Open access colonoscopy: Critical appraisal of indications, quality metrics and outcomes

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Rony Ghaoui^a ; ^{rony.ghaoui@baystatehealth.org" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Sheryl Ramdass^b ; Jennifer Friderici^c ; David J. Desilets^a
• 关键词：Access to care ; Outcome research ; Screening for colorectal cancer
• 刊名：Digestive and Liver Disease
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：August 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：48
• 期：8
• 页码：940-944
• 全文大小：270 K

文摘

In an era of cost containment and measurement of value, screening for colon cancer represents a clear target for better accountability. Bundling payment is a real possibility and will likely have to rely on open-access colonoscopy (OAC). OAC is a method to allow patients to undergo endoscopy without prior evaluation by a gastroenterologist. We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the indications and outcomes among patients scheduled for OAC or traditional colonoscopy at a tertiary medical center. We hypothesized that outcomes in OAC patients would be similar to those from traditional referral modes.

Method

Using a standardized data abstraction form, we documented indications for colonoscopy, clinical outcomes (complications, emergency room visits, phone calls), and compliance with quality indicators (QI) in a random sample of 1000 patients who underwent an outpatient colonoscopy at an academic medical center in 2013. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes between two cohorts: OAC vs. patients who were scheduled after previous evaluation by a gastroenterologist or physician assistant or non-open access colonoscopy (NOAC).

Results

Patients in the OAC group were more likely to be male, non-Hispanic, to be privately insured, and to have screening (vs. diagnostic) indication. However they were significantly less likely than those in the NOAC group to have a procedure performed once scheduled, (45.5% vs. 66.9%, p < 0.001), due to no-show (24/178 or 13.5% vs. 60/822 or 7.3%), cancellation (56/178 or 31.5 vs. 156/822 or 19.0%), and non-compliance (9/178 or 5.1% vs. 20/822 or 2.4%). There were no clinically meaningful differences between groups with respect to outcomes such as polyp detection (35.6% OE vs. 39.5% NOE, p = 0.54), postoperative call to GI practice (5.5% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.41), or QI metrics such as documentation of prep quality (99.8% vs. 98.8%, p = 0.24).

Conclusion

Patients undergoing OAC are more likely to have a screening colonoscopy but with overall similar clinical outcomes and compliance with QI to patients scheduled as NOAC. OAC remains handicapped by high cancellation and no-show rates.