ABSTRACT
Introduction: FIT is a quantitative, highly specific test to detect blood in stool for malignant and non-malignant colorectal diagnoses. Incidence of normal colonoscopy following positive FIT is not widely reported. We conducted a retrospective audit to analyse this patient cohort to evaluate diagnostic accuracy and reporting standards of colonoscopy. Method: FIT-positive was defined as>10μgHb/g faeces. Using FIT value, patients were separated into Groups 1, 2 and 3: 10-99, 100-200 and >200μgHb/g faeces respectively. Normal colonoscopy was defined as no neoplastic or benign findings reported. Patients referred in the 2WWpathway after introduction of FIT-testing in October 2019 to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 were included. Data on age, gender, comorbidities and additional investigations were collected. Results: There were 1072 referrals in the study period;405 had FIT done, 265 were FIT-positive and had colonoscopy referral. Four patients were excluded after further investigations showed diverticulosis and gastritis. FIT-stratified normal-colonoscopy rate was 13.3% (28/210) overall, and 14.1% (23/163), 16.7% (2/12) and 8.6% (3/35) for Group 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Conclusions: Our study was limited by the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. In the short study period, 13.3% FIT-positive patients had normal colonoscopy. There are no comparative data in literature for this parameter. Higher FIT-values were associated with lower normal colonoscopy incidence. It is possible that some endoscopists failed to record positive, non-clinically significant findings. We are currently studying larger patient cohorts and in parallel, looking at Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) patients.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In light of the COVID-19 recommendations from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, we aimed to study patient and clinician satisfaction with a newly established telephone (TP) colorectal clinic service in lieu of traditional face-to-face (FTF) appointments. Comparative outcomes included patient versus clinician satisfaction; patient versus clinician desire to continue TP clinics postpandemic; and views of Specialty Trainee 3+ (ST3+)/Specialty Associate Specialist (SAS) doctors versus consultants on TP compared with FTF appointments. METHODS: We conducted a prospective service evaluation of patient and clinician satisfaction with colorectal surgery TP clinics between 1 June 2020 and 30 June 2020 in a British District General Hospital. RESULTS: Patients had higher satisfaction than clinicians with TP clinics: 91.5% versus 66.6% reported above-average experience [odds ratio (OR) = 5.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53 to 18.75, p = 0.01]. Clinicians had lower demand to continue TP clinics post-COVID-19 versus patients, with a trend towards significance (60% versus 82.9%, OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.97, p = 0.08). ST3+/SAS doctors were more likely than consultants to find TP clinics inferior to FTF consultation for patient assessment (48.3% versus 23.7%, OR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 7.71, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians may be concerned that patient assessment suffers, patient satisfaction with TP clinics is high. There should be a place for TP clinics post-COVID-19 but there must be a robust process for patient selection as well as adequate training for current and future generations of clinicians.