Direct access endoscopy in a Brazilian public healthcare facility: comparable results with specialist referred endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Direct access endoscopy (DAE) is the procedure performed without the pre-evaluation of the patient by a specialist. It is widely available in many medical services around the world, but there is lack of data about this strategy in the setting of the public health system in Brazil. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the main endoscopic findings of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy requested through DAE and by specialists. METHODS: Longitudinal, retrospective single center study in patients who underwent upper digestive endoscopy in a public healthcare facility at the southern region of the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil, from August 2011 to December 2018. Age, gender, modality of endoscopy request (DAE or endoscopy requested by specialists), and endoscopic findings were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2810 patients were included. Most of them were female 65.23% (1833), mean age was 47.36 years, and 50.71% of the exams (1425) were DAE. Only 4.62% of the exams had normal reports. The most frequent endoscopic findings were gastritis (91.99%), bulboduodenitis (43.59%) and reflux esophagitis (14.76%). Patients who underwent endoscopy requested by specialists were older (50.25 ± 16.57 vs. 44.55 ± 16.31 years, p < .0001) and more frequently men (36.61 vs. 32.98%, p = .0437) in comparison to DAE. However, endoscopic findings were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that direct access upper endoscopy had comparable results to specialist requested endoscopy in a public healthcare facility in the southern region of the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil.

Evaluating the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of direct access endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Direct access endoscopy (DAE) allows primary care physicians (PCPs) to refer patients with concerning symptoms for endoscopy in a timely manner. Guidelines are available to assist PCPs in appropriately selecting patients for DAE. The objective of this study was to evaluate both the clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) DAE program. METHODS: The diagnostic yield of DAE patients attending for UGI studies was evaluated using a prospectively maintained database from 2004 to 2011. The diagnosis of UGI neoplasia, Barretts oesophagus, peptic ulcer disease or other conditions were recorded. In addition the age of the patient and the indication for the UGI endoscopy as per the PCP was compared with National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for UGI endoscopy. RESULTS: PCPs referred 4262 patients for UGI endoscopy. Oesophageal cancer was diagnosed in 7 and gastric cancer was identified in 27 patients. This represents a diagnostic yield overall of 0.8% for UGI cancers. Barretts oesophagus was identified in 148 (3.5%) and 185 patients (4.34%) were diagnosed with peptic ulcer disease. Interestingly, 3734 patients (87.6%) had a normal UGI endoscopy through our DAE program representing a cost of 2,296,410 Euro. In patients under 40 years of age the diagnostic yield for UGI cancer was 0.14%. More importantly, 92.2% of UGI endoscopies in patients less 40 years of age were normal. CONCLUSION: It is essential that PCPs adhere to published guidelines prior to referring patients to the DAE program. Furthermore, patients under 40 years of age may represent a subset of patients that may not benefit from immediate UGI endoscopy through a direct access program.

Appropriateness and Safety of Direct Access Endoscopy in Hospitalized Patients.

Background and objective Direct access endoscopy (DAE) allows hospitalists to refer patients for endoscopy without a gastroenterologist (GI) evaluation, potentially decreasing wait time and facilitating earlier discharge from the hospital. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAE for average-risk endoscopic procedures. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed by comparing patients who underwent a DAE with patients who underwent an endoscopy ordered by GI physicians at a tertiary care hospital. The procedure indications were obtained from the endoscopy reports and hospitalist progress notes. Appropriateness of each procedure was determined based on the guidelines from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Findings, procedure-related complications, and clinical significance were recorded. Results A total of 110 patients were included in this study; 40 were DAE and 70 were ordered by GI. The mean age of the patients was 55.5 years with 69 males and 41 females. In the DAE group, there were 31 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) and nine colonoscopies performed, while in the GI group, there were 58 EGDs, 11 colonoscopies, and one push enteroscopy. All procedures fulfilled ASGE criteria; 20/40 DAE and 53/70 GI-ordered procedures had clinically significant findings. There was one complication in each group. Conclusion DAE allows a hospitalist to order an endoscopy without consultation with a GI physician. This study showed that all DAE procedures had met ASGE criteria for appropriateness, with 50% having clinically significant findings and no difference in adverse events. These results suggest that DAE is safe and effective in evaluating hospitalized patients for average-risk endoscopy.