Sudha Xirasagar1, Thomas G Hurley, Lekhena Sros, James R Hebert. 1. Department of Health Services Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. sxirasagar@sc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expanding the population's access to colonoscopy screening can reduce colorectal cancer disparities. Innovative strategies are needed to address the prevailing 50% colonoscopy screening gap, partly attributable to inadequate specialist workforce. This study examined the quality of colonoscopies by primary care physicians (PCPs) with standby specialist support at a licensed ambulatory surgery center. METHODS: Retrospective data on 10,958 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 51 PCPs on 9815 patients from October 2002 to November 2007 were used to calculate the rates of cecal intubation, detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced neoplasia and cancer, adverse events, and time taken for endoscope insertion and withdrawal. The center's protocol requires a 2-person technique (using a trained technician), polyp search and removal during both scope insertion and withdrawal, and onsite expert always available for rescue assistance (either navigational or therapeutic). FINDINGS: Mean patient age was 58.3 (+/-10.9) years, 48.0% were male, and 48.1% African-American. The cecal intubation rate was 98.1%, polyp detection rate 63.1%, hyperplastic polyp 27.5%, adenoma 29.9%, advanced neoplasia 5.7%, cancer 0.63%, major adverse events 0.06% (including 2 perforations; no death). Mean insertion and withdrawal times were 14.4 (+/-9.3) and 10.9 (+/-6.8) minutes, respectively; 13.2 (+/-8.6) and 8.0 (+/-4.5) minutes without polyps found, and 15.1 (+/-9.6) and 12.5 (+/-7.3) minutes when > or =1 polyp was found. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest published study of PCP-performed colonoscopies with standby specialist support, we observed performance quality indicators and lesion detection rates that are comparable to documented rates for experienced gastroenterologists. Systems that use PCPs with specialist backup support enable high-quality colonoscopy performance by PCPs.
BACKGROUND: Expanding the population's access to colonoscopy screening can reduce colorectal cancer disparities. Innovative strategies are needed to address the prevailing 50% colonoscopy screening gap, partly attributable to inadequate specialist workforce. This study examined the quality of colonoscopies by primary care physicians (PCPs) with standby specialist support at a licensed ambulatory surgery center. METHODS: Retrospective data on 10,958 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 51 PCPs on 9815 patients from October 2002 to November 2007 were used to calculate the rates of cecal intubation, detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced neoplasia and cancer, adverse events, and time taken for endoscope insertion and withdrawal. The center's protocol requires a 2-person technique (using a trained technician), polyp search and removal during both scope insertion and withdrawal, and onsite expert always available for rescue assistance (either navigational or therapeutic). FINDINGS: Mean patient age was 58.3 (+/-10.9) years, 48.0% were male, and 48.1% African-American. The cecal intubation rate was 98.1%, polyp detection rate 63.1%, hyperplastic polyp 27.5%, adenoma 29.9%, advanced neoplasia 5.7%, cancer 0.63%, major adverse events 0.06% (including 2 perforations; no death). Mean insertion and withdrawal times were 14.4 (+/-9.3) and 10.9 (+/-6.8) minutes, respectively; 13.2 (+/-8.6) and 8.0 (+/-4.5) minutes without polyps found, and 15.1 (+/-9.6) and 12.5 (+/-7.3) minutes when > or =1 polyp was found. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest published study of PCP-performed colonoscopies with standby specialist support, we observed performance quality indicators and lesion detection rates that are comparable to documented rates for experienced gastroenterologists. Systems that use PCPs with specialist backup support enable high-quality colonoscopy performance by PCPs.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: D K Rex; C S Cutler; G T Lemmel; E Y Rahmani; D W Clark; D J Helper; G A Lehman; D G Mark Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Laura C Seeff; Diane L Manninen; Fred B Dong; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Marion R Nadel; Florence K L Tangka; Noelle-Angelique M Molinari Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anne F Peery; Toshitaka Hoppo; Katherine S Garman; Evan S Dellon; Norma Daugherty; Susan Bream; Alejandro F Sanz; Jon Davison; Melissa Spacek; Diane Connors; Ashley L Faulx; Amitabh Chak; James D Luketich; Nicholas J Shaheen; Blair A Jobe Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03-16 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sudha Xirasagar; Yi-Jhen Li; Thomas G Hurley; Meng-Han Tsai; James W Hardin; Deborah M Hurley; James R Hebert; Piet C de Groen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Melannie Alexander; James B Burch; Susan E Steck; Chin-Fu Chen; Thomas G Hurley; Philip Cavicchia; Meredith Ray; Nitin Shivappa; Jaclyn Guess; Hongmei Zhang; Shawn D Youngstedt; Kim E Creek; Stephen Lloyd; Xiaoming Yang; James R Hébert Journal: Oncol Rep Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.906
Authors: Kamini Sewda; Domenico Coppola; Steven Enkemann; Binglin Yue; Jongphil Kim; Alexis S Lopez; Jonathan W Wojtkowiak; Valerie E Stark; Brian Morse; David Shibata; Shivakumar Vignesh; David L Morse Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-04-05
Authors: Nitin Shivappa; Justyna Godos; James R Hébert; Michael D Wirth; Gabriele Piuri; Attilio F Speciani; Giuseppe Grosso Journal: Nutrients Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 5.717