OBJECTIVE: To examine the compliance of colorectal cancer surveillance decisions for individuals at greater risk with current evidence-based guidelines and to determine whether compliance differs between surveillance models. DESIGN: Prospective auditing of compliance of surveillance decisions with evidence-based guidelines (NHMRC) in two decision-making models: nurse coordinator-led decision making in public academic hospitals and physician-led decision making in private non-academic hospitals. SETTING: Selected South Australian hospitals participating in the Southern Co-operative Program for the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer (SCOOP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of recall recommendations that matched NHMRC guideline recommendations (March-May 2015); numbers of surveillance colonoscopies undertaken more than 6 months ahead of schedule (January-December 2015); proportions of significant neoplasia findings during the 15 years of SCOOP operation (2000-2015). RESULTS: For the nurse-led/public academic hospital model, the recall interval recommendation following 398 of 410 colonoscopies (97%) with findings covered by NHMRC guidelines corresponded to the guideline recommendations; for the physician-led/private non-academic hospital model, this applied to 257 of 310 colonoscopies (83%) (P < 0.001). During 2015, 27% of colonoscopies in public academic hospitals (mean, 27 months; SD, 13 months) and 20% of those in private non-academic hospitals (mean, 23 months; SD, 12 months) were performed more than 6 months earlier than scheduled, in most cases because of patient-related factors (symptoms, faecal occult blood test results). The ratio of the numbers of high risk adenomas to cancers increased from 6.6:1 during 2001-2005 to 16:1 during 2011-2015. CONCLUSION: The nurse-led/public academic hospital model for decisions about colorectal cancer surveillance intervals achieves a high degree of compliance with guideline recommendations, which should relieve burdening of colonoscopy resources.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the compliance of colorectal cancer surveillance decisions for individuals at greater risk with current evidence-based guidelines and to determine whether compliance differs between surveillance models. DESIGN: Prospective auditing of compliance of surveillance decisions with evidence-based guidelines (NHMRC) in two decision-making models: nurse coordinator-led decision making in public academic hospitals and physician-led decision making in private non-academic hospitals. SETTING: Selected South Australian hospitals participating in the Southern Co-operative Program for the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer (SCOOP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of recall recommendations that matched NHMRC guideline recommendations (March-May 2015); numbers of surveillance colonoscopies undertaken more than 6 months ahead of schedule (January-December 2015); proportions of significant neoplasia findings during the 15 years of SCOOP operation (2000-2015). RESULTS: For the nurse-led/public academic hospital model, the recall interval recommendation following 398 of 410 colonoscopies (97%) with findings covered by NHMRC guidelines corresponded to the guideline recommendations; for the physician-led/private non-academic hospital model, this applied to 257 of 310 colonoscopies (83%) (P < 0.001). During 2015, 27% of colonoscopies in public academic hospitals (mean, 27 months; SD, 13 months) and 20% of those in private non-academic hospitals (mean, 23 months; SD, 12 months) were performed more than 6 months earlier than scheduled, in most cases because of patient-related factors (symptoms, faecal occult blood test results). The ratio of the numbers of high risk adenomas to cancers increased from 6.6:1 during 2001-2005 to 16:1 during 2011-2015. CONCLUSION: The nurse-led/public academic hospital model for decisions about colorectal cancer surveillance intervals achieves a high degree of compliance with guideline recommendations, which should relieve burdening of colonoscopy resources.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; Digestive system neoplasms; Hospitals; Surveillance