Perspectives of primary care providers and endoscopists about current practices, facilitators and barriers for preparation and follow-up of colonoscopy procedures: a qualitative study

Quality indicators of colonoscopy care: a qualitative study from the perspectives of colonoscopy participants and nurses

Background

Quality of care in colonoscopy is closely related to colonoscopy participants and the nursing workforce in endoscopy-related settings. However, limited data are available on the evaluations and recommendations regarding quality indicators for nursing care by these two groups. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the standards and requirements of quality of care in colonoscopy from the perspectives of patients and nurses.

Method

With a descriptive qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 with colonoscopy participants (P = 11) and nursing workforce (N = 7) in the endoscopy unit in a tertiary hospital. The interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis.

Results

Nine major themes emerged according to the structure, process, and outcome care quality model: workforce structure, quality requirements, unit facilities, nursing tools, nursing quality control systems, dynamic assessment and intervention, pre-examination care, strengthening education, and colonoscopy outcomes.

Conclusion

The indicator of quality of colonoscopy care should be used to assess and improve current practices to ensure a more direct and sustained impact of colonoscopy care. This study highlights the importance of nurse managers valuing the opinions and reflections of people involved in colonoscopy to improve the quality of colonoscopy care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08466-5.

Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study

Background

Optimal intervals between repeat colonoscopies could improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. We evaluated: (a) concordance between clinician and guideline recommended colonoscopy screening intervals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (b) clinician opinions about the utility of an electronic decision-making tool to aid in recommending screening intervals, and (c) the initial use of a decision-making smartphone/web-based application.

Methods

Clinician endoscopists and primary care providers participated in four focus groups (N = 22). We asked participating clinicians to evaluate up to 12 hypothetical scenarios and compared their recommended screening interval to those of North American guidelines. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in agreement with guidelines. We developed a decision-making tool and evaluated it via a pilot study with 6 endoscopists.

Result

53% of clinicians made recommendations that agreed with guidelines in ≤ 50% of the hypothetical scenarios. Themes from focus groups included barriers to using a decision-making tool: extra time to use it, less confidence in the results of the tool over their own judgement, and having access to the information required by the tool (e.g., family history). Most were willing to try a tool if it was quick and easy to use. Endoscopists participating in the tool pilot study recommended screening intervals discordant with guidelines 35% of the time. When their recommendation differed from that of the tool, they usually endorsed their own over the guideline.

Conclusions

Endoscopists are overconfident and inconsistent with applying guidelines in their polyp surveillance interval recommendations. Use of a decision tool may improve knowledge and application of guidelines. A change in practice may require that the tool be coupled with continuing education about evidence for improved outcomes if guidelines are followed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z.

Perceptions on Barriers and Facilitators to Colonoscopy Completion After Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Results in a Safety Net System

IMPORTANCE

The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, including fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), relies on colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal results, but in safety net systems and federally qualified health centers, in which FIT is frequently used, colonoscopy completion within 1 year of an abnormal result rarely exceeds 50%. Clinician-identified factors in follow-up of abnormal FIT results are understudied and could lead to more effective interventions to address this issue.

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinician-identified barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion among patients with abnormal FIT results in a safety net health care system.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted using semistructured key informant interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs) and staff members in a large safety net health care system in Washington state. Eligible clinicians were recruited through all-staff meetings and clinic medical directors. Interviews were conducted from February to December 2020 through face-to-face interactions or digital meeting platforms. Interview transcripts were analyzed deductively and inductively using a content analysis approach. Data were analyzed from September through December 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT result were identified by PCPs and staff members.

RESULTS

Among 21 participants, there were 10 PCPs and 11 staff members; 20 participants provided demographic information. The median (interquartile range) age was 38.5 (33.0-51.5) years, 17 (85.0%) were women, and 9 participants (45.0%) spent more than 75% of their working time engaging in patient care. All participants identified social determinants of health, organizational factors, and patient cognitive factors as barriers to colonoscopy completion. Participants suggested that existing resources that addressed these factors facilitated colonoscopy completion but were insufficient to meet national follow-up colonoscopy goals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, responses of interviewed PCPs and staff members suggested that the barriers to colonoscopy completion in a safety net health system may be modifiable. These findings suggest that interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal FIT results should be informed by clinician-identified factors to address multilevel challenges to colonoscopy completion.