Literature DB >> 23011072

Postreferral colonoscopy delays in diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a mixed-methods analysis.

Hardeep Singh1, Rashid Khan, Traber Davis Giardina, Lindsey Wilson Paul, Kuang Daci, Milena Gould, Hashem El-Serag.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Delays in diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) are one of the most common reasons for malpractice claims and lead to poor outcomes. However, they are not well studied. AIMS: We used a mixed quantitative-qualitative approach to analyze postreferral colonoscopy delays in CRC patients and explored referring physician's perception of processes surrounding these delays.
METHODS: Two physician-raters conducted independent electronic health record reviews of new CRC cases in a large integrated safety-net system to determine postreferral colonoscopy delays, which we defined as failures to perform colonoscopy within 60 days of referral for an established indication(s). To explore perceptions of colonoscopy processes, we conducted semistructured interviews with a sample of primary care physicians (PCPs) and used a content analysis approach.
RESULTS: Of 104 CRC cases that met inclusion criteria, reviewers agreed on the presence of postreferral colonoscopy delays in 35 (33.7%) cases; κ = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99). The median time between first referral and completion of colonoscopy was 123.0 days (range 62.0-938.0; interquartile range = 90.0 days). In about two-thirds of instances (64.8%), the reason for delay was a delayed future appointment with the gastroenterology service. On interviews, PCPs attributed long delays in scheduling to reduced endoscopic capacity and inefficient processes related to colonoscopy referral and scheduling, including considerable ambiguity regarding referral guidelines. Many suggested that navigation models be applied to streamline CRC diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Postreferral delays in CRC diagnosis are potentially preventable. A comprehensive mixed-methods methodology might be useful for others to identify the steps in the diagnostic process that are in most need for improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23011072      PMCID: PMC3702372          DOI: 10.1097/QMH.0b013e31826d1f28

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care        ISSN: 1063-8628            Impact factor:   0.926


  32 in total

1.  The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates.

Authors:  Eric J Thomas; Stuart R Lipsitz; David M Studdert; Troyen A Brennan
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-06-04       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Characteristics and predictors of missed opportunities in lung cancer diagnosis: an electronic health record-based study.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Kamal Hirani; Himabindu Kadiyala; Olga Rudomiotov; Traber Davis; Myrna M Khan; Terry L Wahls
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Learning from malpractice claims about negligent, adverse events in primary care in the United States.

Authors:  R L Phillips; L A Bartholomew; S M Dovey; G E Fryer; T J Miyoshi; L A Green
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-04

5.  Diagnostic error in internal medicine.

Authors:  Mark L Graber; Nancy Franklin; Ruthanna Gordon
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-07-11

Review 6.  Association between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  James J Biagi; Michael J Raphael; William J Mackillop; Weidong Kong; Will D King; Christopher M Booth
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Use of a patient navigator to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban neighborhood health clinic.

Authors:  Lina Jandorf; Yahaira Gutierrez; Jaime Lopez; Jennifer Christie; Steven H Itzkowitz
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2005-05-11       Impact factor: 3.671

8.  Implications of delayed diagnosis in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  C J Young; J L Sweeney; A Hunter
Journal:  Aust N Z J Surg       Date:  2000-09

Review 9.  Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Amy Leader; Elizabeth Neilson; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.929

10.  Nonattendance at outpatient endoscopy.

Authors:  L A Adams; J Pawlik; G M Forbes
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 10.093

View more
  11 in total

1.  Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients Presenting to Primary Care with Rectal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sanja Percac-Lima; Lydia E Pace; Kevin H Nguyen; Charis N Crofton; Katharine A Normandin; Sara J Singer; Meredith B Rosenthal; Alyna T Chien
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  A vision for using online portals for surveillance of patient-centered communication in cancer care.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Neeraj K Arora; Kathleen M Mazor; Richard L Street
Journal:  Patient Exp J       Date:  2015 Fall-Winter

3.  Exploring situational awareness in diagnostic errors in primary care.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Traber Davis Giardina; Laura A Petersen; Michael W Smith; Lindsey Wilson Paul; Key Dismukes; Gayathri Bhagwath; Eric J Thomas
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 7.035

4.  Patient-Reported Attributions for Missed Colonoscopy Appointments in Two Large Healthcare Systems.

Authors:  Viraj Bhise; Varsha Modi; Anisha Kalavar; Donna Espadas; Loretta Hanser; Milena Gould; Hashem B El-Serag; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Resilient actions in the diagnostic process and system performance.

Authors:  Michael W Smith; Traber Davis Giardina; Daniel R Murphy; Archana Laxmisan; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 7.035

6.  Health Insurance Status as a Predictor of Mode of Colon Cancer Detection but Not Stage at Diagnosis: Implications for Early Detection.

Authors:  Lindsey A Jones; Katherine C Brewer; Leslie R Carnahan; Jennifer A Parsons; Blase N Polite; Carol Estwing Ferrans; Richard B Warnecke; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 7.  Understanding missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis of cancer in symptomatic patients after presentation.

Authors:  G Lyratzopoulos; P Vedsted; H Singh
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Information seeking and anxiety among colonoscopy-naïve adults: Direct-to-colonoscopy vs traditional consult-first pathways.

Authors:  Jocelyn A Silvester; Harmandeep Kalkat; Lesley A Graff; John R Walker; Harminder Singh; Donald R Duerksen
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-11-16

Review 9.  The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Gordon D Schiff; Mark L Graber; Igho Onakpoya; Matthew J Thompson
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 7.035

10.  A Root Cause Analysis of Barriers to Timely Colonoscopy in California Safety-Net Health Systems.

Authors:  Anjana E Sharma; Helena C Lyson; Roy Cherian; Ma Somsouk; Dean Schillinger; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.