A Literature Review of Quality in Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy from the Patient Perspective

BACKGROUND: Given the limited state of health care resources, increased demand for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening raises concerns about the quality of endoscopy services. Little is known about quality in colonoscopy and endoscopy from the patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on quality that is relevant to patients who require colonoscopy or endoscopy services. METHODS: A systematic PubMed search was performed on articles that were published between January 2000 and February 2011. Keywords included “colonoscopy” or “sigmoidoscopy” or “endoscopy” AND “quality”; “colonoscopy” or “sigmoidoscopy” or “endoscopy” AND “patient satisfaction” or “willingness to return”. The included articles were qualitative and quantitative English language studies regarding aspects of colonoscopy and/or endoscopy services that were evaluated by patients in which data were collected within one year of the colonoscopy/endoscopy procedure. RESULTS: In total, 28 quantitative studies were identified, of which eight (28.6%) met the inclusion criteria (four cross-sectional, three prospective cohort and one single-blinded controlled study). Aspects of quality included comfort, management of pain and anxiety, endoscopy unit staff manner, skills and specialty, procedure and results discussion with the doctor, physical environment, wait times for the appointment and procedure, and discharge. Qualitative studies eliciting the patient perspective on what constituted quality in colonoscopy/endoscopy were not found. CONCLUSIONS: Factors related to comfort, staff, communication and the service environment were evaluated from the patient perspective using closed-ended questions that were designed by clinicians and researchers. Future research using qualitative methodology to elicit the patient perspective on quality in colonoscopy and/or endoscopy services is needed

Patterns of Use of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian Province

BACKGROUND: Data on current endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) practice patterns drawn from large population-based samples are limited

A national survey on the patterns of treatment of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada

BACKGROUND: There is a general lack of information on the care of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a broad, geographically diverse, non-clinic population. The purposes of this study were (1) to compare a sample drawn from the membership of a national Crohn's and Colitis Foundation to published clinic-based and population-based IBD samples, (2) to describe current patterns of health care use, and (3) to determine if unexpected variations exist in how and by whom IBD is treated. METHODS: Mailed survey of 4453 members of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada. The questionnaire, in members stated language of preference, included items on demographic and disease characteristics, general health behaviors and current and past IBD treatment. Each member received an initial and one reminder mailing. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 1787, 913, and 128 people with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and indeterminate colitis, respectively. At least one operation had been performed on 1159 Crohn's disease patients, with risk increasing with duration of disease. Regional variation in surgical rates in ulcerative colitis patients was identified. 6-Mercaptopurine/Azathioprine was used by 24% of patients with Crohn's disease and 12% of patients with ulcerative colitis (95% CI for the difference: 8.9% – 15%). In patients with Crohn's disease, use was not associated with gender, income or region of residence but was associated with age and markers of disease activity. Infliximab was used by 112 respondents (4%), the majority of whom had Crohn's disease. Variations in infliximab use based on region of residence and income were not seen. Sixty-eight percent of respondents indicated that they depended most on a gastroenterologist for their IBD care. There was significant regional variation in this. However, satisfaction with primary physician did not depend on physician type (for example, gastroenterologist versus general practitioner). CONCLUSION: This study achieved the goal of obtaining a large, geographically diverse sample that is more representative of the general IBD population than a clinic sample would have been. We could find no evidence of significant regional variation in medical treatments due to gender, region of residence or income level. Differences were noted between different age groups, which deserves further attention

Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Is Superior to Single Dose for Colonoscopy Preparation: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background. The efficacy of colonoscopy in detecting abnormalities within the colon is highly dependent on the adequacy of the bowel preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of PEG lavage and split-dose PEG lavage with specific emphasis on the cleanliness of the right colon. Methods. The study was a prospective, randomized, two-arm, controlled trial of 237 patients. Patients between the age of 50 and 75 years were referred to an outpatient university screening clinic for colonoscopy. Patients were allocated to receive either a single 4 L PEG lavage or a split-dose PEG lavage. Results. Overall, the bowel preparation was superior in the split-dose group compared with the single-dose group (mean Ottawa score 3.50 ± 2.89 versus 5.96 ± 3.53; < 0.05) and resulted in less overall fluid in the colon. This effect was observed across all segments of the colon assessed. Conclusions. The current study supports use of a split-dose PEG lavage over a single large volume lavage for superior bowel cleanliness, which may improve polyp detection. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01610856

Who Provides Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Canada?

PURPOSE: To determine who provides gastrointestinal endoscopy in Canada and to understand provincial and regional differences in endoscopy providers. METHODS: Aggregate physician sociodemographic and activity data for 2002 were obtained from the Canadian Institute of Health Information’s National Physician Database. Physicians were classified as gastroenterologists, general surgeons and others. RESULTS: In 2002, 1444 physicians, including 735 surgeons, 551 gastroenterologists and 158 others, performed at least 100 colonoscopies or 100 gastroscopies. Gastroenterologists performed 53% of all colonoscopies and 59% of all gastroscopies. Gastroenterologists were the primary providers of colonoscopies in large urban areas, whereas surgeons were the primary providers in smaller urban and rural areas. An average of 317 colonoscopies were performed by surgeons, 516 by gastroenterologists and 203 by other physicians. The proportion of surgeon colonoscopists in each province ranged from 47% to 71%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and gastroenterologists are the major providers of gastrointestinal endoscopy in Canada, but the distribution of these providers among provinces and urban and rural areas varies. Although surgeon endoscopists are more numerous, on average, they perform fewer procedures annually than internists

Comparing Patient and Endoscopist Perceptions of the Colonoscopy Indication

BACKGROUND: Determining whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes can facilitate clinical practice and research. However, there is no simple method to determine the colonoscopy indication using patient medical files or health administrative databases. OBJECTIVE: To determine patient-endoscopist agreement on the colonoscopy indication. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among staff endoscopists and their patients at seven university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec. The study participants were 50 to 75 years of age, they were able to understand English or French, and were about to undergo colonoscopy. Self- (endoscopist) and interviewer-administered (patient) questionnaires ascertained information that permitted classification of the colonoscopy indication. Patient colonoscopy indication was defined as the following: perceived screening (routine screening, family history, age); perceived nonscreening (follow-up); medical history that implied nonscreening; and a combination of the three preceding indications. Agreement between patient and endoscopist indications was measured using concordance and Kappa statistic. RESULTS: In total, 702 patients and 38 endoscopists participated. The three most common reasons for undergoing colonoscopy were routine screening/regular check-up (33.8%), follow-up to a previous problem (30.2%) and other problem (24.6%). Concordance (range 0.79 to 0.85) and Kappa (range 0.58 to 0.70) were highest for perceived nonscreening colonoscopy. Recent large bowel symptoms accounted for 120 occurrences of disagreement in which the patient perceived a nonscreening colonoscopy while the endoscopist perceived a screening colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Patient self-report may be an acceptable means for rapidly assessing whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes. Delivery of patient-centred care may help patients and endoscopists reach a shared understanding of the reason for colonoscopy

Validation of the Model of End-Stage Liver Disease for Liver Transplant Allocation in Alberta: Implications for Future Directions in Canada

Background. Since 2002, the Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been used for allocation of liver transplants (LT) in the USA. In Canada, livers were allocated by the CanWAIT algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare the abilities of MELD, Child-Pugh (CP), and CanWAIT status to predict 3-month and 1-year mortality before LT in Canadian patients and to describe the use of MELD in Canada. Methods. Validation of MELD was performed in 320 patients listed for LT in Alberta (1998–2002). In October 2014, a survey of MELD use by Canadian LT centers was conducted. Results. Within 1 year of listing, 47 patients were removed from the waiting list (29 deaths, 18 too ill for LT). Using logistic regression, the MELD and CP were better than the CanWAIT at predicting 3-month (AUROC: 0.79, 0.78, and 0.59; p=0.0002) and 1-year waitlist mortality (AUROC: 0.70, 0.70, and 0.55; p=0.0023). Beginning in 2004, MELD began to be adopted by Canadian LT programs but its use was not standardized. Conclusions. Compared with the CanWAIT system, the MELD score was significantly better at predicting LT waitlist mortality. MELD-sodium (MELD-Na) has now been adopted for LT allocation in Canada

A retrospective study on the use of post-operative colonoscopy following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer in a Canadian province

BACKGROUND: Surveillance colonoscopy is commonly recommended following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer. We determined factors associated with patients undergoing a least one colonoscopy within five years of surgery. METHODS: In this historical cohort study, data on 3918 patients age 30 years or older residing in Alberta, Canada, who had undergone a potentially curative surgical resection for local or regional stage colorectal cancer between 1983 and 1995 were obtained from the provincial cancer registry, ministry of health and cancer clinic charts. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the probability of undergoing a post-operative colonoscopy were calculated for patient, tumor and treatment-related variables of interest. RESULTS: A colonoscopy was performed within five years of surgery in 1979 patients. The probability of undergoing a colonoscopy for those diagnosed in the 1990s was greater than for those diagnosed earlier (0.65 vs 0.55, P < 0.0001). The majority of the difference was seen at one-year following surgery, consistent with changes in surveillance practices. Those most likely to undergo a colonoscopy were those under age 70 (0.74 vs 0.50 for those age 70 – 79, P < 0.0001), who underwent a pre-operative colonoscopy (0.69 vs 0.54, P < 0.0001), and who underwent a resection with reanastomosis (0.62 vs 0.47 for abdominoperineal resection, P < 0.0001) by a surgeon who performs colonoscopies (0.68 vs 0.54, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergo colonoscopy following colorectal cancer surgery. However, there are important variations in surveillance practices across different patient and treatment characteristics