Patient-Reported Barriers to Completing a Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Among Uninsured Patients

Abnormal Colorectal Cancer Test Follow-Up: A Quality Improvement Initiative at a Federally Qualified Health Center

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy completion rates after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are suboptimal, resulting in missed opportunities for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Patient navigation and structured follow-up may improve colonoscopy completion, but implementation of these strategies is not widespread.

METHODS

We conducted a quality improvement study using a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Model to increase colonoscopy completion after abnormal FIT in a large federally qualified health center serving a diverse and low-income population. Intervention components included patient navigation, and a checklist to promote completion of key steps required for abnormal FIT follow-up. Primary outcome was proportion of patients achieving colonoscopy completion within 6 months of abnormal FIT, assessed at baseline for 156 patients pre-intervention, and compared to 208 patients during the intervention period from April 2017 to December 2019. Drop offs at each step in the follow-up process were assessed.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy completion improved from 21% among 156 patients with abnormal FIT pre-intervention, to 38% among 208 patients with abnormal FIT during the intervention (P < .001; absolute increase: 17%, 95% CI: 6.9%-25.2%). Among the 130 non-completers during the intervention period, lack of completion was attributable to absence of colonoscopy referral for 7.7%; inability to schedule a pre-colonoscopy specialist visit for 71.5%; failure to complete a pre-colonoscopy visit for 2.3%; the absence of colonoscopy scheduling for 9.2%; failure to show for a scheduled colonoscopy for 9.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient navigation and structured follow-up appear to improve colonoscopy completion after abnormal FIT. Additional strategies are needed to achieve optimal rates of completion.

Developing Patient-Refined Messaging for Follow-Up Colonoscopy After Abnormal Fecal Testing in Hispanic Communities: Key Learnings from Virtual Boot Camp Translation

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening by fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a strategy to lower CRC rates. Unfortunately, only half of patients with an abnormal FIT result complete the follow-up colonoscopy, an essential component of screening. We used virtual Boot Camp Translation (BCT), to elicit input from partners to develop messaging/materials to motivate patients to complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Participants were Hispanic, ages 50 to 75 years, and Spanish-speaking. All materials were developed in English and Spanish. The first meeting included expert presentations that addressed colorectal health. The two follow-up sessions obtained feedback on messaging/materials developed based on themes from the first meeting. Ten participants attended the first meeting and eight attended the follow-up sessions. The two key barriers to follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal FIT noted by participants were (a) lack of colonoscopy awareness and (b) fear of the colonoscopy procedure. We learned that participants valued simple messaging to increase knowledge and alleviate concerns, patient-friendly outreach materials, and increased access to health information. Using virtual BCT, we included participant feedback to design culturally relevant health messages to promote follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal fecal testing among Hispanic patients served by community clinics.

Reach and effectiveness of a centralized navigation program for patients with positive fecal immunochemical tests requiring follow-up colonoscopy

Completion rates for follow-up colonoscopies after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are suboptimal in federally qualified health center (FQHC) settings. We implemented a screening intervention that included mailed FIT outreach to North Carolina FQHC patients from June 2020 to September 2021 and centralized patient navigation to support patients with abnormal FITs in completing follow-up colonoscopy. We evaluated the reach and effectiveness of navigation using electronic medical record data and navigator call logs detailing interactions with patients. Reach assessments included the proportion of patients successfully contacted by phone and who agreed to participate in navigation, intensity of navigation provided (including types of barriers to colonoscopy identified and total navigation time), and differences in these measures by socio-demographic characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes included colonoscopy completion, timeliness of follow-up colonoscopy (i.e., within 9 months), and bowel prep adequacy. Among 514 patients who completed a mailed FIT, 38 patients had an abnormal result and were eligible for navigation. Of these, 26 (68%) accepted navigation, 7 (18%) declined, and 5 (13%) could not be contacted. Among navigated patients, 81% had informational needs, 38% had emotional barriers, 35% had financial barriers, 12% had transportation barriers, and 42% had multiple barriers to colonoscopy. Median navigation time was 48.5 min (range: 24-277 min). Colonoscopy completion differed across groups - 92% of those accepting navigation completed colonoscopy within 9 months, versus 43% for those declining navigation. We found that centralized navigation was widely accepted in FQHC patients with abnormal FIT, and was an effective strategy, resulting in high colonoscopy completion rates.

Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs.

METHODS

Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured.

RESULTS

There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT00102011.

Equitable Implementation of Mailed Stool Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Navigation in a Safety Net Health System

BACKGROUND

Mailed stool testing programs increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in diverse settings, but whether uptake differs by key demographic characteristics is not well-studied and has health equity implications.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the uptake and equity of the first cycle of a mailed stool test program implemented over a 3-year period in a Central Texas Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) system.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study within a single-arm intervention.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients in an FQHC aged 50-75 at average CRC risk identified through electronic health records (EHR) as not being up to date with screening.

INTERVENTIONS

Mailed outreach in English/Spanish included an introductory letter, free-of-charge fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and lab requisition with postage-paid mailer, simple instructions, and a medical records update postcard. Patients were asked to complete the FIT or postcard reporting recent screening. One text and one letter reminded non-responders. A bilingual patient navigator guided those with positive FIT toward colonoscopy.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportions of patients completing mailed FIT in response to initial cycle of outreach and proportion of those with positive FIT completing colonoscopy; comparison of whether proportions varied by demographics and insurance status obtained from the EHR.

KEY RESULTS

Over 3 years, 33,606 patients received an initial cycle of outreach. Overall, 19.9% (n = 6672) completed at least one mailed FIT, 5.6% (n = 374) tested positive during that initial cycle, and 72.5% (n = 271 of 374) of those with positive FIT completed a colonoscopy. Hispanic/Latinx, Spanish-speaking, and uninsured patients were more likely to complete mailed FIT compared with white, English-speaking, and commercially insured patients. Spanish-speaking patients were more likely to complete colonoscopy after positive FIT compared with English-speaking patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Mailed FIT outreach with patient navigation implemented in an FQHC system was effective in equitably reaching patients not up to date for CRC screening.

Cancer Screening after the Adoption of Paid-Sick-Leave Mandates

BACKGROUND

By the end of 2022, nearly 20 million workers in the United States have gained paid-sick-leave coverage from mandates that require employers to provide benefits to qualified workers, including paid time off for the use of preventive services. Although the lack of paid-sick-leave coverage may hinder access to preventive care, current evidence is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about its relationship to cancer screening.

METHODS

We examined the association between paid-sick-leave mandates and screening for breast and colorectal cancers by comparing changes in 12- and 24-month rates of colorectal-cancer screening and mammography between workers residing in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that have been affected by paid-sick-leave mandates (exposed MSAs) and workers residing in unexposed MSAs. The comparisons were conducted with the use of administrative medical-claims data for approximately 2 million private-sector employees from 2012 through 2019.

RESULTS

Paid-sick-leave mandates were present in 61 MSAs in our sample. Screening rates were similar in the exposed and unexposed MSAs before mandate adoption. In the adjusted analysis, cancer-screening rates were higher among workers residing in exposed MSAs than among those in unexposed MSAs by 1.31 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 2.34) for 12-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.56 percentage points (95% CI, 0.33 to 2.79) for 24-month colorectal cancer screening, 1.22 percentage points (95% CI, -0.20 to 2.64) for 12-month mammography, and 2.07 percentage points (95% CI, 0.15 to 3.99) for 24-month mammography.

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of private-sector workers in the United States, cancer-screening rates were higher among those residing in MSAs exposed to paid-sick-leave mandates than among those residing in unexposed MSAs. Our results suggest that a lack of paid-sick-leave coverage presents a barrier to cancer screening. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute.).

Racial Disparities in Endoscopy Cancellations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted healthcare delivery including elective endoscopy. We aimed to determine the prevalence of endoscopy cancellations in the COVID-19 era and identify patient characteristics associated with cancellation due to the pandemic.

METHODS

Medical charts were reviewed for adults who cancelled an outpatient endoscopic procedure from 5/2020 to 8/2020. The association of patient characteristics with cancellation of endoscopy due to COVID-19 was assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 652 endoscopy cancelations with 211 (32%) due to COVID-19, 384 (59%) due to non-COVID reasons, and 57 (9%) undetermined. Among COVID-19 related cancellations, 75 (36%) were COVID-19 testing logistics related, 121 (57%) were COVID-19 fear related, and 15 (7%) were other. On adjusted analysis, the odds of cancellation due to COVID-19 was significantly higher for black patients (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.07-3.88, p = 0.03), while patients undergoing EGD (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-0.99, p = 0.05) or advanced endoscopy (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.49, p = 0.001) had lower odds of cancellation. The odds of cancelling due to COVID-19 testing logistics was significantly higher among black patients (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.03-9.46, p = 0.05) and patients with Medi-Cal insurance (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.21-6.89, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Black race is associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 related cancellation. Specifically, black patients and those with Medi-Cal are at increased risk of cancellation related to logistics of obtaining pre-endoscopy COVID-19 testing. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to endoscopy may be further amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic and warrant further study.

Colonoscopy quality improvement after initial training: A cross-sectional study of intensive short-term training

Background and study aims High-quality is crucial for the effectiveness of colonoscopy and can be achieved by high-quality training and verified with assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs) for colonoscopy such as cecum intubation rate (CIR), adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adequate polyp resection. Typically, trainees achieve adequate CIR after 275 procedures, but little is known about learning curves for KPIs after initial training. Methods This cross-sectional study includes work-up colonoscopies after a positive screening test with fecal occult blood testing (FIT) or sigmoidoscopy, performed by either trainees after 300 training colonoscopies or by consultants. Outcome measures were KPIs. We assessed inter-endoscopist variation in trainees and learning curves for trainees as a group. We also compared KPIs for trainees and consultants as a group.  Results Data from 6,655 colonoscopies performed by 21 trainees and 921 colonoscopies performed by 17 consultants were included. Most trainees achieved target standards for main KPIs. With time, trainees shortened cecum intubation time and withdrawal time without decreasing their ADR, reduced the proportion of painful colonoscopies, and increased the adequate polyp resection rate (all P  < 0.01). Compared to consultants, trainees had higher CIR (97.7 % vs. 96.3 %, P  = 0.02), ADR after positive FIT (57.6 % vs. 50.3 %, P  < 0.01), and proximal ADR after sigmoidoscopy screening (41.1 % vs. 29.8 %; P  < 0.01), higher adequate polyp resection rate (94.9 % vs. 93.1 %, P  = 0.01) and fewer serious adverse events (0.65 % vs. 1.41 %, P  = 0.02). Conclusions Trainees performed high-quality colonoscopies and achieved international target standards. Several KPIs continuously improved after initial training. Trainees outperformed consultants on several KPIs.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Prevalence, Perceived Barriers, and Preference for Screening Colonoscopy Among Hospitalized Women

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening persist despite screening campaigns, especially among women. This study explores the prevalence, preferences, and barriers associated with colorectal cancer screening and evaluates the effect of an inpatient intervention (one-on-one bedside education and handout about colorectal cancer) on screening adherence among hospitalized women.

METHODS

A prospective intervention study among 510 hospitalized women, who are cancer-free (except for skin cancer) at enrollment, aged between 50 and 75 years was conducted at an academic center. Socio-demographic, family history, and medical comorbidities data were collected for all patients. A post-hospitalization follow-up survey determined the effect of inpatient intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence. Unpaired t-test and chi-square tests were used to compare characteristics, perspectives, and preferences for screening among adherent and non-adherent groups.

RESULTS

Mean age was 60.5 years, 45% reported an annual household income of <$20 000, 36% of women were African American, 27% of women were overdue for colorectal cancer screening, and 33% never had a screening colonoscopy. The most frequently reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening were "I have other problems more important than getting a colonoscopy," "No transportation to get to the test," and "Not counseled by primary care provider." Sixty-six percent of the non-adherent women would agree to have an inpatient screening colonoscopy if offered.

CONCLUSION

A significant number of hospitalized women are non-adherent to colorectal cancer screening, while the educational intervention was partially successful in enhancing colorectal cancer screening, most hospitalized women remained non-adherent after hospitalization. A majority of these women were amenable to inpatient screening colonoscopy if offered during a hospital stay.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Optimising colorectal cancer screening in Shanghai, China: a modelling study

INTRODUCTION

To reduce the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Shanghai, China, a CRC screening programme was commenced in 2013 inviting those aged 50-74 years to triennial screening with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and risk assessment. However, it is unknown whether this is the optimal screening strategy for this population. We aimed to determine the optimal CRC screening programme for Shanghai in terms of benefits, burden, harms and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Using Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon), we estimated the costs and effects of the current screening programme compared with a situation without screening. Subsequently, we estimated the benefits (life years gained (LYG)), burden (number of screening events, colonoscopies and false-positive tests), harms (number of colonoscopy complications) and costs (Renminb (¥)) of screening for 324 alternative screening strategies. We compared several different age ranges, screening modalities, intervals and FIT cut-off levels. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis determined the optimal strategy assuming a willingness-to-pay of ¥193 931 per LYG.

RESULTS

Compared with no screening, the current screening programme reduced CRC incidence by 40% (19 cases per 1000 screened individuals) and CRC mortality by 67% (7 deaths). This strategy gained 32 additional life years, increased colonoscopy demand to 1434 per 1000 individuals and cost an additional ¥199 652. The optimal screening strategy was annual testing using a validated one-sample FIT, with a cut-off of 10 µg haemoglobin per gram from ages 45 to 80 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ¥62 107). This strategy increased LY by 0.18% and costs by 27%. Several alternative cost-effective strategies using a validated FIT offered comparable benefits to the current programme but lower burden and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the current screening programme in Shanghai is effective at reducing CRC incidence and mortality, the programme could be optimised using a validated FIT. When implementing CRC screening, jurisdictions with limited health resources should use a validated test.

Barriers Associated with Inadequate Follow-up of Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Results in a Safety-Net System: A Mixed-Methods Analysis

•

Less than 50% of patients with an abnormal FIT result had a documented reason.

•

Patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy) reasons were most frequently documented.

•

Interviews revealed discordance in documented and patient-reported reasons.

•

Mixed-methods analyses are needed to improve colonoscopy after abnormal FIT results.

In safety-net healthcare systems, colonoscopy completion within 1-year of an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result rarely exceeds 50%. Understanding how electronic health records (EHR) documented reasons for missed colonoscopy match or differ from patient-reported reasons, is critical to optimize effective interventions to address this challenge. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study which included a retrospective analysis of EHR data and semi-structured interviews of adults 50–75 years old, with abnormal FIT results between 2014 and 2020 in a large safety-net healthcare system. Of the 299 patients identified, 59.2% (n = 177) did not complete a colonoscopy within one year of their abnormal result. EHR abstraction revealed a documented reason for lack of follow-up colonoscopy in 49.2% (n = 87/177); patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy; 51.5%) and multi-factorial reasons (e.g., lost to follow-up; 37.9%) were most common. In 18 patient interviews, patient (e.g., fear of colonoscopy), provider (e.g., lack of result awareness), and system-level reasons (e.g., scheduling challenges) were most common. Only three reasons for lack of colonoscopy overlapped between EHR data and patient interviews (competing health issues, lack of transportation, and abnormal FIT result attributed to another cause). In a cohort of safety-net patients with abnormal FIT results, the most common reasons for lack of follow-up were patient-related. Our analysis revealed a discordance between EHR documented and patient-reported reasons for lack of colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result. Mixed-methods analyses, as in the present study, may give us the greatest insight into modifiable determinants to develop effective interventions beyond quantitative and qualitative data analysis alone.

Colonoscopy-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Abnormal Stool-Based Tests: A Systematic Review of Literature and Meta-analysis of Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood (gFOBT) are associated with a substantial reduction in CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate colonoscopy-related adverse events in individuals with a positive FIT or gFOBT.

METHODS

A systematic and detailed search was run in January 2021, with the assistance of a medical librarian for studies reporting on colonoscopy-related adverse events as part of organized CRC screening programs. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model, and the results were expressed for pooled proportions along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 771,730 colonoscopies were performed in patients undergoing CRC screening using either gFOBT or FIT across 31 studies. The overall pooled incidence of severe adverse events in the entire patient cohort was 0.42% (CI 0.20-0.64); I2 = 38.76%. In patients with abnormal gFOBT, the incidence was 0.2% (CI 0.1-0.3); I2 = 24.6%, and in patients with a positive FIT, it was 0.4% (CI 0.2-0.7); I2 = 48.89%. The overall pooled incidence of perforation, bleeding, and death was 0.13% (CI 0.09-0.21); I2 = 22.84%, 0.3% (CI 0.2-0.4); I2 = 35.58%, and 0.01% (CI 0.00-0.01); I2 = 33.21%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis shows that in colonoscopies performed after abnormal stool-based testing, the overall risk of severe adverse events, perforation, bleeding, and death is minimal.

Timely Colonoscopy After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Assessment of Current Practice and Perceived Barriers

INTRODUCTION

The Veterans Health Administration introduced a clinical reminder system in 2018 to help address process gaps in colorectal cancer screening, including the diagnostic evaluation of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the differences between facilities who performed in the top vs bottom decile for follow-up colonoscopy.

METHODS

Seventeen semistructured interviews with gastroenterology (GI) providers and staff were conducted at 9 high-performing and 8 low-performing sites.

RESULTS

We identified 2 domains, current practices and perceived barriers, and most findings were described by both high- and low-performing sites. Findings exclusive to 1 group mainly pertained to current practices, especially arranging colonoscopy for FIT-positive patients. We observed only 1 difference in the perceived barriers domain, which pertained to primary care providers.

DISCUSSION

These results suggest that what primarily distinguishes high- and low-performing sites is not a difference in barriers but rather in the GI clinical care process. Developing and disseminating patient education materials about the importance of diagnostic colonoscopy, eliminating in-person precolonoscopy visits when clinically appropriate, and involving GI in missed colonoscopy appointments and outside referrals should all be considered to increase follow-up colonoscopy rates. Our study illustrates the challenges of performing a timely colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and provides insights on improving the clinical care process for patients who are at substantially increased risk for colorectal cancer.

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age.

METHODS

Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Colorectal Cancer screening in ambulatory healthcare service clinics in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates in 2015-2016

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health issue due to high morbidity and mortality. Different screening programs were implemented to reduce its burden.

Objectives

To estimate the prevalence of CRC screening uptake using fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) in Emirati nationals. Other objectives were to measure the incidence of CRC in the screened population, to measure the outcomes of follow-up screening colonoscopy after positive FIT/gFOBT and to identify the causes of not performing follow-up screening colonoscopy after positive FIT/gFOBT.

Methodology

Adult Emirati nationals aged 40–75 years who visited Ambulatory healthcare services clinics, Abu Dhabi in 2015–2016 were included in the study. The electronic medical records of the eligible individuals were reviewed retrospectively. The prevalence of CRC screening was measured among the eligible population using the FIT/gFOBT. The IBM SPSS Statistics program, version 21.0.0, was used for analysis.

Result

45,147 unique individuals were eligible for screening, and only 23.5% were screened using FIT/gFOBT. Of the screened individuals, 13.5% had positive FIT/ gFOBT, and 30.5% of those underwent follow-up screening colonoscopy. CRC was diagnosed in 11 individuals. Colonic polyp were found in 30.5% of individuals who had undergone a follow-up colonoscopy. Collectively 933 individuals did not undergo follow-up screening colonoscopy after having a positive FIT/gFOBT, and about 36.3% had collected the result and referred to a gastroenterologist but did not attend the appointment.

Conclusion

CRC screening uptake using FIT/gFOBT is low among the adult Emirati nationals.

Low Rates of Colonoscopy Follow-up After a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test in a Medicaid Health Plan Delivered Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

BACKGROUND

Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is necessary for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to be effective. We report colonoscopy follow-up rates after a positive FIT overall and by population characteristics in the BeneFIT demonstration pilot, a Medicaid health insurance plan-delivered mailed FIT outreach program.

METHODS

In 2016, 2 health insurance plans in Oregon and in Washington state mailed FIT kits to Medicaid patients who, based on claims data, were overdue for CRC screening. We report follow-up colonoscopy completion rates after positive FIT, and differences in completion rates by age, sex, race, ethnicity, preferred language, and number of primary care visits in the prior year. This research was human subjects approved with a waiver of consent for data collection.

RESULTS

The FIT positivity rates in Health Plan Oregon and Health Plan Washington were 7.9% (39/488) and 14.6% (125/857), respectively. Colonoscopy completion rates within 12 months of the positive test were 35.9% (14/41) in Health Plan Oregon and 32.8% (41/125) in Health Plan Washington. Colonoscopy completion rates were higher among individuals who preferred a language other than English (Non-English speakers 70.0%, English speakers 31.3%, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

In a health plan-delivered mailed FIT outreach program, follow-up colonoscopy rates after a positive test were low. Additional interventions are needed to assure colonoscopy after a positive FIT test and to reap the benefits of screening.

A Quality Improvement Intervention Leveraging a Safety Net Model for Surveillance Colonoscopy Completion

Systems to address follow-up testing of clinically positive surveillance colonoscopy results are lacking. The impact of an ambulatory safety net (ASN) intervention on rates of colonoscopy completion was assessed. The ASN team identified patients using an electronic registry, conducted patient outreach, coordinated care, and tracked colonoscopy completion. In all, 701 patients were captured in the ASN program: 58.1% (407/701) had possible barriers to follow-up colonoscopy completion, with rates of 80.1% (236/294) if no barrier, and 40.9% (287/701) overall. Colonoscopy completion likelihood increased with prior polypectomy (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.3), and decreased with White race (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9), increased inpatient visits (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9), more outreach attempts (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7), and fair/poor/inadequate preparation (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7) in logistic regression models. An ASN model for quality improvement promotes colonoscopy completion rates and identifies patient barriers.

A pilot study of virtual reality as an alternative to pharmacological sedation during colonoscopy

Background and study aims  Conscious sedation is routinely administered for colonoscopy but is associated with risks and inconveniences. We sought to determine whether virtual reality (VR) may be a feasible alternative. Patients and methods  Twenty-seven individuals scheduled for screening/surveillance colonoscopy participated. The VR device was activated throughout the colonoscopy, but subjects could opt out and request standard medications. Questionnaires were administered, and variables were assessed on a scale of 1 to 10. Results  Cecal intubation was achieved in all cases without adverse events (AEs). Study colonoscopies were completed without pharmacological rescue in 26 of 27 patients (96.3 %) and procedure times were comparable to baseline. Subjects reported minimal pain, high satisfaction, and willingness to use VR for future colonoscopies to avoid narcotics and resume normal activities including driving. Conclusion  Replacing pharmacological sedation with VR did not impact colonoscopy completion rates, procedure time, or AEs. Satisfaction was high and only one subject (3.7 %) chose to suspend VR. VR can be an effective alternative for patients undergoing colonoscopy who prefer to avoid narcotics.

Development of a multivariable prediction model to identify patients unlikely to complete a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT test in community clinics

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd leading cancer killer among men and women in the US. The Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) project aimed to increase CRC screening among patients in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) through a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program. However, rates of completion of the follow-up colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT remain low. We developed a multivariable prediction model using data available in the electronic health record to assess the probability of patients obtaining a colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT test.

Methods

To assess the probability of obtaining a colonoscopy, we used Cox regression to develop a risk prediction model among a retrospective cohort of patients with an abnormal FIT result.

Results

Of 1596 patients with an abnormal FIT result, 556 (34.8%) had a recorded colonoscopy within 6 months. The model shows an adequate separation of patients across risk levels for non-adherence to follow-up colonoscopy (bootstrap-corrected C-statistic > 0.63). The refined model included 8 variables: age, race, insurance, GINI income inequality, long-term anticoagulant use, receipt of a flu vaccine in the past year, frequency of missed clinic appointments, and clinic site. The probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months varied across quintiles; patients in the lowest quintile had an estimated 18% chance, whereas patients in the top quintile had a greater than 55% chance of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Knowing who is unlikely to follow-up on an abnormal FIT test could help identify patients who need an early intervention aimed at completing a follow-up colonoscopy.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01742065) on December 5, 2012. The protocol is available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-020-05883-2.

Triage May Improve Selection to Colonoscopy and Reduce the Number of Unnecessary Colonoscopies

Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by direct colonoscopy or follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test has challenged the overall capacity of bowel examinations. Certain countries are facing serious colonoscopy capacity constraints, which have led to waiting lists and long time latency of follow-up examinations. Various options for improvement are considered, including increased cut-off values of the fecal blood tests. Results from major clinical studies of blood-based, cancer-associated biomarkers have, however, led to focus on a Triage concept for improved selection to colonoscopy. The Triage test may include subject age, concentration of hemoglobin in a feces test and a combination of certain blood-based cancer-associated biomarkers. Recent results have indicated that Triage may reduce the requirements for colonoscopy by around 30%. Such results may be advantageous for the capacity, the healthcare budgets and in particular, the subjects, who do not need an unnecessary, unpleasant and risk-associated bowel examination.

Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

Fecal Immunochemical Test: The World's Colorectal Cancer Screening Test

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is a tool used for colorectal cancer screening and its use is growing rapidly. FIT, applied as a qualitative or quantitative test, has far better sensitivity for hemoglobin than older, guaiac fecal occult blood tests. This translates into several advantages of FIT, including ability to screen using only 1 stool sample per cycle. This article reviews current understanding of FIT performance as a 1-time test and when applied programmatically. It outlines how to apply the test at the patient level and track performance at the program level. Future prospects for FIT application are highlighted.

Afterthoughts on colonoscopy. Was it that bad?

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer is among the top three most common cancers globally. In order to reduce the health burden, it is important to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening by understanding the barriers and facilitators encountered. There are numerous reports in the literature on the views of the general public on cancer screening. However, the experiences of colonoscopy patients are not as well studied. This paper maps their perceptions.

METHODS

Keyword searches for terms such as 'colorectal', 'colonoscopy' and 'qualitative' were conducted on 3 December 2019 in five databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Qualitative articles that quoted colonoscopy-experienced patients with no prior history of colorectal cancer were included for the thematic analysis. The systematic review was then synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

The major themes were distilled into three categories: pre-procedure, during and post-procedure. The factors identified in the pre-procedure phase include the troublesome bowel preparation, poor quality of information provided and the dynamics within a support network. Perceptions of pain, emotional discomfort and the role of providers mark the experience during the procedure. The receipt of results, opportunities given for discussion and finances relating to colonoscopy are important post-procedure events.

CONCLUSION

Understanding colorectal cancer screening behaviour is fundamental for healthcare providers and authorities to develop system and personal level changes for the improvement of colorectal cancer screening services. The key areas include patient comfort, the use of clearer instructional aids and graphics, establishing good patient rapport, and the availability of individualized options for sedation and the procedure.

Perceived Deterrence Towards Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening among Northern Malaysia Population: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with positive immunochemical faecal occult blood test results were found to have poor compliance for a subsequent colonoscopy procedure. This study was conducted to explore patients' perceived deterrence for colonoscopy following a positive stool test.

METHODS

Using qualitative study method, a phone interview was conducted with 16 patients to elicit their views on the reasons for failure to attend the colonoscopy procedure following a positive stool test. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated before proceeded with the data analysis. Content analysis was made on the translated interview, followed by systematic classification of data by major themes.

RESULTS

Reasons for nonattendance were categorized under five main themes; unnecessary test, fear of the procedure, logistic obstacles (subthemes; time constraint, transportation problem), social influences, and having other health priority. Lacking in information about the procedure during the referral process was identified to cause misperception and unnecessary worry towards colonoscopy. Fear of the procedure was commonly cited by female respondents while logistic issues pertaining to time constraint were raised by working respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

More effective communication between patients and health care providers are warranted to avoid misconception regarding colonoscopy procedure. Support from primary care doctors, customer-friendly appointment system, use of educational aids and better involvement from family members were among the strategies to increase colonoscopy compliance.

How spatial accessibility to colonoscopy affects diagnostic adherences and adverse intestinal outcomes among the patients with positive preliminary screening findings

Background

Colonoscopy is an important procedure for early colorectal cancer (CRC) detection, however, patients with positive preliminary screening results in China may not seek for colonoscopy to confirm the diagnosis. We evaluated the spatial accessibility of colonoscopy among the residents with positive preliminary screening results in Guangzhou, China, and investigated how colonoscopy accessibility was associated with the population adherence and adverse intestinal outcomes.

Methods

This study was based on the Guangzhou community‐based CRC screening program. Spatial accessibility was measured using three metrics including travel time from home to nearest colonoscopy hospital, physician‐to‐population ratio (PPR) and accessibility indicator estimated with enhanced two‐step floating catchment area method (E2SFCA). We used Cox regression and logistic regression to assess the association of colonoscopy accessibility with population adherence and adverse intestinal outcomes, respectively.

Results

A total of 34 606 people were identified with positive preliminary screening findings. Central areas were reported with higher E2SFCA scores, higher PPR and less travel time. The model adjusting for potential individual level confounders found that PPR > 50 (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.88, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.79‐1.97) and higher scores of E2SFCA (HR = 3.78, 95% CI: 2.07‐6.92) were associated with increased adherence, although estimates were not significant in the model adjusting for both individual and district‐level confounders. For adverse intestinal outcomes, the final multilevel logistic model suggested a lower risk of intestinal lesions among the residents in areas with PPR > 50 (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24‐0.99) and higher scores of E2SFCA (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05‐0.82).

Conclusion

Significant inequality of colonoscopy accessibility was observed across Guangzhou. The increased incidence of intestinal lesions was associated with spatial inequalities of medical resources. Policies against the spatial inequality in medical resources should be developed.