The costs of colonoscopy in a Canadian hospital using a microcosting approach

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has become accepted as one of the most effective methods of screening patients for colorectat cancer, and is used to remove the majority of colonic adenomas. OBJECTIVE: Because of the paucity of such estimates in the literature and the significant number of candidates for this procedure, the present study was performed to estimate the direct hospital costs of both diagnostic and therapeutic (potypectomy) colonoscopy. METHODS: A microcosting methodology was used to itemize the costs of colonoscopy. Variable and fixed costs were divided into tabour, supplies, equipment and overhead costs. A. third-party payer perspective was adopted. All costs are expressed in 2007 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The cost of a diagnostic colonoscopy was $157 and the cost of a therapeutic colonoscopy was$199. Overhead costs represented approximately 30% of these amounts. When physician fees were added, these costs rose to $352 and$467, respectively. CONCLUSION: Because the overhead costs represent a large proportion of the total costs, allocation methods for these costs should be improved to allow for a more precise determination of the total costs of a colonoscopy. These estimates are useful when analyzing the cost-effectiveness of a strategy that uses colonoscopy when screening for colorectal cancer

Transparency and availability of data for cancer research

Open research data allows for verification, replication, scrutiny, and subsequent analyses of published studies, while reducing likelihood of research duplication. By contrast, failing to publish data, which is a key impediment in the fight against cancer and non-communicable disease epidemics, hinders timely and effective response to these challenges. Hence, data should be liberated and made widely available to researchers

Assessment of a Colonoscopy Triage Sheet for Use in a Province-Wide Population-Based Colorectal Screening Program

Background and Aims. A colonoscopy triage sheet (CTS) integrating 6 hierarchical scheduling priorities based on indications for screening, surveillance, or symptoms was designed for colonoscopy referral. We compared CTS priority ratings by referring physicians and endoscopists, assessing yields. Methods. Retrospective study of consecutive patients. Data were collected on demographics, CTS and endoscopist priority ratings, and endoscopic findings. Weighted kappa values measured interrater agreement on priority assignment. Predictors of agreement and lesions were identified using multivariable analysis. Results. Among 1230 patients (60.3 years, 52.5% female), clinically significant lesions included tumors (1.1%), polyps per patient ≥ 10 mm (7.6%), and ileocolitis (4.6%). Moderate agreement was found between referring physician and endoscopist on all 6 priorities (weighted kappa 0.55 (0.51; 0.59)). P4 and P5 ratings predicted increased agreement (range of OR for P4: 2.47–4.57; P5: 1.58–2.93). Predictors of clinically significant findings were male gender (OR 1.44, 1.03–2.03) and P1/P2 priorities that were significantly superior to P3 (OR = 2.14; 1.04–4.43), P4 (OR = 2.90; 1.35–6.23), and P5 (OR = 4.30; 2.08–8.88). Conclusion. Priority-assignment agreement is moderate and highest for less urgent ratings. Predictors of clinically significant findings validate the hierarchal priority scheme. Broader validation and physician education are needed

Pilot Validation Study: Canadian Global Rating Scale for Colonoscopy Services

Background. The United Kingdom Global Rating Scale (GRS-UK) measures unit-level quality metrics processes in digestive endoscopy. We evaluated the psychometric properties of its Canadian version (GRS-C), endorsed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG). Methods. Prospective data collection at three Canadian endoscopy units assessed GRS-C validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change according to responses provided by physicians, endoscopy nurses, and administrative personnel. These responses were compared to national CAG endoscopic quality guidelines and GRS-UK statements. Results. Most respondents identified the overarching theme each GRS-C item targeted, confirming face validity. Content validity was suggested as 18 out of 23 key CAG endoscopic quality indicators (78%, 95% CI: 56–93%) were addressed in the GRS-C; statements not included pertained to educational programs and competency monitoring. Concordance ranged 75–100% comparing GRS-C and GRS-UK ratings. Test-retest reliability Kappa scores ranged 0.60–0.83, while responsiveness to change scores at 6 months after intervention implementations were greater (P<0.001) in two out of three units. Conclusion. The GRS-C exhibits satisfactory metrics, supporting its use in a national quality initiative aimed at improving processes in endoscopy units. Data collection from more units and linking to actual patient outcomes are required to ensure that GRS-C implementation facilitates improved patient care

Smoking is not an Independent Risk Factor for Surgery in Patients with Crohn’s Disease on Biologic Therapy

Introduction: The development and course of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to be influenced by environmental factors. Particularly, smoking has been shown to assume a harmful role in Crohn’s disease (CD) and a protective role in ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aims to examine the effect of smoking on need for surgery in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease (CD) receiving biologic therapy. Methods: Retrospective study of adult patients with CD at a University Medical Center over a 20-year period. Results: A total of 251 patients were included (mean age 36.0 ± 15.0; 70.1% males; current, former, and non-smokers: 44.2%,11.6%, and 43.8%, respectively). Mean duration on biologics was 5.0 ± 3.1 years (>2/3 received anti-TNFs, followed by ustekinumab in 25.9%) and a third of patients (29.5%) received more than one biologic. Disease-related surgeries (abdominal, perianal or both) occurred in 97 patients (38.6%): 50 patients had surgeries prior to starting biologics only, 41 had some surgeries after, and 6 had insufficient information. There was no significant difference in surgeries between ever-smokers (current or previous) vs. non-smokers in the overall study group. On logistic regression, the odds of having any CD surgery were higher in patients with longer disease duration (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.09) and in those receiving more than one biologic (OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.16, 4.59). However, among patients who had surgery prior to biologic therapy, smokers were more likely to have perianal surgery compared to non-smokers (OR = 10.6, 95% CI = 2.0, 57.4; p=0.006). Conclusion: In biologic-naive CD patients requiring surgery, smoking is an independent predictor of perianal surgery. Smoking, however, is not an independent risk factor for surgery in this cohort after starting biologics. The risk of surgery in those patients is primarily associated with disease duration and the use of more than one biologic