Iskandar Heba, Gray Darrell M, Vu Hongha, Mirza Faiz, Rude Mary Katherine, Regan Kara, Abdalla Adil, Gaddam Srinivas, Almaskeen Sami, Mello Michael, Marquez Evelyn, Meyer Claire, Bolkhir Ahmed, Kanuri Navya, Sayuk Gregory, Gyawali C Prakash
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Digestive Diseases Division, Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Postgrad Med J. 2017 Aug;93(1102):472-475. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134005. Epub 2017 Jan 9.
Coeliac disease (CD) is widely prevalent in North America, but case-finding techniques currently used may not be adequate for patient identification. We aimed to determine the adequacy of CD screening in an academic gastroenterology (GI) practice.
Consecutive initial visits to a tertiary academic GI practice were surveyed over a 3-month period as a fellow-initiated quality improvement project. All electronic records were reviewed to look for indications for CD screening according to published guidelines. The timing of screening was noted (before or after referral), as well as the screening method (serology or biopsy). Data were analysed to compare CD screening practices across subspecialty clinics.
616 consecutive patients (49±0.6 years, range 16-87 years, 58.5% females, 94% Caucasian) fulfilled inclusion criteria. CD testing was indicated in 336 (54.5%), but performed in only 145 (43.2%). The need for CD screening was highest in luminal GI and inflammatory bowel disease clinics, followed by biliary and hepatology clinics (p<0.0001); CD screening rate was highest in the luminal GI clinic (p=0.002). Of 145 patients screened, 4 patients (2.4%) had serology consistent with CD, of which 2 were proven by duodenal biopsy. Using this proportion, an additional 5 patients might have been diagnosed in 191 untested patients with indications for CD screening.
More than 50% of patients in a tertiary GI clinic have indications for CD screening, but <50% of indicated cases are screened. Case-finding techniques therefore are suboptimal, constituting a gap in patient care and an important target for future quality improvement initiatives.
乳糜泻(CD)在北美广泛流行,但目前所采用的病例发现技术可能不足以识别患者。我们旨在确定在一家学术性胃肠病(GI)诊疗机构中CD筛查的充分性。
作为一项由住院医师发起的质量改进项目,在3个月的时间里对一家三级学术性GI诊疗机构的连续初次就诊患者进行了调查。根据已发表的指南,对所有电子病历进行审查以寻找CD筛查的指征。记录筛查时间(转诊前或转诊后)以及筛查方法(血清学或活检)。对数据进行分析以比较各亚专科诊所的CD筛查实践。
616例连续患者(49±0.6岁,范围16 - 87岁,58.5%为女性,94%为白种人)符合纳入标准。336例(54.5%)有CD检测指征,但仅145例(43.2%)进行了检测。腔道GI和炎症性肠病诊所对CD筛查的需求最高,其次是肝胆科诊所(p<0.0001);腔道GI诊所的CD筛查率最高(p = 0.002)。在145例接受筛查的患者中,4例(2.4%)血清学结果与CD相符,其中2例经十二指肠活检证实。按照这个比例,在191例有CD筛查指征但未检测的患者中可能还会诊断出另外5例。
在三级GI诊所中,超过50%的患者有CD筛查指征,但接受筛查的指征病例不到50%。因此,病例发现技术并不理想,这构成了患者护理方面的差距以及未来质量改进举措的一个重要目标。