The Role of the Gastrointestinal Hospitalist in Optimizing Endoscopic Operations.

The gastroenterology (GI) hospitalist model has improved endoscopic operations through improved interdisciplinary coordination, efficiencies introduced in endoscopy unit workflow, and increased patient access to both inpatient and outpatient GI care. The challenges and opportunities associated with a GI hospitalist model and supporting a GI hospitalist team are reviewed, especially in relation to advanced endoscopy. The roles of the GI hospitalist in endoscopy quality measurement and value-based care are also explored. Greater awareness of the GI hospitalist model and tailoring it to fit the needs of the GI practice or endoscopy unit will be key to practice sustainability and growth.

Nutritional Considerations in the Hospital Setting.

Malnutrition and issues of nutrition are common in hospitalized patients. Identifying patients at nutritional risk can help to improve hospital-related outcomes. Specialized nutritional support in the form of oral nutritional supplementation, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition is essential to meeting the nutritional needs of many patients. Disease-specific nutritional considerations are fundamental to the quality care of hospitalized patients. Many vitamin, macronutrient, and micronutrient deficiencies are relevant in hospital setting.

A patient-centered framework for health systems engineering in gastroenterology: improving inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation (ICBP) is frequently inadequate and can lead to adverse events, delayed or repeated procedures, and negative patient outcomes. Guidelines to overcome the complex factors in this setting are not well established. Our aims were to use health systems engineering principles to comprehensively evaluate the ICBP process, create an ICBP protocol, increase adequate ICBP, and decrease length of stay. Our goal was to provide adaptable tools for other institutions and procedural specialties. METHODS: Patients admitted to our tertiary care academic hospital that underwent inpatient colonoscopy between July 3, 2017 to June 8, 2018 were included. Our multi-disciplinary team created a protocol employing health systems engineering techniques (i.e., process mapping, cause-effect diagrams, and plan-do-study-act cycles). We collected demographic and colonoscopy data. Our outcome measures were adequate preparation and length of stay. We compared pre-intervention (120 ICBP) vs. post-intervention (129 ICBP) outcomes using generalized linear regression models. Our new ICBP protocol included: split-dose 6-L polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution, a gastroenterology electronic note template, and an education plan for patients, nurses, and physicians. RESULTS: The percent of adequate ICBPs significantly increased with the intervention from 61% pre-intervention to 74% post-intervention (adjusted odds ratio of 1.87, p value = 0.023). The median length of stay decreased by approximately 25%, from 4 days pre-intervention to 3 days post-intervention (p value = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: By addressing issues at patient, provider, and system levels with health systems engineering principles, we addressed patient safety and quality of care provided by improving rates of adequate ICBP.

The importance of anal cancer screening and high-resolution anoscopy to gastroenterology practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although human papillomavirus (HPV)-related anal squamous cell cancer (ASCC) is rare, its incidence has been rising and in high-risk populations exceeds the incidence of cancers for which screening programs are implemented. Therefore, targeted screening techniques are being evaluated with high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) as the current gold standard because of its ability to detect anal intraepithelial dysplasia (AIN) and premalignant high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). However, a scarcity of trained providers presents a barrier to screening. RECENT FINDINGS: ASCC incidence is rising especially in elderly women and young black men. Premalignant HSIL may not only progress to ASCC but also regress. Biomarkers such as HPV type, p16 immunostaining and DNA methylation markers may emerge as predictors of disease progression.HRA with acetic acid and Lugol's iodine staining can be used to detect HSIL and ASCC. Recent studies suggest that anal cancer screening may have an impact on the stage of ASCC at diagnosis and the incidence of anal cancer.The Anal Cancer HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study is underway to determine whether treating HSIL effects ASCC incidence. SUMMARY: Although there are no consensus screening guidelines for anal cancer, it is reasonable to screen high-risk populations with physical examination, anal cytology and HRA. Gastroenterologists can support anal cancer screening programmes through identifying patients at risk, performing noninvasive screening and considering to incorporate endoscopic techniques to examine the anal canal. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/COG/A32.

Continuing Medical Education Questions: October 2019.

Article Title: A Clinician's Guide to Celiac Disease HLA Genetics.

Endoscopy in the coagulopathic patient.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The presence of coagulopathy in patients profoundly affects the performance of gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the coagulopathy in chronic liver disease (CLD) and therapeutic anticoagulation to lower thromboembolic risk are different. In this review, we briefly discuss the hemostatic alterations in CLD leading to coagulopathy and the periprocedure management of antithrombotic medications in patients needing emergency or elective gastrointestinal endoscopy. RECENT FINDINGS: Prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR) are unreliable measures of bleeding risk and hemostasis in CLD. Therefore, expert opinion advises no preprocedure fresh frozen plasma (FFP) infusion to correct the INR. There has been a proliferation of and increasing use of antithrombotic medications for therapeutic anticoagulation. Their management depends on the gastrointestinal endoscopy procedure bleeding risk, the acuity of the procedure, and the underlying thromboembolic risk of the patient. SUMMARY: Cirrhotic coagulopathy features a rebalancing of procoagulant and anticoagulant factors. PT and INR do not accurately measure this rebalanced hemostasis. Thus, expert opinion does not recommend FFP infusion to correct the PT or INR before performing gastrointestinal endoscopy. Management of therapeutic anticoagulation in endoscopy depends on the acuity of the indication, the procedure bleeding risk, and the thromboembolic risk of stopping anticoagulation. At present, there are only expert opinion recommendations concerning periendoscopy coagulopathy management in CLD and in therapeutic anticoagulation. More controlled clinical studies will clarify bleeding risks when performing gastrointestinal procedures in these patients and better direct patient care. Until then, clinical management of antithrombotic medications are based an individual patient's medical conditions and available options for treatment.

Same-Day vs Different-Day Elective Upper and Lower Endoscopic Procedures by Setting.

Importance: Performing elective upper and lower endoscopic procedures on the same day is a patient-centered and less costly approach than a 2-stage approach performed on different days, when clinically appropriate. Whether this practice pattern varies based on practice setting has not been studied. Objectives: To estimate the rate of different-day upper and lower endoscopic procedures in 3 types of outpatient settings and investigate the factors associated with the performance of these procedures on different days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis was conducted of Medicare claims between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2018, for Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pair of upper and lower endoscopic procedures performed within 90 days of each other at hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and physician offices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Undergoing an upper and a lower endoscopic procedure on different days, adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence location and region, comorbidity, and procedure indication) and physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, procedure volume, and primary specialty). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. Results: A total of 4 028 587 procedure pairs were identified, of which 52.5% were performed in HOPDs, 43.3% in ASCs, and 4.2% in physician offices. The rate of different-day procedures was 13.6% in HOPDs, 22.2% in ASCs, and 47.7% in physician offices. For the 7564 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and ASCs, their different-day procedure rate changed from 14.1% at HOPDs to 19.4% at ASCs. For the 993 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and physician offices, their different-day procedure rate changed from 15.8% at HOPDs to 37.4% at physician offices. Patients were more likely to undergo different-day procedures at physician offices and ASCs compared with HOPDs, even after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics (physician office vs HOPD: aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85-2.20; ASC vs HOPD: aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32). Older age (85-94 years vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.11; 95 years or older vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), black and Hispanic race/ethnicity (black: aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.17; Hispanic: aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.14), and residing in the Northeast region (adjusted OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28-1.36) were risk factors for undergoing different-day procedures. Micropolitan location (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96) and rural location (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93), more comorbidities (≥5: aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76), physician's fewer years in practice (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), physician's higher procedure volume (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.68), and physician's specialty of general surgery (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91) were protective factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Physician offices and ASCs had much higher different-day procedure rates compared with HOPDs. This disparity may represent an opportunity for quality improvement and financial savings for common endoscopic procedures.

Continuing Medical Education Questions: April 2019.

Article Title: The Clinician's Guide to Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding.

Race and colorectal cancer screening compliance among persons with a family history of cancer.

AIM: To determine compliance to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines among persons with a family history of any type of cancer and investigate racial differences in screening compliance. METHODS: We used the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and identified 1094 (27.4%) respondents (weighted population size = 21959672) without a family history of cancer and 3138 (72.6%) respondents (weighted population size = 58201479) with a family history of cancer who were 50 years and older. We defined compliance with CRC screening as the use of fecal occult blood testing within 1 year, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. We compared compliance with CRC screening among those with and without a family member with a history of cancer. RESULTS: Overall, those with a family member with cancer were more likely to be compliant with CRC screening (64.9% vs 55.1%; OR = 1.45; 95%CI: 1.20-1.74). The absolute increase in screening rates associated with family history of cancer was 8.2% among whites. Hispanics had lowest screening rates among those without family history of cancer 41.9% but had highest absolute increase (14.7%) in CRC screening rate when they have a family member with cancer. Blacks had the lowest absolute increase in CRC screening (5.3%) when a family member has a known history of cancer. However, the noted increase in screening rates among blacks and Hispanics when they have a family member with cancer were not higher than whites without a family history of cancer: (54.5% vs 58.7%; OR = 1.16; 95%CI: 0.72-1.88) for blacks and (56.7% vs 58.7%; OR = 1.25; 95%CI: 0.72-2.18) for Hispanics. CONCLUSION: While adults with a family history of any cancer were more likely to be compliant with CRC screening guidelines irrespective of race/ethnicity, blacks and Hispanics with a family history of cancer were less likely to be compliant than whites without a family history. Increased burden from CRC among blacks may be related to poor uptake of screening among high-risk groups.

Evaluation of occult gastrointestinal bleeding.

Occult gastrointestinal bleeding is defined as gastrointestinal bleeding that is not visible to the patient or physician, resulting in either a positive fecal occult blood test, or iron deficiency anemia with or without a positive fecal occult blood test. A stepwise evaluation will identify the cause of bleeding in the majority of patients. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy will find the bleeding source in 48 to 71 percent of patients. In patients with recurrent bleeding, repeat EGD and colonoscopy may find missed lesions in 35 percent of those who had negative initial findings. If a cause is not found after EGD and colonoscopy have been performed, capsule endoscopy has a diagnostic yield of 61 to 74 percent. Deep enteroscopy reaches into the mid and distal small bowel to further investigate and treat lesions found during capsule endoscopy or computed tomographic enterography. Evaluation of a patient who has a positive fecal occult blood test without iron deficiency anemia should begin with colonoscopy; asymptomatic patients whose colonoscopic findings are negative do not require further study unless anemia develops. All men and postmenopausal women with iron deficiency anemia, and premenopausal women who have iron deficiency anemia that cannot be explained by heavy menses, should be evaluated for occult gastrointestinal bleeding. Physicians should not attribute a positive fecal occult blood test to low-dose aspirin or anticoagulant medications without further evaluation.