Ghaoui Rony, Ramdass Sheryl, Friderici Jennifer, Desilets David J
Division of Gastroenterology, Baystate Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, MA, United States.
Division of General Internal Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, MA, United States.
Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Aug;48(8):940-4. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2016.04.005. Epub 2016 Apr 16.
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.
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).
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).
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.
在成本控制和价值衡量的时代,结肠癌筛查是实现更好问责制的明确目标。捆绑支付是切实可行的,且可能不得不依赖开放式结肠镜检查(OAC)。OAC是一种让患者无需胃肠病学家事先评估即可接受内镜检查的方法。我们开展了一项横断面研究,以评估在一家三级医疗中心计划接受OAC或传统结肠镜检查的患者的适应证和结局。我们假设OAC患者的结局与传统转诊模式下的患者相似。
使用标准化的数据提取表格,我们记录了2013年在一家学术医疗中心接受门诊结肠镜检查的1000名患者的结肠镜检查适应证、临床结局(并发症、急诊就诊、电话随访)以及质量指标(QI)的依从情况。我们比较了两个队列的基线特征和结局:OAC组与经胃肠病学家或医师助理先前评估后安排检查的患者或非开放式结肠镜检查(NOAC)组。
OAC组患者更有可能为男性、非西班牙裔、有私人保险且有筛查(而非诊断)适应证。然而,由于未就诊(24/178或13.5%对比60/822或7.3%)、取消检查(56/178或31.5对比156/822或19.0%)和不依从(9/178或5.1%对比20/822或2.4%),OAC组患者一旦安排检查后实际接受检查的可能性显著低于NOAC组(45.5%对比66.9%,p<0.001)。在息肉检出率(35.6%OAC对比39.5%NOAC,p=0.54)、术后致电胃肠科(5.5%对比2.5%,p=0.41)或QI指标如肠道准备质量记录(99.8%对比98.8%,p=0.24)等结局方面,两组之间没有临床意义上的差异。
接受OAC的患者更有可能进行筛查结肠镜检查,但总体临床结局和QI依从性与安排为NOAC的患者相似。OAC仍然受到高取消率和未就诊率的制约。