Vishal Desai1, Daniel A Sussman2, Michael Greenspan1, Sandeep Dayanand2, Kevin Ollington2, Sheena Patel1, Hong Li3, Joshua Melson4. 1. Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison, Suite 206, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, Clinical Research Building 350 (D-49), Miami, FL, 33136, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 86 Jonathan Lucas Street, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 4. Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison, Suite 206, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. Joshua_Melson@rush.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surveillance colonoscopy frequently occurs prior to recommended intervals. Studies delineating the reasons why premature surveillance occurs are limited. We sought to define the frequency in which premature surveillance colonoscopy occurs in the setting of an inadequate bowel preparation or with a provided patient clinical indication versus when premature surveillance colonoscopy occurs without any provided discernible rationale in the setting of adequate bowel preparation. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of 700 patients undergoing colonoscopy for an indication of "surveillance of polyps" from 2008 to 2014 at two tertiary-care referral centers was carried out. Patients were deemed either "adherent" or "premature" based on US Multi-Society Task Force guideline intervals for surveillance colonoscopy. A documented decision-making rationale for premature surveillance was determined through review of the electronic medical record with assessment of clinical notes and endoscopy order and report. RESULTS: Premature surveillance occurred in 43.0 % (n = 301) of all surveillance colonoscopies performed. Among the premature cases, rationale was attributed to inadequate bowel preparation in 17.3 % (n = 52) and due to a new clinical indication in 21.6 % (n = 65). Most commonly, in 61.1 % (n = 184) of premature cases, no rationale was documented for the early colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Documented decision-making rationale for premature surveillance colonoscopy is usually absent in premature cases with inadequate bowel preparation and new clinical indications explaining only a minority of the occurrences.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surveillance colonoscopy frequently occurs prior to recommended intervals. Studies delineating the reasons why premature surveillance occurs are limited. We sought to define the frequency in which premature surveillance colonoscopy occurs in the setting of an inadequate bowel preparation or with a provided patient clinical indication versus when premature surveillance colonoscopy occurs without any provided discernible rationale in the setting of adequate bowel preparation. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of 700 patients undergoing colonoscopy for an indication of "surveillance of polyps" from 2008 to 2014 at two tertiary-care referral centers was carried out. Patients were deemed either "adherent" or "premature" based on US Multi-Society Task Force guideline intervals for surveillance colonoscopy. A documented decision-making rationale for premature surveillance was determined through review of the electronic medical record with assessment of clinical notes and endoscopy order and report. RESULTS: Premature surveillance occurred in 43.0 % (n = 301) of all surveillance colonoscopies performed. Among the premature cases, rationale was attributed to inadequate bowel preparation in 17.3 % (n = 52) and due to a new clinical indication in 21.6 % (n = 65). Most commonly, in 61.1 % (n = 184) of premature cases, no rationale was documented for the early colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Documented decision-making rationale for premature surveillance colonoscopy is usually absent in premature cases with inadequate bowel preparation and new clinical indications explaining only a minority of the occurrences.
Authors: Stuart R Cairns; John H Scholefield; Robert J Steele; Malcolm G Dunlop; Huw J W Thomas; Gareth D Evans; Jayne A Eaden; Matthew D Rutter; Wendy P Atkin; Brian P Saunders; Anneke Lucassen; Paul Jenkins; Peter D Fairclough; Christopher R J Woodhouse Journal: Gut Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Jason A Dominitz; John G Lieb; David A Lieberman; Walter G Park; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jaison John; Abdul Al-Douri; Bretta Candelaria; Saurin Gandhi; Paul Guzik; Brent Herndon; Christopher Kim; Nicole Kluz; Jennifer Thompson; Jessica Trevino; Victoria Valencia; Michael Pignone Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 2.260