Neha Patel1, Liyue Tong2, Chul Ahn3, Amit G Singal4, Samir Gupta5,6. 1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Parkland Health and Hospital System, 5323 Harry Hines, K5.140A, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. Neha.Patel@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. University of Texas Houston, 1200 Pressler Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. aquiangel@gmail.com. 3. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, E5.506, Dallas, TX, 75390-9066, USA. chul.ahn@utsouthwestern.edu. 4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Parkland Health and Hospital System, 5959 Harry Hines Blvd, POB I Suite 420B, Dallas, TX, 75201 - 8887, USA. amit.singal@utsouthwestern.edu. 5. Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, 3350 La Jolla Village Dr, MC 111D, San Diego, CA, 92161, USA. s1gupta@ucsd.edu. 6. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. s1gupta@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guideline recommendations is suboptimal. Surveillance is frequently over- and under-recommend, resulting in strained colonoscopy capacity, potential risks without expected benefits, and missed opportunities for colorectal cancer risk reduction. AIMS: To identify factors associated with adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a three-phase study with a retrospective review of usual care post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations through medical chart abstraction (Phase I), prospective online physician survey (Phase II), and analysis of survey-based and other physician-based predictors of usual care surveillance recommendations (Phase III). Subjects included patients who underwent usual care colonoscopy 2011-2012 (Phases I and III) and gastroenterology (GI) attendings and fellows (Phases II and III). We identified rates of recommendations consistent with guideline adherence, surveillance overuse, and surveillance underuse based on usual care medical chart documentation and physician survey, as well as predictors of physician adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: We reviewed 640 patient charts for 28 survey respondents. Rates of usual practice recommendations consistent with guideline adherence, surveillance overutilization, and underutilization were 84, 13, and 3%, respectively. At survey, 82% of physicians were concerned about missed cancer. Eleven percentage believed that guidelines were not aggressive enough. GI trainees were 2.5 times more likely to issue guideline-adherent recommendations [OR 2.5, 95% CI (1.5-4.2)]. Disagreement with guideline aggressiveness was independently associated with 40% lower likelihood of adherence [OR 0.6, 95% CI (0.4-0.8)]. CONCLUSIONS: Belief in the appropriate aggressiveness of guidelines and trainee position, but not fear of missed cancer or guideline knowledge, was associated with adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guideline recommendations is suboptimal. Surveillance is frequently over- and under-recommend, resulting in strained colonoscopy capacity, potential risks without expected benefits, and missed opportunities for colorectal cancer risk reduction. AIMS: To identify factors associated with adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a three-phase study with a retrospective review of usual care post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations through medical chart abstraction (Phase I), prospective online physician survey (Phase II), and analysis of survey-based and other physician-based predictors of usual care surveillance recommendations (Phase III). Subjects included patients who underwent usual care colonoscopy 2011-2012 (Phases I and III) and gastroenterology (GI) attendings and fellows (Phases II and III). We identified rates of recommendations consistent with guideline adherence, surveillance overuse, and surveillance underuse based on usual care medical chart documentation and physician survey, as well as predictors of physician adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: We reviewed 640 patient charts for 28 survey respondents. Rates of usual practice recommendations consistent with guideline adherence, surveillance overutilization, and underutilization were 84, 13, and 3%, respectively. At survey, 82% of physicians were concerned about missed cancer. Eleven percentage believed that guidelines were not aggressive enough. GI trainees were 2.5 times more likely to issue guideline-adherent recommendations [OR 2.5, 95% CI (1.5-4.2)]. Disagreement with guideline aggressiveness was independently associated with 40% lower likelihood of adherence [OR 0.6, 95% CI (0.4-0.8)]. CONCLUSIONS: Belief in the appropriate aggressiveness of guidelines and trainee position, but not fear of missed cancer or guideline knowledge, was associated with adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.
Entities:
Keywords:
Guideline adherence; Polypectomy; Practice patterns; Recommendations; Surveillance
Authors: J Sint Nicolaas; V de Jonge; O van Baalen; F J G M Kubben; W Moolenaar; M F J Stolk; E J Kuipers; M E van Leerdam Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: William D Farrar; Mandeep S Sawhney; Douglas B Nelson; Frank A Lederle; John H Bond Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Charles J Kahi; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Randall W Burt; Tim Byers; Robert H Fletcher; Neil Hyman; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; David A Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Michael J O'Brien; Clifford Simmang; Alan G Thorson; Sidney J Winawer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: María Elena Martínez; John A Baron; David A Lieberman; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Ruiyun Jiang; Dennis J Ahnen; John H Bond; Timothy R Church; Douglas J Robertson; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Elizabeth T Jacobs; David S Alberts; E Robert Greenberg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Paul F Pinsky; Pamela M Marcus; Elaine Lanza; Amanda J Cross; Arthur Schatzkin; Robert E Schoen Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Melissa Magrath; Edward Yang; Chul Ahn; Christian A Mayorga; Purva Gopal; Caitlin C Murphy; Samir Gupta; Deepak Agrawal; Ethan A Halm; Eric K Borton; Celette Sugg Skinner; Amit G Singal Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Ben Kahn; Zachary Freeland; Purva Gopal; Deepak Agrawal; Christian A Mayorga; Rozina Mithani; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jeffrey K Lee; Christopher D Jensen; Theodore R Levin; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jessica Chubak; Aruna S Kamineni; Joanne E Schottinger; Nirupa R Ghai; Natalia Udaltsova; Wei K Zhao; Bruce H Fireman; Charles P Quesenberry; E John Orav; Celette S Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jung Lok Lee; Jae Myung Cha; Hye Min Lee; Jung Won Jeon; Min Seob Kwak; Jin Young Yoon; Hyun Phil Shin; Kwang Ro Joo; Joung Il Lee; Dong Il Park Journal: Intest Res Date: 2017-01-31
Authors: Parambir S Dulai; Siddharth Singh; Evelyn Marquez; Rohan Khera; Larry J Prokop; Paul J Limburg; Samir Gupta; Mohammad Hassan Murad Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-12-05
Authors: David A Cook; Laurie J Pencille; Denise M Dupras; Jane A Linderbaum; V Shane Pankratz; John M Wilkinson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 3.240