BACKGROUND: Many patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) do not undergo follow-up evaluations. OBJECTIVE: To identify the rate of follow-up colonoscopy following a positive FOBT and determine underlying reasons for lack of follow-up. DESIGN: It is a retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: The subject group consisted of 1,041 adults with positive FOBTs within a large physician group practice from 2004 to 2006. MEASUREMENTS: We collected data on reasons for ordering FOBT, presence of prior colonoscopy, completed evaluations, and results of follow-up tests. We fit a multivariable logistic regression model to identify predictors of undergoing follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: Most positive FOBTs were ordered for routine colorectal cancer screening (76%), or evaluation of anemia (13%) or rectal bleeding (7%). Colonoscopy was completed in 62% of cases, with one-third of these procedures identifying a colorectal adenoma (29%) or cancer (4%). Factors associated with higher rates of follow-up colonoscopy included obtaining the FOBT for routine colorectal screening (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.29) and consultation with gastroenterology (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.46-2.72). Patients were less likely to undergo colonoscopy if they were older than 80 years old (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.92), younger than 50 years old (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70), uninsured (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.93), or had undergone colonoscopy within the prior five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decisions and patient factors available at the time of ordering an FOBT impact performance of colonoscopy. Targeting physicians' understanding of the use of this test may improve follow-up and reduce inappropriate use of this test.
BACKGROUND: Many patients with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) do not undergo follow-up evaluations. OBJECTIVE: To identify the rate of follow-up colonoscopy following a positive FOBT and determine underlying reasons for lack of follow-up. DESIGN: It is a retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: The subject group consisted of 1,041 adults with positive FOBTs within a large physician group practice from 2004 to 2006. MEASUREMENTS: We collected data on reasons for ordering FOBT, presence of prior colonoscopy, completed evaluations, and results of follow-up tests. We fit a multivariable logistic regression model to identify predictors of undergoing follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: Most positive FOBTs were ordered for routine colorectal cancer screening (76%), or evaluation of anemia (13%) or rectal bleeding (7%). Colonoscopy was completed in 62% of cases, with one-third of these procedures identifying a colorectal adenoma (29%) or cancer (4%). Factors associated with higher rates of follow-up colonoscopy included obtaining the FOBT for routine colorectal screening (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.29) and consultation with gastroenterology (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.46-2.72). Patients were less likely to undergo colonoscopy if they were older than 80 years old (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.92), younger than 50 years old (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70), uninsured (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.93), or had undergone colonoscopy within the prior five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decisions and patient factors available at the time of ordering an FOBT impact performance of colonoscopy. Targeting physicians' understanding of the use of this test may improve follow-up and reduce inappropriate use of this test.
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Paul S Frame; Ann Meadow; Elizabeth Jones; Marion Nadel; Sally W Vernon Journal: Prev Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: H M Shields; M S Weiner; D R Henry; J A Lloyd; B J Ransil; D A Lamphier; D W Gallagher; D A Antonioli; B A Rosner Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Nadeem Baig; Ronald E Myers; Barbara J Turner; James Grana; Todd Rothermel; Neil Schlackman; David S Weinberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Barbara Turner; Ronald E Myers; Terry Hyslop; Walter W Hauck; David Weinberg; Timothy Brigham; James Grana; Todd Rothermel; Neil Schlackman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Roger J Charles; Gregory S Cooper; Richard C K Wong; Michael V Sivak; Amitabh Chak Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Gabriele Capurso; Flavia Baccini; John Osborn; Francesco Panzuto; Emilio Di Giulio; Gianfranco Delle Fave; Bruno Annibale Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Melissa R Partin; Amy A Gravely; James F Burgess; David A Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; David B Nelson; Sean M Nugent; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Louise C Walter; Diana J Burgess Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Marion R Nadel; Zahava Berkowitz; Carrie N Klabunde; Robert A Smith; Steven S Coughlin; Mary C White Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-04-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristen J Wells; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ercilia R Calcano; Cathy D Meade; Marlene Rivera; William J Fulp; Richard G Roetzheim Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.254