Do guidelines improve clinical practice? - a national survey on surveillance colonoscopies

An Estimate of the US Rate of Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).

RESULTS

A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed.

Adherence to Surveillance Guidelines after the Removal of Colorectal Polyps: A Multinational, Multicenter, Prospective Survey

Background/Aims

As the number of colonoscopies and polypectomies performed continues to increase in many Asian countries, there is a great demand for surveillance colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia.

Methods

A survey study was performed in seven Asian countries. An email invitation with a link to the survey was sent to participants who were asked to complete the questionnaire consisting of eight clinical scenarios.

Results

Of the 137 doctors invited, 123 (89.8%) provided valid responses. Approximately 50% of the participants adhered to the guidelines regardless of the risk of adenoma, except in the case of tubulovillous adenoma ≥10 mm combined with high-grade dysplasia, in which 35% of the participants adhered to the guidelines. The participants were stratified according to the number of colonoscopies performed ≥20 colonoscopies per month (high volume group) and <20 colonoscopies per month (low volume group). Higher adherence to the postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines was evident in the high volume group (60%) than in the low volume group (25%). The reasons for nonadherence included concern of missed polyps (59%), the low cost of colonoscopy (26%), concern of incomplete resection (25%), and concern of medical liability (15%).

Conclusions

A discrepancy between clinical practice and surveillance guidelines among physicians in Asia was found. Physicians in the low volume group frequently did not adhere to the guidelines, suggesting a need for continuing education and appropriate control. Concerns regarding the quality of colonoscopy and complete polypectomy were the main reasons for nonadherence.

[Quality indicators for National Disease Management Guidelines using the example of the National Disease Management Guideline for "Chronic Heart Failure"]

Together with an expert committee a structured approach to determining quality indicators for National Disease Management Guidelines has been developed. The key steps of this approach include: introducing guideline authors to the methodology at an early stage of the process of guideline development, pre-selecting recommendations of the guideline which are potentially measurable by means of quality indicators, assessing the potentially measurable quality indicators in written form using five criteria (including their importance for the health care system and clarity of definitions) and approving them in a formal consensus process. For lack of a database these quality indicators must be regarded as preliminary. For the National Disease Management Guideline "Chronic Heart Failure" nine rate-based indicators have been chosen. The indicators correspond to important strong recommendations (grade of recommendation: A) from the fields of diagnosis (two), general therapeutic strategy (two), specific treatment (three), clinical monitoring (one) and co-ordination of care (one). In a second step, the quality indicators have to be validated within a pilot project. The determination and assessment of the potential quality indicators have revealed room for improvement of guideline development. In particular, there is a need for more health care data and for specification of recommendations.

Use of Factor V Leiden genetic testing in practice and impact on management

PURPOSE

To assess the use of the genetic test for Factor V Leiden in clinical practice, physician adherence to national and local guidelines, and impacts of test results on patient management.

METHODS

Chart review of all patients tested for Factor V Leiden during a 1-year period (2003) in a large nonprofit health care system (group health) (n = 272).

RESULTS

The test for Factor V Leiden was most often used in nonacute outpatient settings by primary care practitioners, in combination with other tests for procoagulant disorders. Testing was performed more broadly than recommended: 61% of tests met American College of Medical Genetics guidelines, 46% of tests met CAP guidelines, and 37% of tests met group health internal guidelines. The most common rationale for testing was to explain a clinical event (58%). Patient management was modified more often in heterozygotes (54%) than in those with normal results (13%) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The uptake of the test for Factor V Leiden has not followed existing recommendations. Genetic risk information was used to influence patient management in the absence of supporting evidence related to health outcomes. These results underscore the importance of further research concerning effective prevention and treatment strategies for patients with genetic risk to help translate genetic risk information into improved health outcomes.