Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Madhusudhan R Sanaka

Publications and source records attributed to Madhusudhan R Sanaka.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines, physicians tend to perform postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies too frequently. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the baseline compliance rate with postpolypectomy guidelines in our unit and to determine the influence of a continuous quality improvement (CQI) intervention on improving the compliance rate and on decreasing the potential additional costs because of the scheduling of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies earlier than indicated. DESIGN: This was a single-arm, pretest-posttest design. SETTING: This study took place at a tertiary care, academic medical center. PATIENTS: The medical records of all patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy in our unit retrospectively during 6 months preceding (baseline period) and prospectively for 6 months after an intervention (postintervention period) were reviewed for patient demographics, colonoscopy findings, and scheduling of repeat colonoscopies. INTERVENTION: We used 3 components: (1) distribution of a wallet-size card with a summary of postpolypectomy guidelines to all endoscopists, (2) placement of guideline charts near computers used for typing endoscopy reports, and (3) distribution and reinforcement of the guidelines in a monthly continuous quality improvement meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were compliance rates, mean times to repeat colonoscopy, and additional costs from surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than indicated were compared between the two periods. RESULTS: There were 278 patients in the baseline period and 242 in the postintervention period, with similar patient and polyp characteristics. After the intervention, the compliance rate with guidelines improved from 57.2% to 81% (p < 0.001). The mean time to a repeat colonoscopy increased from 4.5 to 5.2 years (p = 0.003) (i.e., a 14% reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies performed per year). This would result in a reduction of a total of 73 surveillance colonoscopies per year in our unit, with a projected cost savings of 171,331 dollars per year (cost of a colonoscopy assumed at 2347 dollars). LIMITATIONS: The limitation of the study was possible enhanced performance secondary to being observed (Hawthorne effect). Because more than 1 intervention was used, we do not know which one is more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively simple and easy-to-implement quality improvement initiatives can significantly enhance compliance with postpolypectomy guidelines and result in cost savings because of a reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than recommended guidelines.

Colonoscopy↗

Afternoon colonoscopies have higher failure rates than morning colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND: There are several known predictors of an incomplete colonoscopy or difficult colonoscopy. In addition, inadequate bowel preparation has been reported in procedures scheduled later in the day. Operator fatigue, which tends to be higher as the day passes on, may also impact colonoscopy completion rate. AIMS: To determine the influence of performing outpatient colonoscopies in the afternoon versus morning on the completion rates of colonoscopy and adequacy of bowel preparation. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all outpatient colonoscopies performed between November 2003 and October 2004 in the Division of Gastroenterology at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio. Patient demographics, indications for procedure, and colonoscopic findings were reviewed. Patients received polyethylene glycol electrolyte-based bowel preparation in the evening prior to the day of the scheduled colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 2,087 colonoscopies was performed, of which 1,084 were in the morning and 999 were in the afternoon. Patients in the morning and afternoon were similar in regards to the known risk factors predictive of an incomplete colonoscopy. The incompletion rate was significantly higher in the afternoon compared to the morning (6.5% vs 4.1%, P= 0.013, OR for incompletion was 1.64, CI 1.11-2.44). Inadequate bowel preparation was found in 167 out of 1,084 (15.4%) colonoscopies in the morning and 197 out of 999 (19.7%) colonoscopies in the afternoon (P= 0.011). Even after excluding incomplete colonoscopies due to poor bowel preparation precluding examination, the incompletion rate was still higher in the afternoon (5% vs 3.2%, P= 0.043, OR 1.60, CI 1.03-2.51). CONCLUSIONS: Scheduling of colonoscopies in the afternoon compared to the morning may be an independent predictor of an incomplete colonoscopy and inadequate bowel preparation. According to our study findings, scheduling of all outpatient colonoscopies preferentially in the morning would avoid suboptimal procedures in 5% of patients and the need for unnecessary repeat colonoscopy or an alternative imaging study in 2.4% of patients.

Aged↗