Time to endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Results from a prospective multicentre trainee-led audit

Background

Endoscopy within 24 h of admission (early endoscopy) is a quality standard in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB). We aimed to audit time to endoscopy outcomes and identify factors affecting delayed endoscopy (>24 h of admission).

Methods

This prospective multicentre audit enrolled patients admitted with AUGIB who underwent inpatient endoscopy between November and December 2017. Analyses were performed to identify factors associated with delayed endoscopy, and to compare patient outcomes, including length of stay and mortality rates, between early and delayed endoscopy groups.

Results

Across 348 patients from 20 centres, the median time to endoscopy was 21.2 h (IQR 12.0-35.7), comprising median admission to referral and referral to endoscopy times of 8.1 h (IQR 3.7-18.1) and 6.7 h (IQR 3.0-23.1), respectively. Early endoscopy was achieved in 58.9%, although this varied by centre (range: 31.0-87.5%, p = 0.002). On multivariable analysis, lower Glasgow-Blatchford score, delayed referral, admissions between 7:00 and 19:00 hours or via the emergency department were independent predictors of delayed endoscopy. Early endoscopy was associated with reduced length of stay (median difference 1 d; p = 0.004), but not 30-d mortality (p = 0.344).

Conclusions

The majority of centres did not meet national standards for time to endoscopy. Strategic initiatives involving acute care services may be necessary to improve this outcome.

Psychosocial interventions for cancer: review and analysis using a three-tiered outcomes model

This study describes a three-tiered measurement model for psychosocial interventions with cancer patients and compares this model to extant measurement strategies. Progress has been made toward demonstrating that psychosocial interventions reduce depression, anxiety, functional impairment, and symptoms. However, Chambless and Hollon (1998) note that the literature on psychosocial interventions for cancer fails to meet criteria for establishing treatment "efficacy" and does not address issues of cost-effectiveness. The lack of a timely model of clinical outcomes may be hindering demonstration of efficacy and wider implementation of these interventions. Outcomes assessed by 65 interventions were classified as Global Health Outcomes (medical endpoints, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or resource utilization), Dimensions of HRQOL (distress, symptoms, functional ability, or interpersonal well-being), or Mechanisms of Action (evaluation of psychological or physiological processes). A total of 28% of reviewed studies assessed Global Outcomes, 82% assessed Dimensions of HRQOL, and 49% assessed Mechanisms of Action. While most studies assessed patients' symptoms and distress, measurements of resource utilization, HRQOL, and interpersonal HRQOL were under-reported. A greater emphasis on treatment costs, quality of life, and mediating/moderating processes associated with improvement in outcomes could inform decisions regarding allocation of health-care resources and lead to more widely available and efficient interventions for patients.