Evaluating Disparities in Colon Cancer Survival in American Indian/Alaskan Native Patients Using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrate higher mortality rates from colon cancer in American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) patients compared to non-Hispanic White (nHW). We aim to identify factors that contribute to survival disparities. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify AI/AN (n = 2127) and nHW (n = 527,045) patients with stage I-IV colon cancer from 2004 to 2016. Overall survival among stage I-IV colon cancer patients was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis; Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to identify independent predictors of survival. RESULTS: AI/AN patients with stage I-III disease had significantly shorter median survival than nHW (73 vs 77 months, respectively; p < 0.001); there were no differences in survival for stage IV. Adjusted analyses demonstrated that AI/AN race was an independent predictor of higher overall mortality compared to nHW (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.33, p = 0.002). Importantly, compared to nHW, AI/AN were younger, had more comorbidities, had greater rurality, had more left-sided colon cancers, had higher stage but lower grade tumors, were less frequently treated at an academic facility, were more likely to experience a delay in initiation of chemotherapy, and were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III disease. We found no differences in sex, receipt of surgery, or adequacy of lymph node dissection. CONCLUSION: We found patient, tumor, and treatment factors that potentially contribute to worse survival rates observed in AI/AN colon cancer patients. Limitations include the heterogeneity of AI/AN patients and the use of overall survival as an endpoint. Additional studies are needed to implement strategies to eliminate disparities.

In-hospital Substance Use Policies: An Opportunity to Advance Equity, Reduce Stigma, and Offer Evidence-based Addiction Care.

In-hospital substance use is common among patients with addiction because of undertreated withdrawal, undertreated pain, negative feelings, and stigma. Health care system responses to in-hospital substance use often perpetuate stigma and criminalization of people with addiction, long etched into our culture by the racist War on Drugs. In this commentary, we describe how our hospital convened an interprofessional workgroup to revise our in-hospital substance use policy. Our updated policy recommends health care workers respond to substance use concerns by offering patients adequate pain control, evidence-based addiction treatment, and supportive services instead of punitive responses. We provide best-practice recommendations for in-hospital substance use policies.

Interventions to improve the performance of upper GI endoscopy quality indicators.

The promotion of quality and best practices in gastroenterology and endoscopy is an ongoing effort. For upper GI endoscopy, quality indicators derived from clinical studies and expert consensus have been long established but remain variably obtained. To date, data on interventions aimed to improve these indicators are scarce. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify interventions and measures demonstrated to improve the performance of previously established upper endoscopy quality indicators. We also identified evidence gaps and opportunities for improvement in this area.

Gastroenterologist and primary care perspectives on a post-endoscopy discharge policy: impact on clinic wait times, provider satisfaction and provider workload.

BACKGROUND: To reduce unnecessary ambulatory gastroenterology (GI) visits and increase access to GI care, San Francisco Health Network gastroenterologists and primary care providers implemented guidelines in 2013 that discharged certain patients back to primary care after endoscopy with formal written recommendations. This study assesses the longer-term impact of this policy on GI clinic access, workflow, and provider satisfaction. METHODS: An email-based survey assessed gastroenterologist and primary care provider (PCP) opinions about the discharge process. Administrative data and chart review were used to assess clinic access, intervention fidelity, and re-referral rates. RESULTS: 102/299 (34%) of PCPs and 5/7 (71%) of gastroenterologists responded to the survey. 74% of PCPs and 100% of gastroenterologists were satisfied or very satisfied with the discharge process. 80% of gastroenterologists believed the discharge process decreased their workload, while 53.5% of primary care providers believed it increased their workload. 6.7% of patients discharged to primary care in 2013 had re-referrals to GI. Wait time for the third-next-available new outpatient GI clinic appointment had previously decreased from 158 days (2012, pre-intervention) to 74 days (2013, post-intervention). In 2015, wait time was 19 days (p < 0.001 for 2012 vs. 2015). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers and gastroenterologists are satisfied with an intervention to discharge patients from gastroenterology to primary care after certain endoscopic procedures, although this conclusion is limited by a relatively low PCP survey response rate. Discharging appropriate patients using consensus criteria from the gastroenterology clinic was instrumental in sustainably reducing clinic wait times with low re-referral rates.

Assessment of quality indicators among nurse practitioners performing upper endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Limited international data have shown that non-physicians can safely perform upper endoscopy, but no such study has been performed in the United States. Our aim was to assess the quality of outpatient upper endoscopies performed by nurse practitioners (NPs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective chart review of upper endoscopies performed by 3 NPs between 2010 and 2013 was performed. Comparisons among all NPs performing upper endoscopy and assessment of individual NP performance over time with respect to quality indicators were performed. RESULTS: Three NPs performed 333 upper endoscopies (distribution of 166, 44, and 123, respectively). Of the cases, 98.2 %s were successfully completed to the second portion of the duodenum. In most cases, photo-documentation of required anatomical landmarks was performed: GE junction (84.2 %), GE junction in retroflexed view (84.2 %), antrum (82.1 %) and duodenum (80.9 %). Photo-documentation improved with increasing experience. NPs appropriately performed biopsies for specific medical conditions: 10/11 (90.9 %) gastric ulcers were biopsied and 63/66 (95.5) of patients with iron deficiency had duodenal biopsies performed for celiac disease. A physician endoscopist was required during the procedure 22.5 % of the time. Important parameters such as documenting informed consent (100 %) and documenting a discharge plan (99.4 %) in the procedure reports were overwhelming present. There was a single adverse event during the study period. CONCLUSION: In the first US study of NPs performing upper endoscopy, they were able to perform high-quality and safe upper endoscopies. These findings support incorporation of non-physicians alongside physicians to help meet the growing demand for endoscopic services across the United States.

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.