ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Managing and communicating colonoscopy-generated pathology results and appropriate follow-up recommendations can be challenging. To improve this process, we developed and implemented a standardized electronic health record-based intervention with built-in decision support. METHODS: Fourteen attending endoscopists performed enough colonoscopies to qualify for the study. For each, we randomly sampled and abstracted data from 35 colonoscopies that met prespecified inclusion criteria during both the pre-intervention and also post-intervention periods. Follow-up recommendations were compared to guidelines. We used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to assess the change in the proportion of cases with guideline-concordant results, the proportion with a documented follow-up result letter, and the median time to letter completion. A brief survey assessed endoscopists' satisfaction with the intervention. RESULTS: In total, 1,947 colonoscopies were extracted, of which 968 met inclusion criteria. The proportion of follow-up recommendations that were guideline concordant increased from a median of 82.9% pre-intervention to 85.7% post-intervention (P=0.72). The proportion of observations with a documented follow-up result letter increased from a median of 88.9% pre-intervention to 97.1% post-intervention (P=0.07). The number of calendar days between the date of the colonoscopy and the date the letter was sent decreased from a median of 7.7 days pre-intervention to 6.8 days post-intervention (P=0.79). Eighty-six percentage of endoscopists were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the overall process. CONCLUSION: The intervention was not associated with a statistically significant increase in guideline-concordant recommendations or efficiency measures, perhaps due to high baseline performance. The intervention was well received by endoscopists and captured data necessary for important downstream processes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Looping is a common problem during colonoscopy that prolongs procedure time. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of ColoWrap, an external abdominal compression device, with respect to insertion time and other procedural outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of outpatients undergoing elective colonoscopy (40-80 years old; mean age, 60.5 years) at endoscopy facilities in the University of North Carolina Hospitals from April 2013 through March 2014. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups that received either ColoWrap (n = 175) or a sham device (control, n = 175) during colonoscopy. Colonoscopists and staff were blinded to the application. The primary outcome was cecal intubation time (CIT). Secondary outcomes included use of manual pressure and position change. RESULTS: The mean CIT was similar for the control and ColoWrap groups (6.69 vs 6.67 minutes; P = .98). There were no statistical differences in the frequency of manual pressure (45% for controls vs 37% for ColoWrap group, P = .13) or position changes (4% for controls vs 2% for ColoWrap group, P = .36). Among patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2) (n = 78), CIT was significantly lower for patients in the ColoWrap group (4.69 minutes) than controls (6.10 minutes) (P = .03). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, application of an external abdominal compression device did not improve CIT or affect the frequency of ancillary maneuvers. A possible benefit was observed in patients with body mass index between 30 and 40 kg/m(2), but further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02025504.
