Optimizing Endoscopy Procedure Documentation Improves Guideline-Adherent Care in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a common indication for inpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Guideline adherence improves post-EGD care, including appropriate medication dosing/duration and follow-up procedures that reduce UGIB-related morbidity. We aimed to optimize and standardize post-EGD documentation to improve process and clinical outcomes in UGIB-related care. METHODS: We performed a prospective quality improvement study of inpatient UGIB endoscopies at an academic tertiary referral center during 6/2019-7/2021. Guidelines were used to develop etiology/severity-specific electronic health record note templates. Participants (39 faculty/15 trainees) completed 10-min training in template content/use. We collected pre/post-intervention process data on "Minimal Standard Report" (MSR) documentation including patient disposition, diet, and medications. We also recorded documentation of re-bleed precautions and follow-up procedures. Study outcomes included guideline-based medication prescriptions, ordering of follow-up EGD, and post-discharge re-bleeding. Pre/post-intervention analysis was performed using chi-square tests. RESULTS: From a pre-intervention baseline of 199 patients to 459 patients post-intervention, compliance improved with inpatient PPI (53.4-77.9%, p < 0.001) and discharge PPI (31.3-61.0%, p < 0.001) prescriptions. There was improvement in MSR completion (28.6-42.5%, p < 0.001). Compliance improved with octreotide prescriptions (75.0-93.6%, p = 0.002) and follow-up EGD order (61.3-87.1%, p < 0.001). There was no change in post-discharge re-bleeding. 82.6% of cases used templates. CONCLUSIONS: Our project leveraged endoscopy software to standardize documentation, resulting in improved clinical care behavior and efficiency. Our intervention required low burden of maintenance, and sustainability with high utilization over 9 months. Similar endoscopy templates can be applied to other health systems and procedures to improve care.

Adoption of Optimal Small (6-9 mm) Colorectal Polyp Resection Technique Over Time.

BACKGROUND: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is the preferred resection technique for small (6-9 mm) polyps due to lower rate of incomplete resection compared to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) and improved safety profile over hot snare polypectomy (HSP). AIMS: To describe resection techniques for small (6-9 mm) polyps and determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique. METHODS: This was retrospective cohort study of colonoscopies performed by gastroenterological and surgical endoscopists from 2012 to 2019 where at least one 6-9 mm polyp was removed. Patient, provider, and procedure characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique. RESULTS: In total, 773 colonoscopies where 1,360 6-9 mm polyps removed by 21 endoscopists were included. CSP was used for 1,122 (82.5%), CFP for 61 (4.5%), and HSP for 177 (13.0%). Surgeon specialty was associated with CFP use (aOR 7.81; 95% CI 3.02-20.16). Polyp location in left colon (aOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17-2.33) and pedunculated morphology (aOR 12.76; 95% CI 7.24-22.50) were associated with HSP. There was a significant increase in overall CSP use from 30.4% in 2012 to 96.8% in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: 82.5% of all 6-9 mm polyps removed from 2012 to 2019 were removed using a cold snare with significant increase in CSP from 2012 to 2019. Differences in how optimal technique was adopted over time based on specialty highlight the need for standardized practice guidelines and quality monitoring.

Leveraging electronic medical record functionality to capture adenoma detection rate.

Measuring the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is critical to providing quality care, however it is also challenging. We aimed to develop a tool using pre-existing electronic health record (EHR) functions to accurately and easily measure total ADR and to provide real-time feedback for endoscopists. We utilized the Epic EHR. With the help of an Epic analyst, using existing tools, we developed a method by which endoscopy staff could mark whether an adenoma was detected for a given colonoscopy. Using these responses and all colonoscopies performed by the endoscopist recorded in the EHR, ADR was calculated in a report and displayed to endoscopists within the EHR. One endoscopist piloted the tool, and results of the tool were validated against a manual chart review. Over the pilot period the endoscopist performed 145 colonoscopies, of which 78 had adenomas. The tool correctly identified 76/78 colonoscopies with an adenoma and 67/67 of colonoscopies with no adenomas (97.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 98% accuracy). There was no difference in ADR as determined by the tool compared to manual review (53.1% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.912). We successfully developed and pilot tested a tool to measure ADR using existing EHR functionality.

Yield of upper gastrointestinal screening in colonic adenomatous polyposis of unknown etiology: a multicenter study.

Background and study aims The majority of patients with 10 or more cumulative colorectal adenomas have uninformative genetic testing and meet criteria for colonic adenomatous polyposis of unknown etiology (CPUE). The yield of upper gastrointestinal screening in patients with CPUE after multi-gene panel testing is unknown and our objective was to characterize this. Patient and methods A multicenter, retrospective analysis of screening upper endoscopies in adults with CPUE after multi-gene panel testing was performed. Those with a history of gastroduodenal neoplasia prior to CPUE diagnosis were excluded. Demographic and clinical variables were collected and compared. Results One hundred and twenty-eight patients with CPUE were included from five participating centers. Nine (7.0 %) had gastroduodenal neoplasia on initial screening upper endoscopy. Those with over 100 colorectal adenomas had a significantly higher rate of gastroduodenal neoplasia than those with 20-99 or 10-19 colorectal adenomas (44.4 % vs 4.1 % vs 4.4 %, P  = 0.002). Similar results were seen when the analysis was restricted to only duodenal or ampullary adenomas. The only malignancy was a gastric cancer in a patient with 20 to 99 colorectal adenomas. When comparing patients with gastroduodenal neoplasia to those without, the only significantly different characteristic was the cumulative number of colorectal adenomas. Conclusions We found a 7 % rate of gastroduodenal neoplasia in patients with CPUE after multi-gene panel testing. Although patients with ≥ 100 colorectal adenomas had a significantly higher risk, over 4 % of patients with 10 to 99 colorectal adenomas had gastroduodenal neoplasia. Given this, we recommend a screening upper endoscopy at the time of a colonoscopy after CPUE diagnosis.

Primary Care Provider Knowledge and Practice in Risk Assessment for Early Age Onset Colorectal Cancer: Opportunities for Improvement.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are rising in individuals under age 50, termed early age onset (EAO) CRC. Lower endoscopy is recommended for all patients with unexplained iron deficiency anemia (IDA) or hematochezia to assess the EAO-CRC. For those without symptoms, professional societies recommend decreasing the age to start screening from 50 to 45. Primary care provider (PCP) knowledge and practices around EAO-CRC risk assessment and screening are unknown. We conducted a survey study in May, 2020 of multi-specialty PCPs from three large medical systems to assess PCP knowledge, risk stratification practices and barriers/facilitators they face to offer CRC screening in patients < 50. We conducted univariate analysis to assess factors associated with knowledge and diagnostic practices. Response rate was 27.7% (196/708). Although 77.6% of respondents were aware that EAO-CRC incidence is increasing, only 42.9% knew that EAO-CRC mortality is also increasing. Of note, 91.8% recommend starting average risk screening at age 50. For 40- to 49-year-old patients present with unexplained IDA or hematochezia, 71.9% and 50.5% of respondents, respectively, recommend a diagnostic colonoscopy. Trainees were less likely to be aware of rising EAO-CRC mortality (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.82) and non-internal medicine providers were less likely to recommend CRC screening in those with a first-degree relative with CRC (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.93). Ongoing education efforts will be required to improve recognition and management of high-risk symptoms, particularly among non-internists and trainees.

Poor Knowledge of Personal and Familial Colorectal Cancer Risk and Screening Recommendations Associated with Advanced Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advanced colorectal polyps (adenoma or sessile serrated polyp ≥ 1 cm, adenoma with villous features, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or any sessile serrated polyps with dysplasia) are associated with an increased risk of future advanced colorectal neoplasia and confer an increased risk of advanced neoplasia to first-degree family members. Professional societies therefore recommend more intensive surveillance of these polyps and earlier screening for first-degree relatives. The aim of this study was to assess knowledge of personal and familial risk and recommendations among patients with advanced colorectal polyps and identify predictors of knowledge. METHODS: An online survey was designed to assess the domains of knowledge and risk perception regarding personal and familial colorectal cancer risk and screening recommendations. After expert review and pilot testing, the 37-item survey was electronically sent to all patients diagnosed with an advanced colon or rectal polyp under the age of 60. Patient report of polyp findings was compared to documented findings in the medical record. Univariable and multivariable regressions were performed to evaluate predictors of knowledge. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven out of 344 (39.8%) eligible patients responded to the survey. 28.5% of participants reported that the polyp they had removed was precancerous. 54.8% of participants reported that they have a higher risk of CRC, and 65.2% reported that they should be undergoing colonoscopy surveillance in 3 years or less. 40.1% reported that their first-degree family members are at increased CRC risk, and 38.0% reported that first-degree family members should get earlier screening. Participants reported their endoscopists as their top source of information about risk and recommendations, though only 7.3% of endoscopists made recommendations for family members. Female gender and higher income were predictors of accurate knowledge, as endoscopist was the main source of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced colorectal polyps have poor knowledge of personal and familial CRC risk and recommendations. Endoscopists who remove advanced polyps are in an ideal position to educate their patients about their personal risk and the risk and recommendations for first-degree family members.