Explore the vast range of titles available.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Older age is associated with a rise in colorectal cancer and adenomas, necessitating the need for CRC screening in older patients. However, decisions about CRC screening and surveillance in older adults are often difficult and challenging. The decision requires an individualized assessment that incorporates factors unique to performing colonoscopy in older adults in order to weigh the risks and benefits for each patient according to their overall health and preferences. This review addresses the factors unique to colorectal cancer and performing colonoscopy in older adults that are relevant in weighing the risks and benefits of screening and surveillance in this population.

Efficiency is defined as the use of resources in such a way as to maximize the production of goods and services. Improving efficiency has been the focus of management in many industries; however, it has not been until recently that incorporating efficiency models into healthcare has occurred. In particular, the study and development of improvement projects aimed at enhancing efficiency in GI have been growing rapidly in recent years. This focus on improving efficiency in GI has been spurred by the dramatic rise in the demand for endoscopic procedures as well as the rising number of insured patients requiring GI care coupled at the same time with limited resources in terms of staffing and space in endoscopy centers. This paper will critically review the history of efficiency in endoscopy centers, first by looking at other healthcare industries that have extensively studied and improved efficiency in their fields, examine a number of proposed efficiency metrics and benchmarks in endoscopy centers, and finally discuss opportunities where endoscopy centers could improve their efficiency.

Background To reduce unnecessary ambulatory gastroenterology (GI) visits and increase access to GI care, San Francisco Health Network gastroenterologists and primary care providers implemented guidelines in 2013 that discharged certain patients back to primary care after endoscopy with formal written recommendations. This study assesses the longer-term impact of this policy on GI clinic access, workflow, and provider satisfaction. Methods An email-based survey assessed gastroenterologist and primary care provider (PCP) opinions about the discharge process. Administrative data and chart review were used to assess clinic access, intervention fidelity, and re-referral rates. Results 102/299 (34%) of PCPs and 5/7 (71%) of gastroenterologists responded to the survey. 74% of PCPs and 100% of gastroenterologists were satisfied or very satisfied with the discharge process. 80% of gastroenterologists believed the discharge process decreased their workload, while 53.5% of primary care providers believed it increased their workload. 6.7% of patients discharged to primary care in 2013 had re-referrals to GI. Wait time for the third-next-available new outpatient GI clinic appointment had previously decreased from 158 days (2012, pre-intervention) to 74 days (2013, post-intervention). In 2015, wait time was 19 days ( p  < 0.001 for 2012 vs. 2015). Conclusions Primary care providers and gastroenterologists are satisfied with an intervention to discharge patients from gastroenterology to primary care after certain endoscopic procedures, although this conclusion is limited by a relatively low PCP survey response rate. Discharging appropriate patients using consensus criteria from the gastroenterology clinic was instrumental in sustainably reducing clinic wait times with low re-referral rates.

The effectiveness of stool-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is contingent on colonoscopy completion in patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Understanding system and patient factors affecting follow-up of abnormal screening tests is essential to optimize care for high-risk cohorts. This retrospective cohort study was conducted in an integrated safety-net system comprised of 11 primary-care clinics and one Gastroenterology referral unit and included patients 50-75 years, with a positive FIT between April 2012 and February 2015. Of the 2,238 patients identified, 1,245 (55.6%) completed their colonoscopy within 1-year of the positive FIT. The median time from positive FIT to colonoscopy was 184 days (interquartile range 140-232). Of the 13% of FIT positive patients not referred to gastroenterology, 49% lacked documentation addressing their abnormal result or counseling on the increased risk of CRC. Of the patients referred but who missed their appointments, 62% lacked documentation following up on the abnormal result in the absence of a completed colonoscopy. FIT positive patients never referred to gastroenterology or who missed their appointment after referrals were more likely to have comorbid conditions and documented illicit substance use compared with patients who completed a colonoscopy. Despite access to colonoscopy and a shared electronic health record system, colonoscopy completion after an abnormal FIT is inadequate within this safety-net system. Inadequate follow-up is in part explained by inappropriate screening, but there is an absence of clear documentation and systematic workflow within both primary care and GI specialty care addressing abnormal FIT results.

Background Demand for endoscopic procedures scheduled with anesthesia is increasing and no-show to appointments carries significant patient health and financial impact, yet little is known about predictors of no-show. Methods We performed a 16-month retrospective observational cohort study of patients scheduled for outpatient endoscopy with anesthesia at a county hospital serving the safety-net healthcare system of San Francisco. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate associations between attendance and predictors of no-show. Results In total, 511 patients underwent endoscopy with anesthesia during the study period. Twenty-seven percent of patients failed to attend an appointment and were considered “no-show”. In multivariate analysis, higher no-show rates were associated with patients with a prior history of no-show (odds ratio [OR] 6.4; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 2.4- 17.5), those with active substance abuse within the past year (OR 2.2; 95 % CI 1.4-3.6), those with heavy prescription opioids/benzodiazepines use (OR 1.6; 95 % CI 1.0-2.6) and longer wait-times (OR 1.05; 95 % CI 1.00-1.09). Inversely associated with patient no-show were active employment (OR 0.38; 95 % CI 0.18-0.81), patients who attended a pre-operative appointment with an anesthesiologist (OR 0.52; CI 0.32-0.85), and those undergoing an advanced endoscopic procedure (OR 0.43; 95 % CI 0.19-0.94). Conclusion In a safety-net healthcare population, behavioral and social determinants of health, including missed appointments, active substance abuse, homelessness, and unemployment are associated with no-shows to endoscopy with anesthesia.

Background Internet searches are an increasingly used tool in medical research. To date, no studies have examined Google search data in relation to common gastrointestinal symptoms. Aims The aim of this study was to compare trends in Internet search volume with clinical datasets for common gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods Using Google Trends, we recorded relative changes in volume of searches related to dysphagia, vomiting, and diarrhea in the USA between January 2008 and January 2011. We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) during this time period and identified cases related to these symptoms. We assessed the correlation between Google Trends and these two clinical datasets, as well as examined seasonal variation trends. Results Changes to Google search volume for all three symptoms correlated significantly with changes to NIS output (dysphagia: r  = 0.5, P  = 0.002; diarrhea: r  = 0.79, P  < 0.001; vomiting: r  = 0.76, P  < 0.001). Both Google and NIS data showed that the prevalence of all three symptoms rose during the time period studied. On the other hand, the NHAMCS data trends during this time period did not correlate well with either the NIS or the Google data for any of the three symptoms studied. Both the NIS and Google data showed modest seasonal variation. Conclusions Changes to the population burden of chronic GI symptoms may be tracked by monitoring changes to Google search engine query volume over time. These data demonstrate that the prevalence of common GI symptoms is rising over time.

Background and objective Efforts to improve gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy unit efficiency may lead to increases in colon cancer screening volumes. LEAN management principles applied to GI endoscopy unit practices may serve as a novel foundation for efficiency improvements. We conducted a pilot study in an outpatient, hospital-based GI endoscopy unit with the goal of improving endoscopy efficiency by using LEAN principles Methodology A single endoscopist and anesthesiologist along with the nursing care team implemented changes to their practice based on LEAN principles. Efficiency metrics were tracked before these changes and after to assess for improvements. Results We observed statistically significant improvements in waiting room time (13.1 minutes vs. 25.6 minutes, p<0.001), recovery room duration (55.5 minutes vs. 61.8 minutes, p=0.01), total facility time (172.5 minutes vs. 196.1 minutes, p<0.001), and true completion time (19.7 minutes vs. 32.3 minutes, p=0.002) after the implementation of LEAN interventions. Conclusions A systematic and standardized approach using LEAN methodology can improve GI endoscopy unit operational efficiency. Larger studies are needed to validate our findings and generalize the results to the field broadly.

Background Studies demonstrate higher mortality rates from colon cancer in American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) patients compared to non-Hispanic White (nHW). We aim to identify factors that contribute to survival disparities. Methods We used the National Cancer Database to identify AI/AN ( n  = 2127) and nHW ( n  = 527,045) patients with stage I–IV colon cancer from 2004 to 2016. Overall survival among stage I–IV colon cancer patients was estimated by Kaplan–Meier analysis; Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to identify independent predictors of survival. Results AI/AN patients with stage I–III disease had significantly shorter median survival than nHW (73 vs 77 months, respectively; p  < 0.001); there were no differences in survival for stage IV. Adjusted analyses demonstrated that AI/AN race was an independent predictor of higher overall mortality compared to nHW (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01–1.33, p  = 0.002). Importantly, compared to nHW, AI/AN were younger, had more comorbidities, had greater rurality, had more left-sided colon cancers, had higher stage but lower grade tumors, were less frequently treated at an academic facility, were more likely to experience a delay in initiation of chemotherapy, and were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III disease. We found no differences in sex, receipt of surgery, or adequacy of lymph node dissection. Conclusion We found patient, tumor, and treatment factors that potentially contribute to worse survival rates observed in AI/AN colon cancer patients. Limitations include the heterogeneity of AI/AN patients and the use of overall survival as an endpoint. Additional studies are needed to implement strategies to eliminate disparities.