Inadequate follow-up is in part explained by inappropriate screening, but there is an absence of clear documentation and systematic workflow within both primary care and GI specialty care addressing abnormal FIT results.

Inpatient weekend ERCP is associated with a reduction in patient length of stay.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed on the weekend requires significant effort from the endoscopist, nursing staff, and anesthesia services. These factors often result in delaying the procedure until the following Monday. No data exist on whether performing weekend ERCP reduces length of stay (LOS) and total cost to justify the additional physician and nursing burden. METHODS: In this single tertiary academic center, institutional review board-approved study, we retrospectively reviewed all hospitalized patients in whom an ERCP had been completed from May 2010 to September 2011. Demographic and clinical information, procedure details as well as total hospitalization charges (USD) were compared between patients who had an ERCP either on the weekend or weekday holiday (WE ERCP) or Monday (MON ERCP). Statistical comparisons were made using χ(2) and Fischer's exact test. A logistic regression model adjusted for propensity scores (PSs) was used to estimate the risk in prolonged LOS and high total charges associated with WE ERCPs vs. MON ERCPs. RESULTS: A total of 1,114 ERCP's were performed during the time period, 123 of which met inclusion criteria (52 WE, 71 MON). Mean patient age was 56.3±16.7 years (54.5% female, 60.2% Caucasian). There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. The most common procedure indications were choledocholithiasis (34.9%) and elevated liver enzymes after liver transplantation (25.2%). The analysis showed a significantly decreased LOS (P=0.010) and a trend towards decreased cost (P=0.050) associated with WE ERCP. In the multivariate analysis adjusted for PS, WE ERCP had a significantly decreased odds ratio of LOS>3 days (odds ratio: 0.37 (0.16-0.85); P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a significant decrease in LOS and a trend towards decrease in charges in patients who underwent weekend ERCP compared with delaying ERCP until Monday. Thus, health-care organizations should consider removing barriers to weekend inpatient ERCPs.