Patients without colonoscopic follow-up after abnormal fecal immunochemical tests are often unaware of the abnormal result and report several barriers to colonoscopy.

BackgroundThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the second most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality in the United States; yet, follow-up of abnormal FIT results with diagnostic colonoscopy is underutilized. Our objective was to determine patient-reported barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy following abnormal FIT in an academic healthcare setting.MethodsWe included patients age 50-75 with an abnormal FIT result between 1/1/2015 and 10/31/2017 and no documented follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy. We abstracted demographic data from the electronic health record (EHR). Study personnel conducted telephone surveys with patients to confirm colonoscopy completion and elicit data on notification of FIT results and barriers to colonoscopy. We also provided brief verbal education about diagnostic colonoscopy. We calculated frequencies of demographic data and survey responses and compared survey responses by interest in colonoscopy after education.ResultsWe surveyed 67 patients. Fifty-one were aware of the abnormal FIT result, and a majority learned of the abnormal FIT result by direct communication with providers (19, 37.3%) or EHR messaging (11, 21.6%). Overall, fifty-three patients (79.1%) confirmed lack of colonoscopy, citing provider-related (19, 35.8%), patient-related (16, 30.2%), system-related (1, 1.9%), or multifactorial (17, 32.1%) reasons. Lack of knowledge of FIT result (14, 26.4%) was most common. After brief education, 20 (37.7%) patients requested colonoscopy.ConclusionPatients with an abnormal FIT reported various multi-level barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal FIT, including knowledge of FIT results. When provided with brief education, participants expressed interest in diagnostic colonoscopy. Future efforts will evaluate interventions to improve colonoscopy follow-up

The association among diet, dietary fiber, and bowel preparation at colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pre-colonoscopy dietary restrictions vary widely and lack evidence-based guidance. We investigated whether fiber and various other foods/macronutrients consumed during the 3 days before colonoscopy are associated with bowel preparation quality. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study among patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. Patients received instructions including split-dose polyethylene glycol, avoidance of vegetables/beans 2 days before colonoscopy, and a clear liquid diet the day before colonoscopy. Two 24-hour dietary recall interviews and 1 patient-recorded food log measured dietary intake on the 3 days before colonoscopy. The Nutrition Data System for Research was used to estimate dietary exposures. Our primary outcome was the quality of bowel preparation measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). RESULTS: We enrolled 201 patients from November 2015 to September 2016 with complete data for 168. The mean age was 59 years (standard deviation, 7 years), and 90% of colonoscopies were conducted for screening/surveillance. Only 17% and 77% of patients complied with diet restrictions 2 and 1 day(s) before colonoscopy, respectively. We found no association between foods consumed 2 and 3 days before colonoscopy and BBPS scores. However, BPPS was positively associated with intake of gelatin, and inversely associated with intake of red meat, poultry, and vegetables on the day before colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support recent guidelines encouraging unrestricted diets >1 day before colonoscopy if using a split-dose bowel regimen. Furthermore, we found no evidence to restrict dietary fiber 1 day before colonoscopy. We also found evidence to promote consumption of gelatin and avoidance of red meat, poultry, and vegetables 1 day before colonoscopy.Dr Jacobson has acted as a consultant for MOTUS GI and Remedy Partners. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. Supported by NIH/NIDDK R21DK105476. (R21DK105476 - NIH/NIDDK)Accepted manuscrip

Quality issues for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP)

Purpose: This two-part research project was undertaken as part of the planning process by Queensland Health (QH), Cancer Screening Services Unit (CSSU), Queensland Bowel Cancer Screening Program (QBCSP), in partnership with the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP), to prepare for the implementation of the NBCSP in public sector colonoscopy services in QLD in late 2006. There was no prior information available on the quality of colonoscopy services in Queensland (QLD) and no prior studies that assessed the quality of colonoscopy training in Australia. Furthermore, the NBCSP was introduced without extra funding for colonoscopy service improvement or provision for increases in colonoscopic capacity resulting from the introduction of the NBCSP. The main purpose of the research was to record baseline data on colonoscopy referral and practice in QLD and current training in colonoscopy Australia-wide. It was undertaken from a quality improvement perspective. Implementation of the NBCSP requires that all aspects of the screening pathway, in particular colonoscopy services for the assessment of positive Faecal Occult Blood Tests (FOBTs), will be effective, efficient, equitable and evidence-based. This study examined two important aspects of the continuous quality improvement framework for the NBCSP as they relate to colonoscopy services: (1) evidence-based practice, and (2) quality of colonoscopy training. The Principal Investigator was employed as Senior Project Officer (Training) in the QBCSP during the conduct of this research project. Recommendations from this research have been used to inform the development and implementation of quality improvement initiatives for provision of colonoscopy in the NBCSP, its QLD counterpart the QBCSP and colonoscopy services in QLD, in general. Methods – Part 1 Chart audit of evidence-based practice: The research was undertaken in two parts from 2005-2007. The first part of this research comprised a retrospective chart audit of 1484 colonoscopy records (some 13% of all colonoscopies conducted in public sector facilities in the year 2005) in three QLD colonoscopy services. Whilst some 70% of colonoscopies are currently conducted in the private sector, only public sector colonoscopy facilities provided colonoscopies under the NBCSP. The aim of this study was to compare colonoscopy referral and practice with explicit criteria derived from the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (1999) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal Cancer, and describe the nature of variance with the guidelines. Symptomatic presentations were the most common indication for colonoscopy (60.9%). These comprised per rectal bleeding (31.0%), change of bowel habit (22.1%), abdominal pain (19.6%), iron deficiency anaemia (16.2%), inflammatory bowel disease (8.9%) and other symptoms (11.4%). Surveillance and follow-up colonoscopies accounted for approximately one-third of the remaining colonoscopy workload across sites. Gastroenterologists (GEs) performed relatively more colonoscopies per annum (59.9%) compared to general surgeons (GS) (24.1%), colorectal surgeons (CRS) (9.4%) and general physicians (GPs) (6.5%). Guideline compliance varied with the designation of the colonoscopist. Compliance was lower for CRS (62.9%) compared to GPs (76.0%), GEs (75.0%), GSs (70.9%, p<0.05). Compliance with guideline recommendations for colonoscopic surveillance for family history of colorectal cancer (23.9%), polyps (37.0%) and a past history of bowel cancer (42.7%), was by comparison significantly lower than for symptomatic presentations (94.4%), (p<0.001). Variation with guideline recommendations occurred more frequently for polyp surveillance (earlier than guidelines recommend, 47.9%) and follow-up for past history of bowel cancer (later than recommended, 61.7%, p<0.001). Bowel cancer cases detected at colonoscopy comprised 3.6% of all audited colonoscopies. Incomplete colonoscopies occurred in 4.3% of audited colonoscopies and were more common among women (76.6%). For all colonoscopies audited, the rate of incomplete colonoscopies for GEs was 1.6% (CI 0.9-2.6), GPs 2.0% (CI 0.6-7.2), GS 7.0% (CI 4.8-10.1) and CRS 16.4% (CI 11.2-23.5). 18.6% (n=55) of patients with a documented family history of bowel cancer had colonoscopy performed against guidelines recommendations (for general (category 1) population risk, for reasons of patient request or family history of polyps, rather than for high risk status for colorectal cancer). In general, family history was inadequately documented and subsequently applied to colonoscopy referral and practice. Methods - Part 2 Surveys of quality of colonoscopy training: The second part of the research consisted of Australia-wide anonymous, self-completed surveys of colonoscopy trainers and their trainees to ascertain their opinions on the current apprenticeship model of colonoscopy in Australia and to identify any training needs. Overall, 127 surveys were received from colonoscopy trainers (estimated response rate 30.2%). Approximately 50% of trainers agreed and 27% disagreed that current numbers of training places were adequate to maintain a skilled colonoscopy workforce in preparation for the NBCSP. Approximately 70% of trainers also supported UK-style colonoscopy training within dedicated accredited training centres using a variety of training approaches including simulation. A collaborative approach with the private sector was seen as beneficial by 65% of trainers. Non-gastroenterologists (non-GEs) were more likely than GEs to be of the opinion that simulators are beneficial for colonoscopy training (χ2-test = 5.55, P = 0.026). Approximately 60% of trainers considered that the current requirements for recognition of training in colonoscopy could be insufficient for trainees to gain competence and 80% of those indicated that ≥ 200 colonoscopies were needed. GEs (73.4%) were more likely than non-GEs (36.2%) to be of the opinion that the Conjoint Committee standard is insufficient to gain competence in colonoscopy (χ2-test = 16.97, P = 0.0001). The majority of trainers did not support training either nurses (73%) or GPs in colonoscopy (71%). Only 81 (estimated response rate 17.9%) surveys were received from GS trainees (72.1%), GE trainees (26.3%) and GP trainees (1.2%). The majority were males (75.9%), with a median age 32 years and who had trained in New South Wales (41.0%) or Victoria (30%). Overall, two-thirds (60.8%) of trainees indicated that they deemed the Conjoint Committee standard sufficient to gain competency in colonoscopy. Between specialties, 75.4% of GS trainees indicated that the Conjoint Committee standard for recognition of colonoscopy was sufficient to gain competence in colonoscopy compared to only 38.5% of GE trainees. Measures of competency assessed and recorded by trainees in logbooks centred mainly on caecal intubation (94.7-100%), complications (78.9-100%) and withdrawal time (51-76.2%). Trainees described limited access to colonoscopy training lists due to the time inefficiency of the apprenticeship model and perceived monopolisation of these by GEs and their trainees. Improvements to the current training model suggested by trainees included: more use of simulation, training tools, a United Kingdom (UK)-style training course, concentration on quality indicators, increased access to training lists, accreditation of trainers and interdisciplinary colonoscopy training. Implications for the NBCSP/QBCSP: The introduction of the NBCSP/QBCSP necessitates higher quality colonoscopy services if it is to achieve its ultimate goal of decreasing the incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with bowel cancer in Australia. This will be achieved under a new paradigm for colonoscopy training and implementation of evidence-based practice across the screening pathway and specifically targeting areas highlighted in this thesis. Recommendations for improvement of NBCSP/QBCSP effectiveness and efficiency include the following: 1. Implementation of NBCSP and QBCSP health promotion activities that target men, in particular, to increase FOBT screening uptake. 2. Improved colonoscopy training for trainees and refresher courses or retraining for existing proceduralists to improve completion rates (especially for female NBCSP/QBCSP participants), and polyp and adenoma detection and removal, including newer techniques to detect flat and depressed lesions. 3. Introduction of colonoscopy training initiatives for trainees that are aligned with NBCSP/QBCSP colonoscopy quality indicators, including measurement of training outcomes using objective quality indicators such as caecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate. 4. Introduction of standardised, interdisciplinary colonoscopy training to reduce apparent differences between specialties with regard to compliance with guideline recommendations, completion rates, and quality of polypectomy. 5. Improved quality of colonoscopy training by adoption of a UK-style training program with centres of excellence, incorporating newer, more objective assessment methods, use of a variety of training tools such as simulation and rotations of trainees between metropolitan, rural, and public and private sector training facilities. 6. Incorporation of NHMRC guidelines into colonoscopy information systems to improve documentation, provide guideline recommendations at the point of care, use of gastroenterology nurse coordinators to facilitate compliance with guidelines and provision of guideline-based colonoscopy referral letters for GPs. 7. Provision of information and education about the NBCSP/QBCSP, bowel cancer risk factors, including family history and polyp surveillance guidelines, for participants, GPs and proceduralists. 8. Improved referral of NBCSP/QBCSP participants found to have a high-risk family history of bowel cancer to appropriate genetics services

Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study

Background: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. Methods: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012–2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. Results: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20–0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25–0.88, respectively). Conclusion: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur

Endocuff Vision Reduces Inspection Time Without Decreasing Lesion Detection in a Randomized Colonoscopy Trial

Background & Aims Mucosal exposure devices improve detection of lesions during colonoscopy and have reduced examination times in uncontrolled studies. We performed a randomized trial of Endocuff Vision vs standard colonoscopy to compare differences in withdrawal time (the primary end point). We proposed that Endocuff Vision would allow complete mucosal inspection in a shorter time without impairing lesion detection. Methods Adults older than 40 years undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies were randomly assigned to the Endocuff group (n=101, 43.6% women) or the standard colonoscopy group (n=99; 57.6% women). One of 2 experienced endoscopists performed the colonoscopies, aiming for a thorough evaluation of the proximal sides of all haustral folds, flexures, and valves in the shortest time possible. Inspection time was measured with a stopwatch and calculated by subtracting washing, suctioning, polypectomy and biopsy times from total withdrawal time. Results There were significantly fewer women in the Endocuff arm (P = .0475) but there were no other demographic differences between groups. Mean insertion time with Endocuff was 4.0 min vs 4.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P = .14). Mean inspection time with Endocuff was 6.5 min vs 8.4 min for standard colonoscopy (P < .0001). Numbers of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (1.43 vs 1.07; P = .07), adenoma detection rate (61.4% vs 52%; P = .21), number of sessile serrated polyps per colonoscopy (0.27 vs 0.21; P = .12), and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (19.8% vs 11.1%; P = .09) were all higher with Endocuff Vision. Results did not differ significantly when we controlled for age, sex, or race. Conclusion In a randomized trial, we found inclusion of Endocuff in screening or surveillance colonoscopies to decrease examination time without reducing lesion detection

Attitude to Secondary Prevention and Concerns about Colonoscopy Are Independent Predictors of Acceptance of Screening Colonoscopy

Background: Colonoscopy in combination with endoscopic polypectomy has been shown to be an efficient measure for reducing colorectal cancer incidence. In Germany, a colorectal cancer screening program based on colonoscopy for individuals aged 55 and above was introduced in 2002. However, for largely unknown reasons, participation rates remain low. The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Methods: A structured survey of 239 individuals aged 55-79 years ;was performed. Statistical analysis included chi(2) test, t test, principal component analysis, and logistic regression. Results: 56% of previously screened, but only 26% of non-screened individuals had received a recommendation to undergo screening colonoscopy. 50% of the non-screened believed a screening colonoscopy should only be performed in case of complaints. Univariate analysis identified participation in any secondary prevention measures (p < 0.001), concerns about colonoscopy (p < 0.012), and knowledge about colorectal cancer (p < 0.001) as critical issues distinguishing between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that secondary prevention (p < 0.001) and concerns about colonoscopy (p = 0.026) were independent predictors of compliance with screening recommendations. Conclusion: Our survey has identified critical factors deterring compliance with colorectal cancer screening recommendations. This will help to direct future campaigns in order to increase participation in colorectal cancer screening. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Base

The effect of non-medical factors on variations in the performance of colonoscopy among different health care settings

Background: Previous studies in the literature have shown significant variations in colonoscopy performance, even when medical factors are taken into account. This study aimed to examine the role of non-medical factors (i.e. embodied in health care system design) as possible contributors to variations in colonoscopy performance. Methods: We used patient data from a multicenter observational study conducted between 2000 and 2002 in 21 centers across 11 western countries. Variability was captured through two performance outcomes (diagnostic yield and colonoscopy withdrawal time), jointly studied as dependent variables using a multilevel two-equation system. Results: Results showed that open-access systems and high-volume colonoscopy centers were independently associated with a higher likelihood of detecting significant lesions and higher withdrawal durations. Fee for service (FFS) payment was associated with shorter withdrawal durations, and had an indirect negative impact on the diagnostic yield. Teaching centers exhibited lower detection rates and higher withdrawal times. Conclusions: Our results suggest that gate-keeping colonoscopy is likely to miss patients with significant lesions and that developing specialized colonoscopy units is important to improve performance. Results also suggest that FFS may result in a lower quality of care in colonoscopy practice and highlight that longer withdrawal times do not necessarily mean higher quality in teaching-centers.Medical Practice Variation (MPV), performance, non-medical factors, panel two-equation linear-probit model, colonoscopy

Patient Understanding of Benefits, Risks, and Alternatives to Screening Colonoscopy

While several tests and strategies are recommended for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, studies suggest that primary care providers often recommend colonoscopy without providing information about its risks or alternatives. These observations raise concerns about the quality of informed consent for screening colonoscopy

Visuo-spatial ability in colonoscopy simulator training

Visuo-spatial ability is associated with a quality of performance in a variety of surgical and medical skills. However, visuo-spatial ability is typically assessed using Visualization tests only, which led to an incomplete understanding of the involvement of visuo-spatial ability in these skills. To remedy this situation, the current study investigated the role of a broad range of visuo-spatial factors in colonoscopy simulator training. Fifteen medical trainees (no clinical experience in colonoscopy) participated in two psycho-metric test sessions to assess four visuo-spatial ability factors. Next, participants trained flexible endoscope manipulation, and navigation to the cecum on the GI Mentor II simulator, for four sessions within 1 week. Visualization, and to a lesser degree Spatial relations were the only visuo-spatial ability factors to correlate with colonoscopy simulator performance. Visualization additionally covaried with learning rate for time on task on both simulator tasks. High Visualization ability indicated faster exercise completion. Similar to other endoscopic procedures, performance in colonoscopy is positively associated with Visualization, a visuo-spatial ability factor characterized by the ability to mentally manipulate complex visuo-spatial stimuli. The complexity of the visuo-spatial mental transformations required to successfully perform colonoscopy is likely responsible for the challenging nature of this technique, and should inform training- and assessment design. Long term training studies, as well as studies investigating the nature of visuo-spatial complexity in this domain are needed to better understand the role of visuo-spatial ability in colonoscopy, and other endoscopic techniques

Risk of advanced colorectal neoplasia according to age and gender.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer related morbidity and death. Despite the fact that the mean age at diagnosis of CRC is lower in men, screening by colonoscopy or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is initiated at same age in both genders. The prevalence of the common CRC precursor lesion, advanced adenoma, is well documented only in the screening population. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of advanced adenoma at ages below screening age. We analyzed data from a census of 625,918 outpatient colonoscopies performed in adults in Bavaria between 2006 and 2008. A logistic regression model to determine gender- and age-specific risk of advanced neoplasia was developed. Advanced neoplasia was found in 16,740 women (4.6%) and 22,684 men (8.6%). Male sex was associated with an overall increased risk of advanced neoplasia (odds ratio 1.95; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.91 to 2.00). At any age and in any indication group, more colonoscopies were needed in women than in men to detect advanced adenoma or cancer. At age 75 14.8 (95% CI, 14.4-15.2) screening, 18.2 (95% CI, 17.7-18.7) diagnostic, and 7.9 (95% CI, 7.6-8.2) colonoscopies to follow up on a positive FOBT (FOBT colonoscopies) were needed to find advanced adenoma in women. At age 50 39.0 (95% CI, 38.0-40.0) diagnostic, and 16.3 (95% CI, 15.7-16.9) FOBT colonoscopies were needed. Comparable numbers were reached 20 and 10 years earlier in men than in women, respectively. At any age and independent of the indication for colonoscopy, men are at higher risk of having advanced neoplasia diagnosed upon colonoscopy than women. This suggests that starting screening earlier in life in men than in women might result in a relevant increase in the detection of asymptomatic preneoplastic and neoplastic colonic lesions