7 research outputs found

    Audit of a nurse endoscopist based one stop dyspepsia clinic

    No full text
    As a response to the UK Health Department's "two week cancer wait" initiative a one stop dyspepsia clinic based on a nurse endoscopist was introduced, and the first 100 cases attending this clinic have been audited. After referral on a purpose designed form, patients were assessed by a gastroenterologist and then investigated at the same visit—where possible and appropriate—by endoscopy or ultrasound scan. All endoscopies were performed by a trained nurse specialist. Of the 100 patients, 84 were gastroscoped the same day and 11 had an ultrasound scan. Inappropriate tests were avoided in 16% of referrals. The commonest endoscopic diagnoses were minor oesophageal or gastroduodenal inflammation (64% of gastroscopies). Only six oesophageal or gastric cancers were found—all at an advanced stage—and three further malignancies were diagnosed. Only a minority (12%) of the patients with "alarm symptoms" had cancer. The waiting time for an appointment rose progressively during the first six months of the clinic. The system was popular with patients as most of them (70%) were dealt with at a single hospital attendance. Basing the endoscopy practice on a trained nurse specialist not only facilitated the creation of the service by maximising the use of scarce resources, but also improved communication and overall management of patients

    Meta-analysis: the diagnostic value of alarm symptoms for upper gastrointestinal malignancy.

    No full text
    Contains fulltext : 57304.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: With the advent of empirical treatment strategies for patients with dyspeptic symptoms, it becomes increasingly important to select patients with a high risk of having cancer for immediate endoscopy. Usually alarming symptoms are used for this matter, but their diagnostic value is by no means clear. AIM: To investigate the diagnostic value of alarm symptoms for upper gastrointestinal malignancy. METHODS: Meta-analysis of studies describing prevalence of alarm symptoms in patients with and without endoscopically verified upper gastrointestinal malignancy were identified through a Medline search. The prevalence, pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: About 17 case studies and nine cohort studies were selected. The mean prevalence of gastrointestinal malignancies in the cohort studies was 2.8% of 16,161 patients. Five cohort studies indicated that 25% of the patients diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal malignancy had no alarm symptoms. The pooled sensitivities of individual alarm symptoms varied from 9 to 41%, the pooled positive predictive value ranged from 4.6 to 7.9%, and was 5.9% for 'having any alarm symptom'. The pooled negative predictive value was 99.4% for 'having any alarm symptom'. CONCLUSION: The risk of upper gastrointestinal malignancy in any individual without alarm symptoms is very low, but approximately one in four patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer have no alarm symptoms at the time of diagnosis
    corecore