Digestive diseases and sciences · 2013
Impact of an incomplete colonoscopy referral program on recommendations after incomplete colonoscopy.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gawron Andrew J, Veerappan Annapoorani, McCarthy Sean T, Kankanala Vineel, Keswani Rajesh N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on recommendations and adherence to complete colon evaluation (CCE) after incomplete colonoscopy (IC).
AIMS: Our objectives were to (1) identify recommendations and adherence to recommendations after IC, (2) determine the diagnostic yield of CCE after IC, and (3) determine the effect of an IC referral program on recommendations for CCE.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of IC procedures at a teaching hospital over two time periods (January 1 to May 1 2004 and July 1 to November 1 2010). A referral process for repeat colonoscopy after IC was instituted in April 2009. Outcomes included (1) recommendations (2) adherence, and (3) yield of CCE after IC.
RESULTS: A total of 222 patients underwent at least one IC (overall rate of 2.5 %). In 120 patients (54.1 %), CCE was recommended within 1 year; the rate did not change from 2004 to 2010. Patients with IC due to poor preparation were more likely to have specific CCE recommendations (85.5 vs. 72.2 %, P = 0.03) and recommendations of endoscopic follow-up (76.3 vs. 10.4 %, P < 0.0001) than those with IC due to difficult anatomy. When IC was due to difficult colonoscopy, there was increase in endoscopic follow-up recommended (16.3 vs. 2.8 %, P = 0.01) in 2010 compared to 2004. Adherence to recommendations was similar regardless of modality recommended, inpatient/outpatient status, polyps on initial exam, or extent of initial exam. Polyp detection rate was greater utilizing colonoscopy than barium enema (34.3 vs. 3.6 %, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus in management strategies for patients after IC. Implementation of a referral program has had minimal impact on provider recommendations.
AIMS: Our objectives were to (1) identify recommendations and adherence to recommendations after IC, (2) determine the diagnostic yield of CCE after IC, and (3) determine the effect of an IC referral program on recommendations for CCE.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of IC procedures at a teaching hospital over two time periods (January 1 to May 1 2004 and July 1 to November 1 2010). A referral process for repeat colonoscopy after IC was instituted in April 2009. Outcomes included (1) recommendations (2) adherence, and (3) yield of CCE after IC.
RESULTS: A total of 222 patients underwent at least one IC (overall rate of 2.5 %). In 120 patients (54.1 %), CCE was recommended within 1 year; the rate did not change from 2004 to 2010. Patients with IC due to poor preparation were more likely to have specific CCE recommendations (85.5 vs. 72.2 %, P = 0.03) and recommendations of endoscopic follow-up (76.3 vs. 10.4 %, P < 0.0001) than those with IC due to difficult anatomy. When IC was due to difficult colonoscopy, there was increase in endoscopic follow-up recommended (16.3 vs. 2.8 %, P = 0.01) in 2010 compared to 2004. Adherence to recommendations was similar regardless of modality recommended, inpatient/outpatient status, polyps on initial exam, or extent of initial exam. Polyp detection rate was greater utilizing colonoscopy than barium enema (34.3 vs. 3.6 %, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus in management strategies for patients after IC. Implementation of a referral program has had minimal impact on provider recommendations.