Screening colonoscopies by primary care physicians: a meta-analysis

Trends in and factors associated with family physician-performed screening colonoscopies in the United States: 2016-2021

PURPOSE

Family physician (FP)-performed screening colonoscopies can serve as 1 strategy in the multifaceted strategy necessary to improve national colorectal cancer screening rates, particularly in rural areas where specialist models can fail. However, little research exists on the performance of this strategy in the real world. In this study, we evaluated trends in and factors associated with FP-performed screening colonoscopies in the United States between 2016 and 2021.

METHODS

Using national data from Merative's Marketscan insurance claims database, we estimate the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by FPs. We use logistic regression models to evaluate factors independently associated with FP-performed colonoscopies.

RESULTS

The percentage of screening colonoscopies performed by FPs exhibited a downward trend from 11.32% in 2016 to 6.73% in 2021, with the largest decrease occurring among patients from the most rural areas. FPs were more likely to perform colonoscopies on slightly older patients, male patients, and rural patients. Patients were less likely to receive FP-performed colonoscopies in large metropolitan areas compared to lesser populated areas. Patients were more likely to receive FP-performed colonoscopies in the Midwest, South, and West, even after accounting for urban-rural classification.

CONCLUSION

Despite a downward trajectory, FPs perform a substantial proportion of screening colonoscopies in the United States. Changes to the business side of health care delivery may be contributing to the observed decreasing rate. Whether through spatial or relational proximity, FPs may be better positioned to provide colonoscopy to some rural, male, and older patients who otherwise may not have been screened. Policy changes to expand the FP workforce, particularly in rural areas, are likely necessary to slow or reverse the downward trend of FP-performed screening colonoscopies.

Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based colorectal cancer screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with 4 key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas, non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI practitioner, comparing their outcomes with those of GI providers.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using a P value of less than .05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all P values were 2-sided.

RESULTS

No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged from 98% to 100% for cecal intubation; 97.4% to 100% for bowel preparation; 57.4% to 88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7% to 62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10 to 0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of this analysis, we can expect non-GI practitioner to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI practitioner given the performance outcomes for the key quality metrics.

Setting Up an Ambulatory GI Endoscopy Suite in the USA-Anesthesia and Sedation Challenges

Gastrointestinal endoscopy units, both freestanding and associated with ambulatory surgical centers, are on the increase, and the trend is likely to continue. The concept is relatively new, and there are insufficient guidelines and a general dearth of information for prospective planners and physicians. Debate continues in areas such as the selection of patients, appropriateness of procedures, and access to tertiary care. Leaders often scramble to address both critical and non-critical issues, often after the center has opened to the public. They often encounter issues which were not anticipated. In this review, we have provided comprehensive and concise information on the various aspects of starting and running an endoscopy unit. Some of the areas considered are referral and recruitment systems, determination of the need and site selection, layout and regulations, aspects related to drugs, equipment, medical emergencies, and emergency room transfers, discharge criteria, post-discharge follow-up, and finally, we have addressed issues related to avoiding and managing cancelations. It is assumed that a majority of the procedures are performed with predominantly propofol-induced deep sedation.

Optimal timing of a colonoscopy screening schedule depends on adenoma detection, adenoma risk, adherence to screening and the screening objective: A microsimulation study

Colonoscopy-based screening provides protection against colorectal cancer (CRC), but the optimal starting age and time intervals of screening colonoscopies are unknown. We aimed to determine an optimal screening schedule for the US population and its dependencies on the objective of screening (life years gained or incidence, mortality, or cost reduction) and the setting in which screening is performed. We used our established open-source microsimulation model CMOST to calculate optimized colonoscopy schedules with one, two, three or four screening colonoscopies between 20 and 90 years of age. A single screening colonoscopy was most effective in reducing life years lost from CRC when performed at 55 years of age. Two, three and four screening colonoscopy schedules saved a maximum number of life years when performed between 49-64 years; 44-69 years; and 40-72 years; respectively. However, for maximum incidence and mortality reduction, screening colonoscopies needed to be scheduled 4-8 years later in life. The optimum was also influenced by adenoma detection efficiency with lower values for these parameters favoring a later starting age of screening. Low adherence to screening consistently favored a later start and an earlier end of screening. In a personalized approach, optimal screening would start earlier for high-risk patients and later for low-risk individuals. In conclusion, our microsimulation-based approach supports colonoscopy screening schedule between 45 and 75 years of age but the precise timing depends on the objective of screening, as well as assumptions regarding individual CRC risk, efficiency of adenoma detection during colonoscopy and adherence to screening.

Provision of colonoscopy in rural settings: A qualitative assessment of provider context, barriers, facilitators, and capacity

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy can prevent morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and is the most commonly used screening method in the United States. Barriers to colonoscopy at multiple levels can contribute to disparities. Yet, in rural settings, little is known about who delivers colonoscopy and facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy access through screening completion.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study with providers in rural Oregon who worked in endoscopy centers or primary care clinics. Semistructured interviews, conducted in July and August, 2021, focused on clinician experiences providing colonoscopy to rural Medicaid patients, including workflows, barriers, and access. We used thematic analysis, through immersion crystallization, to analyze interview transcripts and develop emergent themes.

FINDINGS

We interviewed 19 providers. We found two categories of colonoscopy providers: primary care providers (PCPs) doing colonoscopy on their own patients (n = 9; 47%) and general surgeons providing colonoscopy to patients referred to their services (n = 10; 53%). Providers described barriers to colonoscopy at the provider, community, and patient levels and suggested patient supports could help overcome them. Providers found current colonoscopy capacity sufficient, but noted PCPs trained to perform colonoscopy would be key to continued accessibility. Finally, providers shared concerns about the shrinking number of PCP endoscopists, especially with anticipated increased screening demand related to the CRC screening guideline shift.

CONCLUSIONS

These themes reflect opportunities to address multilevel barriers to improve access, colonoscopy capacity, and patient education approaches. Our results highlight that PCPs are an essential part of the workforce that provides colonoscopy in rural areas.

Transdisciplinary entrustable professional activities

Healthcare has become highly specialized. Specialists, in medicine as well as in nursing, determine much of the high quality of current health care. But healthcare has also become increasingly fragmented, with professionals trained in separate postgraduate silos, with boundaries often difficult to cross. While a century ago, generalists dominated patient care provision, now specialists prevail and risk becoming alienated from each other, losing the ability to adapt to neighboring professional domains. Current health care requires a flexible workforce, ready to serve in multiple contexts, as the COVID-19 crisis has shown.The new concept of transdisciplinary entrustable professional activities, EPAs applicable in more than one specialty, was recently conceived to enhance collaboration and transfer between educational programs in postgraduate nursing in the Netherlands.In this paper, we reflect on our experiences so far, and on practical and conceptual issues concerning transdisciplinary EPAs, such as: who should define, train, assess, and register transdisciplinary EPAs? How can different prior education prepare for similar EPAs? And how do transdisciplinary EPAs affect professional identity?We believe that transdisciplinary EPAs can contribute to creating more flexible curricula and hence to a more coherent, collaborative healthcare workforce, less determined by the boundaries of traditional specialties.

Colorectal Cancer Screening within Colonoscopy Capacity Constraints: Can FIT-Based Programs Save More Lives by Trading off More Sensitive Test Cutoffs against Longer Screening Intervals?

Introduction. Colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention programs using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in screening rely on colonoscopy for secondary and surveillance testing. Colonoscopy capacity is an important constraint. Some European programs lack sufficient capacity to provide optimal screening intensity regarding age ranges, intervals, and FIT cutoffs. It is currently unclear how to optimize programs within colonoscopy capacity constraints. Design. Microsimulation modeling, using the MISCAN-Colon model, was used to determine if more effective CRC screening programs can be identified within constrained colonoscopy capacity. A total of 525 strategies were modeled and compared, varying 3 key screening parameters: screening intervals, age ranges, and FIT cutoffs, including previously unevaluated 4- and 5-year screening intervals (using a lifetime horizon and 100% adherence). Results were compared with the policy decisions taken in Ireland to provide CRC screening within available colonoscopy capacity. Outcomes estimated net costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and required colonoscopies. The optimal strategies within finite colonoscopy capacity constraints were identified. Results. Combining a reduced FIT cutoff of 10 µg Hb/g, an extended screening interval of 4 y and an age range of 60–72 y requires 6% fewer colonoscopies, reduces net costs by 23% while preventing 15% more CRC deaths and saving 16% more QALYs relative to a strategy (FIT 40 µg Hb/g, 2-yearly, 60–70 year) approximating current policy. Conclusion. Previously overlooked longer screening intervals may optimize cancer prevention with finite colonoscopy capacity constraints. Changes could save lives, reduce costs, and relieve colonoscopy capacity pressures. These findings are relevant to CRC screening programs across Europe that employ FIT-based testing, which face colonoscopy capacity constraints.

An Examination of Multilevel Factors Influencing Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Accountable Care Organization Settings: A Mixed-Methods Study

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient, provider, and delivery system-level factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and validate findings across multiple data sets.

DESIGN

A concurrent mixed-methods design using electronic health records, provider survey, and provider interview.

SETTING

Eight primary care accountable care organization clinics in Nebraska.

MEASURES

Patients' demographic/social characteristics, health utilization behaviors, and perceptions toward CRC screening; provider demographics and practice patterns; and clinics' delivery systems (eg, reminder system).

ANALYSIS

Quantitative (frequencies, logistic regression, and t tests) and qualitative analyses (thematic coding).

RESULTS

At the patient level, being 65 years of age and older (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, P < .001), being non-Hispanic white (OR = 1.93, P < .001), having insurance (OR = 1.90, P = .01), having an annual physical examination (OR = 2.36, P < .001), and having chronic conditions (OR = 1.65 for 1-2 conditions, P < .001) were associated positively with screening, compared with their counterparts. The top 5 patient-level barriers included discomfort/pain of the procedure (60.3%), finance/cost (57.4%), other priority health issues (39.7%), lack of awareness (36.8%), and health literacy (26.5%). At the provider level, being female (OR = 1.88, P < .001), having medical doctor credentials (OR = 3.05, P < .001), and having a daily patient load less than 15 (OR = 1.50, P = .01) were positively related to CRC screening. None of the delivery system factors were significant except the reminder system. Interview data provided in-depth information on how these factors help or hinder CRC screening. Discrepancies in findings were observed in chronic condition, colonoscopy performed by primary doctors, and the clinic-level system factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study informs practitioners and policy makers on the effective multilevel strategies to promote CRC screening in primary care accountable care organization or equivalent settings. Some inconsistent findings between data sources require additional prospective cohort studies to validate those identified factors in question. The strategies may include (1) developing programs targeting relatively younger age groups or racial/ethnic minorities, (2) adapting multilevel/multicomponent interventions to address low demands and access of local population, (3) promoting annual physical examination as a cost-effective strategy, and (4) supporting organizational capacity and infrastructure (eg, IT system) to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions.

[Knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia (Spain) on the identification of subjects at high risk of breast and colorectal cancer]

AIMS

To assess the knowledge and attitude among general practitioners in Andalusia on the identification of subjects with elevated risk for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and hereditary cancers, as well as to detect barriers to accessibility to the screening programs.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted based on an online survey of 24 questions. Data are shown as frequencies, and association tests were statistically used. The level of significance was set at<.05.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 32%, of which 224 were valid, and included 56% men, and a mean age±DE of 46±12 years. Established criteria for high risk breast cancer were already known by 71.4% [95% CI 65-76], being worst in those living in big cities (P<.014). Among general practitioners, 86% were allowed to order mammography in women with lumps or at moderate to high risk for breast cancer. As regards colorectal cancer, 87.9% of general practitioners knew the risk factors. Among general practitioners, 58.2% [95% CI 49-62] were allowed to order a colonoscopy if clinical suspicion was present, especially if they lived in large cities (P<.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The screening program for breast cancer is well-known by general practitioners, and the access to mammography is successful. Most of the general practitioners consider the follow-up program for persons at high risk for colorectal cancer appropriate, although half of those surveyed had some barriers to ordering colonoscopy. Knowledge on hereditary cancer is limited, and varies among areas. There is also a general lack of awareness on hereditary cancer and genetic counselling units.

Alberta Family Physician Electronic Endoscopy study: Quality of 1769 colonoscopies performed by rural Canadian family physicians

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether rural FP colonoscopists in Alberta are achieving benchmarks in colonoscopy quality.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicentre observational study.

SETTING

Alberta.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine FP colonoscopists.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of successful cecal intubations; proportion of patients aged 50 and older with pathologically confirmed adenomas; mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy; and serious adverse events related to colonoscopy.

RESULTS

In this 6-month study, 9 rural FPs in Alberta performed 1769 colonoscopies. Overall, all key colonoscopy quality benchmarks were met or exceeded. The proportion of successful cecal intubations was 97.9% (95% CI 97.2% to 98.6%). The proportion of male and female patients aged 50 and older whose first-time colonoscopy results revealed an adenoma was 67.4% (95% CI 62.4% to 72.7%) and 51.1% (95% CI 45.5% to 56.7%), respectively. There were 120 adenomas, 36 advanced adenomas, and 1 colon cancer case per 100 colonoscopies. There were 2 postpolypectomy bleeds and no other serious complications.

CONCLUSION

Alberta rural FP colonoscopists are meeting benchmarks in colonoscopy quality. Ongoing electronic collection of endoscopy quality markers should be encouraged. Supporting and training rural FPs who perform endoscopy might help alleviate current wait times and improve access for rural Canadian patients.

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer in men worldwide and the second most common in women. The purpose of this study was to determine both barriers established by primary health care providers (PHCPs) and barriers perceived by them and to produce solutions for achieving the desired results. A four-part questionnaire was administered to family physicians (FPs) and family health personnels (FHPs) in Samsun, Turkey on 01-15 May, 2016. Sixty-six percent of PHCPs were contacted. Data were evaluated as numbers and percentages, and statistical significance was analyzed using the Chi square and t tests. 478 PHCPs participated; 49.4 % were FPs and 50.6 % FHPs. Of the participants, 86.6 % stated that they performed CRC screening on patients. The level of participants knowing that screening should start at age 50 and conclude at age 70 was 49.7 %. The level of subjects requesting the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) at the correct intervals was 29.7 %, but only 6.9 % recommended colonoscopy at the correct intervals. Additionally, 18.2 % of subjects knew that the test used is immunochemical FOBT, and 60.5 % reported not using reminders. PHCPs' low levels of knowledge, awareness and advice compatible with guidelines concerning CRC screening may represent an obstacle to such screening. Barriers perceived by PHCPs include patients' inability to access definite medical information, deficiencies in the reminder system and patients' lack of interest in CRC screening. Additions to the screening program will be useful in overcoming barriers.

Who Performs Colonoscopy? Workforce Trends Over Space and Time

PURPOSE

With the increased availability of colonoscopy to average risk persons due to insurance coverage benefit changes, we sought to identify changes in the colonoscopy workforce. We used outpatient discharge records from South Carolina between 2001 and 2010 to examine shifts over time and in urban versus rural areas in the types of medical providers who perform colonoscopy, and the practice settings in which they occur, and to explore variation in colonoscopy volume across facility and provider types.

METHODS

Using an all-payer outpatient discharge records database from South Carolina, we conducted a retrospective analysis of all colonoscopy procedures performed between 2001 and 2010.

FINDINGS

We identified a major shift in the type of facilities performing colonoscopy in South Carolina since 2001, with substantial gains in ambulatory surgery settings (2001: 15, 2010: 34, +127%) versus hospitals (2001: 58, 2010: 59, +2%), particularly in urban areas (2001: 12, 2010: 27, +125%). The number of internists (2001: 46, 2010: 76) and family physicians (2001: 34, 2010: 106) performing colonoscopies also increased (+65% and +212%, respectively), while their annual procedures volumes stayed fairly constant. Significant variation in annual colonoscopy volume was observed across medical specialties (P < .001), with nongastroenterologists having lower volumes versus gastroenterologists and colon and rectal surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

There have been substantial changes over time in the number of facilities and physicians performing colonoscopy in South Carolina since 2001, particularly in urban counties. Findings suggest nongastroenterologists are meeting a need for colonoscopies in rural areas.

ADENOMA DETECTION RATE EVALUATION AND QUALITY OF COLONOSCOPY IN THE CENTER-WEST REGION OF BRAZIL

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third commonest cancer in men and the second in women worldwide. Peculiarities of its evolution allow secondary prevention measures through colonoscopy, with high diagnostic and therapeutic capacity. In this context, the quality indicators of the procedure become important, among them the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

OBJECTIVE

To relate the ADR in a medium risk population subjected to colonoscopy with sociodemographic, technical and histopathological indicators.

METHODS

This was a descriptive, observational and retrospective study whose data were collected from medical records of colonoscopy exams with the indication of colorectal cancer screening or prevention in the period from August to October 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 436 exams were included for analysis. Female sex represented 66.3% with 289 patients versus 33.7% for men. Patients aged between 50 and 59 years were 223 (51.1%) and those between 60 and 75 years were 213 (48.9%). In 99 exams (22.7%) chromoscopy was used, and 420 patients (96.3%) were adequately prepared. There were 118 patients with adenomas, resulting in an overall ADR of 27.1%. The ADR for men was 30.6% and 25.3% for women. Patients between 60 and 75 years old had a significantly higher ADR (31.9%, compared to 22.4% of the younger ones). Examinations in which chromoscopy was used also presented higher ADR.

CONCLUSION

The ADR values found for the population of the studied region were compatible with internationally established goals. Continuous evaluation of the ADR may yield interventions aimed at improving quality standards for colonoscopy and promote better prevention of colorectal cancer.

Double-Balloon Colonoscopy Has a Higher Cecal Intubation Rate Than Conventional Colonoscopy Using a Colon Simulator

BACKGROUND/AIM

Cecal intubation using conventional colonoscopy (CC) requires substantial training. We hypothesized that double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) facilitates cecal intubation by endoscopy naïve operators. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cecal intubation rate and learning curve of DBC compared with CC.

METHODS

Eighteen endoscopy naïve medical students were allocated to two groups and attempted cecal intubation within 20 min using a colon simulator. In group A, CC was performed ten times and then DBC ten times. In group B, the reverse was carried out. We evaluated the cecal intubation rate and learning curve.

RESULTS

The overall success rate for cecal intubation using DBC was significantly superior to CC [132/180 (73%) vs. 12/180 (7%), p < 0.001]. To evaluate the success rate overtime, we divided the ten repetitions of the procedure into three time periods: first (1-3), second (4-6), and third (7-10). The success rate using CC is <20%, even during the third time period, in both groups, and one perforation occurred. The success rate using DBC is over 30% in the first period and increased to nearly 80% in the third period in both groups. Finally, we evaluated the time needed for cecal intubation using DBC. The mean cecal intubation time in the first period is 14 min and decreased to 11 min in the third period.

CONCLUSIONS

DBC has a higher cecal intubation rate than CC performed by endoscopy naïve medical students using a colon simulator in this randomized-controlled, cross-over study.

Quality of Colonoscopy Performed in Rural Practice: Experience From the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative and the Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network

PURPOSE

Colon cancer screening is effective. To complete screening in 80% of individuals over age 50 years by 2018 will require adequate colonoscopy capacity throughout the country, including rural areas, where colonoscopy providers may have less specialized training. Our aim was to study the quality of colonoscopy in rural settings.

METHODS

The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) collaborated to recruit Oregon rural practices to submit colonoscopy reports to CORI's National Endoscopic Database (NED). Ten ORPRN sites were compared to non-ORPRN rural (n = 11) and nonrural (n = 43) sites between January 2009 and October 2011. Established colonoscopy quality measures were calculated for all sites.

RESULTS

No ORPRN physicians were gastroenterologists compared with 82% of nonrural physicians. ORPRN practices reached the cecum in 87.4% of exams compared with 89.3% of rural sites (P = .0002) and 90.9% of nonrural sites (P < .0001). Resected polyps were less likely to be retrieved (84.7% vs 91.6%; P < .0001) and sent to pathology (77.1% vs 91.3%; P < .0001) at ORPRN practices compared to nonrural sites. The overall polyp detection (39.0% vs 40.3%) was similar (P = .217) between ORPRN and nonrural practices. Of exams with polyps, the rate for largest polyp on exam 6-9 mm was 20.8% at ORPRN sites, compared to 26.8% at nonrural sites (P < .0001), and for polyps >9mm 16.6% vs 18.7% (P = .106).

CONCLUSION

ORPRN sites performed well on most colonoscopy quality measures, suggesting that high-quality colonoscopy can be performed in rural settings.

A systematic review of splenic injuries during colonoscopies: Evolving trends in presentation and management

INTRODUCTION

Although uncommon, the incidence of splenic injury from colonoscopy has been increasing significantly since first being reported in 1974. Early recognition is critical because mortality may be as high as 5%.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify English-language cases of splenic injury from colonoscopy from inception until January 26, 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the identified cases.

RESULTS

A total of 172 cases from 122 reports were included. The mean age was 64 years and 70.8% were females. Prior abdominal or pelvic surgeries were identified in 63.8%. 57.3% of patients underwent polypectomies or biopsies. There was a statistically significant increase in use of computerized tomography for diagnosis in the past 5 years (81.8% versus 65.2%). 76.1% patients received transfusions. Mean inpatient length of stay was 7.83 ± 5.32 days. A non-significant trend toward conservative management was noted in the past 5 years (37.7% versus 23.1%), and a non-significant drop in mortality was noted (4.9% versus 5.4%).

DISCUSSION

Our data support prior literature suggesting a higher incidence of splenic injuries during colonoscopies in females, advanced age, prior history of abdominal/pelvic surgeries and biopsies/polypectomies during the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant mortality associated with splenic injuries during colonoscopies warrants prompt recognition of this potentially life threatening, albeit uncommon, complication.

The cost-effectiveness of training US primary care physicians to conduct colorectal cancer screening in family medicine residency programs

BACKGROUND

Demand for a wide array of colorectal cancer screening strategies continues to outpace supply. One strategy to reduce this deficit is to dramatically increase the number of primary care physicians who are trained and supportive of performing office-based colonoscopies or flexible sigmoidoscopies. This study evaluates the clinical and economic implications of training primary care physicians via family medicine residency programs to offer colorectal cancer screening services as an in-office procedure.

METHODS

Using previously established clinical and economic assumptions from existing literature and budget data from a local grant (2013), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated that incorporate the costs of a proposed national training program and subsequent improvements in patient compliance. Sensitivity analyses are also conducted.

RESULTS

Baseline assumptions suggest that the intervention would produce 2394 newly trained residents who could perform 71,820 additional colonoscopies or 119,700 additional flexible sigmoidoscopies after ten years. Despite high costs associated with the national training program, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remain well below standard willingness-to-pay thresholds under base case assumptions. Interestingly, the status quo hierarchy of preferred screening strategies is disrupted by the proposed intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A national overhaul of family medicine residency programs offering training for colorectal cancer screening yields satisfactory incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. However, the model places high expectations on primary care physicians to improve current compliance levels in the US.

Rates of Suboptimal Preparation for Colonoscopy Differ Markedly Between Providers: Impact on Adenoma Detection Rates

GOALS

We sought to determine if providers who have higher standards for optimal bowel preparation might be more fastidious in their examination of the colon and, therefore, have higher adenoma detection rates (ADRs).

BACKGROUND

ADRs are a reliable and objective marker of colonoscopy performance. Suboptimal bowel preparation impacts upon adenoma detection; however, physicians have varying standards for grading bowel preparation.

STUDY

Endoscopy reports of patients who underwent screening colonoscopy in 2011 at 1 academic medical center were reviewed. Bowel preparations labeled "fair," "poor," or "unsatisfactory" were considered suboptimal. The ADR was calculated for each endoscopy provider and was correlated with the provider's suboptimal preparation rate. Logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of adenoma detection.

RESULTS

1649 examinations from 11 separate gastroenterologists were included. Preparation was suboptimal in 22% of examinations overall. The rate of suboptimal preparations varied widely among providers, ranging from 3% to 40%. Overall ADR was 23%, with a range of 13% to 31%. Providers' suboptimal preparation rate was not significantly correlated with ADR (r=-0.22, P=0.51). After adjusting for age and sex, adenoma detection was not associated with provider suboptimal preparation rate (P=0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of suboptimal preparation vary widely between providers, but were not correlated with ADR. This suggests that a high suboptimal preparation rate is not a marker of higher quality standards and expectations by the provider. The impact of physician personality traits on colonoscopy performance requires further study.

The role of primary care physicians in early diagnosis and treatment of chronic gastrointestinal diseases

Chronic gastrointestinal disorders are a source of substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost. They are common in general practice, and the primary care physician (PCP) has a central role in the early detection and management of these problems. The need to make cost-effective diagnostic and treatment decisions, avoid unnecessary investigation and referral, provide long-term effective control of symptoms, and minimize the risk of complications constitute the main challenges that PCPs face. The literature review shows that, although best practice standards are available, a considerable number of PCPs do not routinely follow them. Low rates of colorectal cancer screening, suboptimal testing and treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors, and the fact that most PCPs are still approaching the irritable bowel disease as a diagnosis of exclusion represent the main gaps between evidence-based guidelines and clinical practice. This manuscript points out that updating of knowledge and skills of PCPs via continuing medical education is the only way for better adherence with standards and improving quality of care for patients with gastrointestinal diseases.

Prospective Study of the Quality of Colonoscopies Performed by Primary Care Physicians: The Alberta Primary Care Endoscopy (APC-Endo) Study

BACKGROUND

The quality of colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians (PCPs) is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether PCP colonoscopists achieve colonoscopy quality benchmarks, and patient satisfaction with having their colonoscopy performed by a primary care physician.

DESIGN

Prospective multi-center, multi-physician observational study. Colonoscopic quality data collection occurred via completion of case report forms and pathological confirmation of lesions. Patient satisfaction was captured by a telephone survey.

SETTING

Thirteen rural and suburban hospitals in Alberta, Canada.

MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of successful cecal intubations, average number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, proportion of patients with at least one adenoma, and serious adverse event rates; patient satisfaction with their wait time and procedure, as well as willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care endoscopist.

RESULTS

In the two-month study period, 10 study physicians performed 577 colonoscopies. The overall adjusted proportion of successful cecal intubations was 96.5% (95% CI 94.6-97.8), and all physicians achieved the adjusted cecal intubation target of ≥90%. The average number of ademonas detected per colonoscopy was 0.62 (95% CI 0.5-0.74). 46.4% (95% CI 38.5-54.3) of males and 30.2% (95% CI 22.3-38.2) of females ≥50 years of age having their first colonoscopy, had at least one adenoma. Four serious adverse events occurred (three post polypectomy bleeds and one perforation) and 99.3% of patients were willing to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care colonoscopist.

LIMITATIONS

Two-month study length and non-universal participation by Alberta primary care endoscopists.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physician colonoscopists can achieve quality benchmarks in colonoscopy. Training additional primary care physicians in endoscopy may improve patient access and decrease endoscopic wait times, especially in rural settings.

Screening colonoscopy from a large single center of Thailand - something needs to be changed?

BACKGROUND

Results of screening colonoscopy from Western countries reported adenoma detection rates (ADRs) of 30-40% while those from Asia had ADR as low as 10%. There have been limited data regarding screening colonoscopy in Thailand. The objectives of this study were therefore to determine polyp and adenoma detection rates in Thai people, to evaluate the incidence of colorectal cancer detected during screening colonoscopy and to determine the endoscopic findings of the polyps which might have some impact on endoscopists to perform polypectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective electronic chart review of asymptomatic Thai adults who underwent screening colonoscopy in our endoscopic center from June 2007 to October 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 1,594 cases were reviewed. The patients had an average age of 58.3 ± 10.5 years (range 27-82) and 55.5% were female. Most of the cases (83.8%) were handled by staff who were endoscopists. A total of 488 patients (30.6%) were reported to have colonic polyps. Left-sided colon was the most common site (45.1%), followed by right-sided colon (36.5%) and the rectum (18%). Those polyps were removed in 97.5% of cases and 88.5 % of the polyps were sent for histopathology (data lost 11.5%). Two hundred and sixty three cases had adenomatous polyps, accounting for 16.5 % ADR. Advanced adenomas were detected in 43 cases (2.6%). Hyperplastic polyps were mainly located distal to the splenic flexure of the colon whereas adenomas were found throughout the large intestine. Ten cases (0.6%) were found to have colorectal cancer. Four advanced adenomas and two malignant polyps were reported in lesions ≤ 5 mm.

CONCLUSION

The polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate and colorectal cancer detection rate in the screening colonoscopy of Thai adults were 30.9%, 16.5%, 2.6% and 0.6% respectively. Malignant transformation was detected regardless of the size and location of the polyps. Therefore, new technology would play an important role indistinguishing polyps.

Ethnic and sex disparities in colorectal neoplasia among Hispanic patients undergoing screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a high prevalence among the US Hispanic population. In Puerto Rico, CRC is the third leading cause of cancer death in men and the second in women. There are limited published data on the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) among the US Hispanic population. We determined the prevalence of CRN (colorectal adenomas and cancer) among asymptomatic, Hispanic subjects who were screened in Puerto Rico and evaluated risk factors associated with CRN.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the medical, endoscopic, and pathology records of individuals who underwent first-time screening colonoscopies at an ambulatory gastroenterology practice from January 1, 2008, to December 1, 2009. The prevalence of CRN (overall and advanced), documented by colonoscopy and pathology reports, was calculated for the complete cohort and by sex.

RESULTS

Of the 745 Hispanic individuals who underwent screening colonoscopies during the study period, the prevalence for overall CRN was 25.1% and for advanced CRN (≥ 1 cm and/or with advanced histology) was 4.0%. The prevalence of CRN was higher for men than women (32.0% vs 20.6%; P = .001; odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.6). CRN was more frequently located in the proximal colon (67.7% proximal vs 32.3% distal). A family history of CRC was associated with advanced CRN (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-6.79).

CONCLUSIONS

CRN was more common among Hispanic men than women and increased with age. CRNs among Hispanic individuals were predominantly located in the proximal colon. These findings indicate that there are ethnic and sex disparities in patterns of CRN that might be related to genomic admixture and have important implications for screening algorithms for Hispanic individuals.

Splenic injury during colonoscopy--a complication that warrants urgent attention

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a safe procedure that is performed routinely worldwide. There is, however, a small but significant risk of splenic injury that is often under-recognized. Due to a lack of awareness about this injury, the diagnosis may be delayed, which can lead to an increased risk of morbidity as well as mortality. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the medical literature on colonoscopy-associated splenic injury and describes the clinical presentation and management of this rare but potentially life-threatening complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search identified 102 patients worldwide, including patients from our experience, with splenic injury during colonoscopy. A meta-regression analysis was completed using a mixed generalized linear model for repeated measures to identify risk factors for this rare complication.

RESULTS

A total of 75 articles were identified and 102 patients were studied. The majority of the papers were in English (92 %). Only 23.4 % of patients (26/102) were reported prior to the year 2000. Among the patients reported after the year 2000, the majority (84.2 %, 64/76) were reported after 2005. There were more females (76.5 %), median age was 65 years (range, 29-90 years), and most of the colonoscopies were performed without difficulty (66.6 %). Nearly 67 % of patients presented within 24 h of colonoscopy with complaints ranging from abdominal pain to dizziness. The most common symptom was left upper quadrant pain (58 %), and CT scan was found to be the most sensitive tool for diagnosis. Seventy-three patients underwent operative intervention; 96 % of these were treated with splenectomy. Hemoglobin drop of more than 3 gm/dL was identified as the only significant predictor of operative intervention. The overall mortality rate was 5 %.

CONCLUSION

Splenic injury during colonoscopy is rare; however, it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Splenic injury warrants a high degree of clinical suspicion critical to prompt diagnosis, and early surgical consultation is warranted.

Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic screening for esophageal neoplasia can identify patients eligible for early intervention for precancerous lesions. Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy may provide an efficient and accurate endoscopic assessment with fewer risks and less cost, compared with conventional upper endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy in a primary care population.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Two outpatient tertiary-care centers.

PATIENTS

This study involved a general medical clinic population aged between 40 and 85 years.

INTERVENTION

Unsedated, office-based transnasal esophagoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Procedure yield; completeness of examination; procedure length; adverse events and complications; choking, gagging, pain, or anxiety during the examination; and overall tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 426 participants (mean [± standard deviation] age 55.8 ± 9.5 years; 43% male) enrolled in the study, and 422 (99%) completed the examination. Mean (± standard deviation) examination time was 3.7 ± 1.8 minutes. There were no serious adverse events, and 12 participants (2.8%) reported minor complications. Participants reported minimal choking, gagging, pain, or anxiety. The examination was well-tolerated by most participants. Overall, 38% of participants had an esophageal finding that changed management (34% erosive esophagitis, 4% Barrett's esophagus).

LIMITATIONS

Nonrandomized study, tertiary-care centers only, self-selected population with a large proportion reporting esophageal symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy is a feasible, safe, and well-tolerated method to screen for esophageal disease in a primary care population. Endoscopic findings are common in this patient population.

Test performance of immunologic fecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy compared with primary colonoscopy screening for colorectal advanced adenomas

Given the current increase in colorectal cancer screening, information on performance of screening tests is needed, especially in groups with a presumed lower test performance. We compared test performance of immunologic fecal occult blood testing (FIT) and pseudosigmoidoscopy with colonoscopy for detection of advanced adenomas in an average risk screening population. In addition, we explored the influence of gender, age, and location on test performance. FIT was collected prior to colonoscopy with a 50 ng/mL cutoff point. FIT results and complete colonoscopy findings were available from 329 subjects (mean age: 54.6 ± 3.7 years, 58.4% women). Advanced adenomas were detected in 38 (11.6%) of 329 subjects. Sensitivity for advanced adenomas of FIT and sigmoidoscopy were 15.8% (95% CI: 6.0-31.3) and 73.7% (95% CI: 56.9-86.6), respectively. No sensitivity improvement was obtained using the combination of sigmoidoscopy and FIT. Mean fecal hemoglobin in FIT positives was significantly lower for participants with only proximal adenomas versus those with distal ones (P = 0.008), for women versus men (P = 0.023), and for younger (<55 years) versus older (≥55 years) subjects (P = 0.029). Sensitivities of FIT were 0.0% (95% CI: 0.0-30.9) in subjects with only proximal versus 21.4% (95% CI: 8.3-41.0) in those with distal nonadvanced adenomas; 5.3% (95% CI: 0.0-26.0) in women versus 26.3% (95% CI: 9.2-51.2) in men; 9.5% (95% CI: 1.2-30.4) in younger versus 23.5% (95% CI: 6.8-49.9) in older subjects. Sigmoidoscopy had a significantly higher sensitivity for advanced adenomas than FIT. A single FIT showed very low sensitivity, especially in subjects with only proximal nonadvanced adenomas, in women, and in younger subjects. This points to the existence of "low" FIT performance in subgroups and the need for more tailored screening strategies.

Evaluating risk factor assumptions: a simulation-based approach

BACKGROUND

Microsimulation models are an important tool for estimating the comparative effectiveness of interventions through prediction of individual-level disease outcomes for a hypothetical population. To estimate the effectiveness of interventions targeted toward high risk groups, the mechanism by which risk factors influence the natural history of disease must be specified. We propose a method for evaluating these risk factor assumptions as part of model-building.

METHODS

We used simulation studies to examine the impact of risk factor assumptions on the relative rate (RR) of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality for a cohort with a risk factor compared to a cohort without the risk factor using an extension of the CRC-SPIN model for colorectal cancer. We also compared the impact of changing age at initiation of screening colonoscopy for different risk mechanisms.

RESULTS

Across CRC-specific risk factor mechanisms, the RR of CRC incidence and mortality decreased (towards one) with increasing age. The rate of change in RRs across age groups depended on both the risk factor mechanism and the strength of the risk factor effect. Increased non-CRC mortality attenuated the effect of CRC-specific risk factors on the RR of CRC when both were present. For each risk factor mechanism, earlier initiation of screening resulted in more life years gained, though the magnitude of life years gained varied across risk mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulation studies can provide insight into both the effect of risk factor assumptions on model predictions and the type of data needed to calibrate risk factor models.

A public-health perspective on screening colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer is an important global health problem. Randomized trials have shown that screening programs can reduce both colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and guidelines strongly support screening. Nevertheless, screening rates are relatively low and concerted efforts are being made to increase screening uptake. Many guidelines and practitioners have come to view colonoscopy as the optimal screening strategy. Colonoscopy provides both a gold-standard diagnostic test and, with polypectomy, a therapeutic intervention that can prevent cancer. However, from a public-health perspective, emphasizing colonoscopy is problematic. The efficacy of colonoscopy has not been supported with randomized trial data, accuracy is imperfect, procedural quality is variable, complications are not uncommon, endoscopic capacity is limited, procedure costs are high, and many patients prefer alternative tests. Successful screening programs will need to provide a range of screening modalities and ensure that endoscopic resources are used efficiently.

The quality of colonoscopy services--responsibilities of referring clinicians: a consensus statement of the Quality Assurance Task Group, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable

Primary care clinicians initiate and oversee colorectal screening for their patients, but colonoscopy, a central component of screening programs, is usually performed by consultants. The accuracy and safety of colonoscopy varies among endoscopists, even those with mainstream training and certification. Therefore, it is a primary care responsibility to choose the best available colonoscopy services. A working group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable identified a set of indicators that primary care clinicians can use to assess the quality of colonoscopy services. Quality measures are of actual performance, not training, specialty, or experience alone. The main elements of quality are a complete report, technical competence, and a safe setting for the procedure. We provide explicit criteria that primary care physicians can use when choosing a colonoscopist. Information on quality indicators will be increasingly available with quality improvement efforts within the colonoscopy community and growth in the use of electronic medical records.

Quality measures and credentialing in gastrointestinal endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Quality assessment and improvement are now mainstream activities in medicine. This review presents recent publications pertaining to quality, proposed quality measures, and associated topics in credentialing and delivery of endoscopic services.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature continues to focus primarily on colonoscopy services. Surveillance colonoscopy continues to suffer from underuse in high-risk patients and overuse in average to moderate-risk patients, based upon current guidelines for application. Several series update and add to our understanding of adenoma detection rates as measures of quality. One study confirmed an inverse association between adenoma detection rates at screening endoscopy and the risk for identification of colorectal cancer at a subsequent diagnostic or surveillance procedure. Credentialing guidelines proposed for worldwide application are becoming uniform and similar to those from several national societies. Quality measures for use in endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are just beginning to be assessed in large series.

SUMMARY

Proposed quality measures for colonoscopy are maturing, with increasing emphasis on adenoma detection rates rather than indirect proxies for neoplasia detection. Personal and unit-based benchmarking appears to be gaining favor and is facilitated by use of automated reporting systems. Greater attention is being focused on individual performance and assuring competence of the endoscopy workforce.

Quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians with standby specialist support

BACKGROUND

Expanding the population's access to colonoscopy screening can reduce colorectal cancer disparities. Innovative strategies are needed to address the prevailing 50% colonoscopy screening gap, partly attributable to inadequate specialist workforce. This study examined the quality of colonoscopies by primary care physicians (PCPs) with standby specialist support at a licensed ambulatory surgery center.

METHODS

Retrospective data on 10,958 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 51 PCPs on 9815 patients from October 2002 to November 2007 were used to calculate the rates of cecal intubation, detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced neoplasia and cancer, adverse events, and time taken for endoscope insertion and withdrawal. The center's protocol requires a 2-person technique (using a trained technician), polyp search and removal during both scope insertion and withdrawal, and onsite expert always available for rescue assistance (either navigational or therapeutic).

FINDINGS

Mean patient age was 58.3 (+/-10.9) years, 48.0% were male, and 48.1% African-American. The cecal intubation rate was 98.1%, polyp detection rate 63.1%, hyperplastic polyp 27.5%, adenoma 29.9%, advanced neoplasia 5.7%, cancer 0.63%, major adverse events 0.06% (including 2 perforations; no death). Mean insertion and withdrawal times were 14.4 (+/-9.3) and 10.9 (+/-6.8) minutes, respectively; 13.2 (+/-8.6) and 8.0 (+/-4.5) minutes without polyps found, and 15.1 (+/-9.6) and 12.5 (+/-7.3) minutes when > or =1 polyp was found.

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest published study of PCP-performed colonoscopies with standby specialist support, we observed performance quality indicators and lesion detection rates that are comparable to documented rates for experienced gastroenterologists. Systems that use PCPs with specialist backup support enable high-quality colonoscopy performance by PCPs.

Endoscopy: Have we gastroenterologists lessened our value through the perception of us as professional proceduralists?

This is a commentary on the recently published meta-analysis by Wilkins et al which concluded that primary care physicians are able to provide comparable quality in performing colonoscopic colon cancer screening as gastroenterologists.

Assessing colonoscopy training outcomes using quality indicators

PURPOSE

Training numbers for colonoscopy vary among specialties. Tracking colonoscopy quality indicators for program graduates may provide reliable outcome data to improve educational programs and establish training requirements. The purpose of this study was to measure specific colonoscopy quality indicators for a family medicine graduate to determine if outcome can be used to assess the quality of procedure training and contribute to more objective means of establishing training numbers.

METHODS

We present a case series of the first 800 colonoscopies performed by a newly credentialed family physician who had performed 101 procedures during residency training. Procedure reports and medical records were reviewed for all patients receiving a colonoscopy by this physician from September 2003 to September 2007. Selected quality indicators were compared to recommended colonoscopy standards.

RESULTS

The overall reach-the-cecum rate was 98.6%. Adenomas were detected in 21.6% of females and 33.7% of males. All polyps measuring less than 2 cm were removed. Epinephrine was used for 3 patients with hemostasis after polypectomy. There were no perforations.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality indicators for colonoscopy were met after 101 supervised procedures. Postgraduate tracking of nationally recognized colonoscopy quality indicators can provide valuable outcome data to improve residency training and assist in establishing uniform training requirements among specialties.