BACKGROUND AND GOALS: To increase colorectal cancer screening among urban minorities, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University, with support from the New York City Department of Health and the Citywide Colon Cancer Control Coalition (C5), instituted a patient navigation and direct endoscopic referral system. We assessed the effect of this program on the volume of colonoscopy in this institution, which caters to a socioeconomically diverse patient population. STUDY: We compared colonoscopy volume during the first year of the navigator program with the volume during the year before this program. We stratified on Medicaid status to assess the secular trend of screening rates. To assess quality during this period, we measured cecal intubation rates, preparation quality, and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS: Of the 749 patients assessed by the patient navigators, 678 (91%) underwent colonoscopy. Colonoscopy volume among the Medicaid outpatients increased by 56% (957 to 1489). Adenoma detection was 27% and the cecal intubation rate was 97%. Comparing navigated patients with the nonnavigated Medicaid outpatients, preparation quality was superior (34% vs. 40% suboptimal, P=0.0282), although preparation quality remained inferior to that of private patients (20% suboptimal, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Volume of the colonoscopy increased, coinciding with the onset of the patient navigation program. This increase was nearly entirely owing to a rise in the colonoscopies among Medicaid outpatients, the principal focus of the navigator program. This increase in quantity was accomplished while maintaining an overall high level of quality as measured by cecal intubation rates and adenoma detection, although preparation quality requires further efforts at improvement.
BACKGROUND AND GOALS: To increase colorectal cancer screening among urban minorities, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University, with support from the New York City Department of Health and the Citywide Colon Cancer Control Coalition (C5), instituted a patient navigation and direct endoscopic referral system. We assessed the effect of this program on the volume of colonoscopy in this institution, which caters to a socioeconomically diverse patient population. STUDY: We compared colonoscopy volume during the first year of the navigator program with the volume during the year before this program. We stratified on Medicaid status to assess the secular trend of screening rates. To assess quality during this period, we measured cecal intubation rates, preparation quality, and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS: Of the 749 patients assessed by the patient navigators, 678 (91%) underwent colonoscopy. Colonoscopy volume among the Medicaid outpatients increased by 56% (957 to 1489). Adenoma detection was 27% and the cecal intubation rate was 97%. Comparing navigated patients with the nonnavigated Medicaid outpatients, preparation quality was superior (34% vs. 40% suboptimal, P=0.0282), although preparation quality remained inferior to that of private patients (20% suboptimal, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Volume of the colonoscopy increased, coinciding with the onset of the patient navigation program. This increase was nearly entirely owing to a rise in the colonoscopies among Medicaid outpatients, the principal focus of the navigator program. This increase in quantity was accomplished while maintaining an overall high level of quality as measured by cecal intubation rates and adenoma detection, although preparation quality requires further efforts at improvement.
Authors: J S Mandel; T R Church; J H Bond; F Ederer; M S Geisser; S J Mongin; D C Snover; L M Schuman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jessica D Albano; Elizabeth Ward; Ahmedin Jemal; Robert Anderson; Vilma E Cokkinides; Taylor Murray; Jane Henley; Jonathan Liff; Michael J Thun Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Steven H Itzkowitz; Sidney J Winawer; Marian Krauskopf; Mari Carlesimo; Felice H Schnoll-Sussman; Katy Huang; Thomas K Weber; Lina Jandorf Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Corey H Basch; Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Patricia Zybert; Benjamin Lebwohl; Celia Shmukler; Alfred I Neugut; Steven Shea Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Karen E Kim; Fornessa Randal; Matt Johnson; Michael Quinn; Chieko Maene; Sonja Hoover; Valerie Richmond-Reese; Florence K L Tangka; Djenaba A Joseph; Sujha Subramanian Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 6.860