Literature DB >> 23535876

Physician recommendations and patient adherence after inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy.

Reena V Chokshi1, Christine E Hovis, Graham A Colditz, Dayna S Early, Jean S Wang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It has been suggested that bowel preparation quality may influence decision-making about appropriate follow-up interval after screening colonoscopy. We sought: (1) to assess physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy in average-risk patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening, and (2) to measure the association between physician recommendations and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy.
METHODS: Patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy from 2004 to 2009 found to have inadequate bowel preparation were identified. Physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy were assessed through examination of endoscopy records. Data from repeat colonoscopies were collected through August 2010.
RESULTS: There were 373 patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening colonoscopy. There was a wide range of physician recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy: next day (4.6 % of patients), 2 days to 6 months (9.9 %), 7 months to 1 year (34.0 %), 2-5 years (38.3 %), 6-10 years (5.1 %), and timing not specified (8.0 %). Physicians were significantly more likely to recommend repeat colonoscopy within 1 year if any polyps were detected (OR = 2.2, p = 0.001). Patients instructed to have next day follow-up were significantly more likely to adhere to the recommendation compared to patients who were instructed to return after longer intervals (OR 4.4, p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy were subject to a wide range of physician recommendations for follow-up. Patient adherence to physician recommendations was significantly higher when repeat colonoscopy was recommended the next day.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23535876     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-013-2642-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  23 in total

1.  Predictors of compliance with free endoscopic colorectal cancer screening in uninsured adults.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Richard H Fortinsky; Alison Kleppinger; Amanda B Merz-Beyus; Charles G Huntington; Suzanne Lagarde
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  The impact of colon cleanliness assessment on endoscopists' recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy.

Authors:  Shomron Ben-Horin; Simon Bar-Meir; Benjamin Avidan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Non-compliance in surveillance for patients with previous resection of large (> or = 1 cm) colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Wolfgang-M Brueckl; Berit Fritsche; Brigitte Seifert; Frank Boxberger; Heinz Albrecht; Roland-S Croner; Axel Wein; Eckhart-G Hahn
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Colonoscopic enema as rescue for inadequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a prospective, observational study.

Authors:  A Horiuchi; Y Nakayama; M Kajiyama; N Kato; T Kamijima; Y Ichise; N Tanaka
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.788

5.  Recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance in community practice.

Authors:  David F Ransohoff; Bonnie Yankaskas; Ziya Gizlice; Lisa Gangarosa
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study.

Authors:  Florian Froehlich; Vincent Wietlisbach; Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Bernard Burnand; John-Paul Vader
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Variation in use of surveillance colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors in the United States.

Authors:  Talya Salz; Morris Weinberger; John Z Ayanian; Noel T Brewer; Craig C Earle; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Deborah A Fisher; Bryan J Weiner; Robert S Sandler
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  High compliance rates observed for follow up colonoscopy post polypectomy are achievable outside of clinical trials: efficacy of polypectomy is not reduced by low compliance for follow up.

Authors:  P Colquhoun; H-C Chen; Jong Ik Kim; J Efron; E G Weiss; J J Nogueras; A M Vernava; S D Wexner
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.788

9.  Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Corey H Basch; Benjamin Lebwohl; Charles E Basch; Fay Kastrinos; Beverly J Insel; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-08-12       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Patient-clinician information engagement improves adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance after curative treatment: results from a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Andy S L Tan; Mihaela Moldovan-Johnson; Sarah Parvanta; Stacy W Gray; Katrina Armstrong; Robert C Hornik
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-08-02
View more
  7 in total

1.  Does the "polyp paradox" really exist?

Authors:  Helmut Neumann; Rungsun Rerknimitr
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; John A Baron; Dennis J Ahnen; Elizabeth L Barry; Roberd M Bostick; Carol A Burke; Robert S Bresalier; Timothy R Church; Bernard F Cole; Marcia Cruz-Correa; Adam S Kim; Leila A Mott; Robert S Sandler; Douglas J Robertson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Danielle M Tholey; Corbett E Shelton; Gloria Francis; Archana Anantharaman; Robert A Frankel; Paurush Shah; Amy Coan; Sarah E Hegarty; Benjamin E Leiby; David M Kastenberg
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.062

4.  Post-colonoscopy recommendations after inadequate bowel preparation: all in the timing.

Authors:  Benjamin Lebwohl; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Paul C Schroy; David A Lieberman; Judith R Logan; Michael Zurfluh; Brian C Jacobson
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Patients Are Willing to Repeat Colonoscopy at a Short Interval When Bowel Preparation Quality Is Suboptimal.

Authors:  Jennifer K Maratt; Stacy B Menees; Marc S Piper; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Sameer D Saini
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 11.382

7.  Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Lynn F Butterly; Marion R Nadel; Joseph C Anderson; Christina M Robinson; Julia E Weiss; David Lieberman; Jean A Shapiro
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.174

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.