Explore the vast range of titles available.

ImportanceStudies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured.ObjectiveTo characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care.Evidence ReviewWe searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences.FindingsA total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N = 101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N = 16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies.Conclusions and RelevanceMost published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being “not at all likely” to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.

Post-polypectomy surveillance is an increasingly common indication for colonoscopy in the United States. As screening uptake increases and our population ages, we will see growing numbers of older adults who are due for surveillance. For many, the balance of benefits and harms will be uncertain. In addition, unlike for average-risk screening, where there are clear recommendations for when to stop, there is no specific guidance on when to stop surveillance. We therefore propose five “rules of thumb,” to guide gastroenterologists in making decisions about stopping surveillance in older adults: Know the data; Get the full history; Individualize benefits and harms; Engage the patient; and Work with you colleagues.

Quality measures that are supported by evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are preferred for assessing the quality of pathologists' practices. Careful testing of a measure ensures that scores obtained by that measure reflect the quality of a pathologist's practice. To specify a new quality measure and to demonstrate through testing that it is suitable for measuring pathologists' appropriate incorporation of information regarding microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair (MMR) status in pathology reports for colorectal, endometrial, gastroesophageal, and small bowel carcinoma. The College of American Pathologists collaborated with the American Gastroenterological Association to specify and test the new measure. Face validity testing was used to investigate the validity of the measure. Feasibility testing was conducted to understand if data elements required by the measure specification were readily accessible. Signal-to-noise analysis was used to characterize the measure's reliability. Guideline recommendations for MSI and/or MMR testing supported specifications for the measure. Face validity testing indicated that the measure could distinguish the quality of care provided. Data elements required by the measure specification were found to be accessible, which supported the measure's feasibility. Reliability testing showed that differences in measure score were attributable to real differences in performance rather than random variation in scoring. The Mismatch Repair or Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing Status in Colorectal Carcinoma, Endometrial, Gastroesophageal, or Small Bowel Carcinoma measure was appropriately specified, and testing demonstrated that it is well suited for characterizing the quality of pathologists' communication of MMR and/or MSI status.

Background Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) data in surveillance colonoscopy are limited. Aims Our aim was to determine surveillance ADR and SSPDR and identify associated predictors. Methods A retrospective review of subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy for adenoma and/or SSP at an academic center was performed. The following exclusion criteria were applied: prior colonoscopy ≤ 3 years, incomplete examination, or another indication for colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist, and procedure characteristics were collected. Predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Results Of 3807 colonoscopies, 2416 met inclusion criteria. Surveillance ADR was 49% and, SSPDR was 8%. Higher ADR was associated with: age per year (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02–1.04), male gender (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.29–1.88), BMI per kg/m 2 (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01–1.04), withdrawal time per minute (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.07–1.10), and endoscopists’ screening ADR (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00–1.03). Years since training (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98–0.99) was associated with lower ADR. Family history of CRC (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02–2.27) and endoscopists’ screening ADR (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.15–1.74) were associated with higher SSPDR. African-American race (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.10–0.75) and diabetes (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21–0.76) were associated with lower SSPDR. Conclusions For surveillance colonoscopy, nearly half of patients had an adenoma and one in twelve had an SSP. In addition to established factors, BMI, endoscopists’ screening ADR, and years since training were associated with ADR, whereas African-American race and diabetes were inversely associated with SSPDR. Further studies are needed prior to integrating surveillance ADR and SSPDR into quality metrics.

BackgroundDespite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures.AimsTo provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process.MethodsBased on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale.ResultsPanelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed.ConclusionsWe developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies.

Guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommend an individualized approach in older adults that is informed by consideration of life expectancy and cancer risk. However, little is known about how patients perceive individualized screening recommendations. To assess veterans' attitudes toward and comfort with cessation of low-value CRC screening (defined as screening in a patient for whom the benefit is expected to be small based on quantitative estimates from hypothetical risk calculators). This survey study included patients older than 50 years who had undergone prior screening colonoscopy with normal results at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. A total of 1500 surveys were mailed to potential participants from November 1, 2010, to January 1, 2012. Survey data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. Response to the question, \"If you personally had serious health problems that were likely to shorten your life and your doctor did not think screening would be of much benefit based on the calculator, how comfortable would you be with not getting any more screening colonoscopies?\" Of the 1500 surveys mailed, 85 were returned to sender, leaving 1415 potential respondents; 1054 of these respondents (median age range, 60-69 years; 884 [85.9%] white and 965 [94.2%] male) completed the survey (response rate, 74.5%). A total of 300 (28.7%) were not at all comfortable with cessation of low-value CRC screening, and 509 (49.3%) thought that age should never be used to decide when to stop screening. In addition, 332 (31.7%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use life expectancy calculators, and 255 (24.3%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use CRC risk calculators to guide these decisions. In ordered logistic regression analysis, factors associated with more comfort with screening cessation were (1) higher trust in physician (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), (2) higher perceived health status (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.23-1.61), and (3) higher barriers to screening (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Factors that were associated with less comfort with screening cessation included (1) greater perceived effectiveness of screening (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94) and (2) greater perceived threat of CRC (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). The findings suggest that many veterans have strong preferences against screening cessation even when given detailed information about why the benefit may be low. Efforts to tailor screening recommendations may be met by resistance unless they are accompanied by efforts to address underlying perceptions about the benefit of screening.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: I hope that our work will improve surveillance endoscopy experiences, by engaging both patients and providers. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A large proportion of colonoscopies are performed for post-polypectomy surveillance. Data show that there is overuse of surveillance for low-risk adenomas (LRAs), which can be attributed to patient and provider factors. The objective is to understand patient and provider perspectives for decision-making for LRA surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured, one-on-one virtual interviews of patients and providers are currently being conducted at Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center and Eskenazi Health. Using a criterion sampling approach, we identified patients 50-75 years of age who had a screening colonoscopy with finding of LRAs, and providers in primary care and gastroenterology, at each site. We plan to recruit at least 8 patients and 8 providers from each site until thematic saturation. Domains that will be covered include: perceived involvement with surveillance decision-making; experiences with, and preferences for, communication about test results; and barriers and facilitators to undergoing colonoscopy. A 3-phase approach, comprising immersion, reduction, and interpretation, is being used to collect and analyze data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This study is currently in the recruitment phase and results will be forthcoming. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Understanding decision-making for LRA surveillance colonoscopy will inform future interventions to improve endoscopic resource use and efficiency while improving patient and provider experiences with endoscopic care coordination.