OBJECTIVE: Three thousand five hundred and forty-nine patients are waiting for a colonoscopy in the Kent and Medway cancer network. New guidelines identify those who require surveillance for polyp, cancer, IBD and family history. Our hypothesis was that most of the patients on the waiting list would no longer need a colonoscopy if the new guidelines were applied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the ACPGBI guidelines for screening/surveillance colonoscopy with the indications in 411 notes of one hospital's waiting list and removed patients as appropriate. In the second part of study we analysed 192 patients attending colonoscopy in seven hospitals in the region and calculated the potential impact of the guidelines on our waiting lists. RESULTS: Of 411 patients on the waiting list in one hospital, only 98 (24%) needed to remain on the list. 142 (34%) were cancelled completely. One hundred and seventy-one (42%) were taken off the 'waiting' list and rebooked for a later date since according to the new guidelines the colonoscopy was not due yet. Of 192 colonoscopies actually performed during the study period in 7 hospitals of Kent and Medway cancer network, 72 (38%) were for surveillance. Two thirds of those were not in line with the guidelines. As a result of implementing the guidelines, waiting times for diagnostic colonoscopy fell from 12 to 4 weeks for urgent, and from 40 to 15 weeks for routine referrals. CONCLUSION: A quarter of the 8000 colonoscopies performed annually in our region are unnecessary when compared to the guidelines. More than three quarters of our waiting list could be removed by reviewing the notes. Implementing the guidelines in one cancer network would save pounds 1 million per year even on conservative estimates of pounds 500 per colonoscopy. It would also reduce the waiting times for diagnostic colonoscopy.
OBJECTIVE: Three thousand five hundred and forty-nine patients are waiting for a colonoscopy in the Kent and Medway cancer network. New guidelines identify those who require surveillance for polyp, cancer, IBD and family history. Our hypothesis was that most of the patients on the waiting list would no longer need a colonoscopy if the new guidelines were applied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the ACPGBI guidelines for screening/surveillance colonoscopy with the indications in 411 notes of one hospital's waiting list and removed patients as appropriate. In the second part of study we analysed 192 patients attending colonoscopy in seven hospitals in the region and calculated the potential impact of the guidelines on our waiting lists. RESULTS: Of 411 patients on the waiting list in one hospital, only 98 (24%) needed to remain on the list. 142 (34%) were cancelled completely. One hundred and seventy-one (42%) were taken off the 'waiting' list and rebooked for a later date since according to the new guidelines the colonoscopy was not due yet. Of 192 colonoscopies actually performed during the study period in 7 hospitals of Kent and Medway cancer network, 72 (38%) were for surveillance. Two thirds of those were not in line with the guidelines. As a result of implementing the guidelines, waiting times for diagnostic colonoscopy fell from 12 to 4 weeks for urgent, and from 40 to 15 weeks for routine referrals. CONCLUSION: A quarter of the 8000 colonoscopies performed annually in our region are unnecessary when compared to the guidelines. More than three quarters of our waiting list could be removed by reviewing the notes. Implementing the guidelines in one cancer network would save pounds 1 million per year even on conservative estimates of pounds 500 per colonoscopy. It would also reduce the waiting times for diagnostic colonoscopy.
Authors: Desmond Leddin; Ronald J Bridges; David G Morgan; Carlo Fallone; Craig Render; Victor Plourde; Jim Gray; Connie Switzer; Jim McHattie; Harminder Singh; Eric Walli; Iain Murray; Anthony Nestel; Paul Sinclair; Ying Chen; E Jan Irvine Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Desmond Leddin; David Armstrong; Mark Borgaonkar; Ronald J Bridges; Carlo A Fallone; Jennifer J Telford; Ying Chen; Palma Colacino; Paul Sinclair Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.522