Root-cause Analysis of 762 Danish Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) refers to colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed after a negative colonoscopy. Using the root-cause algorithm proposed by the World Endoscopy Organization, we aimed to investigate plausible explanations for PCCRCs and potential changes in plausible explanations for PCCRCs over time in a Danish Region. METHODS: During 1995 to 2021, we used national health registries and electronic medical records in the Central Denmark Region to identify PCCRC cases, defined as CRCs recorded within 6 to 48 months after a colonoscopy. We then applied the World Endoscopy Organization algorithm to categorize explanations for PCCRC as follows: (A) possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; (B) possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; (C) detected lesion, not resected; or (D) likely incomplete resection of previously identified lesion. PCCRCs were identified before (1995-2013) and after (2014-2021) implementation of nationwide fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening and quality indicators for colonoscopy. RESULTS: We identified 762 PCCRCs, 53.5% among males and 57% among individuals ≥70 years. Forty-five percent were located in the proximal colon. We identified 616 (80.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74.6%-87.5%) category A PCCRCs; 36 (4.7%; 95% CI, 3.3%-6.5%) category B PCCRCs; 26 (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%) category C PCCRCs; and 84 (11%; 95% CI, 8.8%-13.6%) category D PCCRCs. Similar patterns were observed during the early (1995-2013) and late (2014-2021) study periods. CONCLUSIONS: Most PCCRCs originate from possible missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions during the complete study period. These findings indicate the importance of quality assurance of colonoscopy procedures and polypectomy techniques.

Impact of transitional care interventions on hospital readmissions in older medical patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesise available evidence on the impact of transitional care interventions with both predischarge and postdischarge elements on readmission rates in older medical patients. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHOD: Inclusion criteria were: medical patients ≥65 years or mean age in study population of ≥75 years; interventions were transitional care interventions between hospital and home with both predischarge and postdischarge components; outcome was hospital readmissions. Studies were excluded if they: included other patient groups than medical patients, included patients with only one diagnosis or patients with only psychiatric disorders. PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science were searched from January 2008 to August 2019. Study selection at title level was undertaken by one author; the remaining selection process, data extraction and methodological quality assessment were undertaken by two authors independently. A narrative synthesis was performed, and effect sizes were estimated. RESULT: We identified 1951 records and included 11 studies: five randomised trials, four non-randomised controlled trials and two pre-post cohort studies. The 11 studies represent 15 different interventions and 29 outcome results measuring readmission rates within 7-182 days after discharge. Twenty-two of the 29 outcome results showed a drop in readmission rates in the intervention groups compared with the control groups. The most significant impact was seen when interventions were of high intensity, lasted at least 1 month and targeted patients at risk. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor. CONCLUSION: Transitional care interventions reduce readmission rates among older medical patients although the impact varies at different times of outcome assessment. High-quality studies examining the impact of interventions are needed, preferably complimented by a process evaluation to refine and improve future interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019121795.

Split-Dose Regimen With Bisacodyl Increases the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy.

The aim of the present study was to compare 2 different bowel preparations procedures (split-dose with PicoPrep and bisacodyl vs. same-day preparation with PicoPrep) in patients undergoing colonoscopy with regard to quality of bowel preparation, compliance, and willingness to repeat. A retrospective quasi-experimental investigation was conducted. Adults with outpatient diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies were included. A total of 540 patients participated: group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' (n = 293) and group 'same-day' (n = 247). Patients in group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' had a higher chance for having an excellent quality of bowel preparation (21.2%; 95% CI [13.5, 28.9]) and a reduced risk of an incomplete colonoscopy (4.1%; 95% CI [1.2, 7.0]). Group 'split-dose with bisacodyl' drank more fluid, had more nightly visits to the bathroom, and had more bathroom stops on the way to the endoscopic site. No differences were found between groups regarding adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, overall time of colonoscopy, well-being during cleansing, patient satisfaction, the professional's assessment of the patient's tolerability of colonoscopy, and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation process. The split-dose regimen with PicoPrep and bisacodyl is now the standard bowel preparation procedure for patients undergoing elective colonoscopy as it is superior to the same-day regimen with PicoPrep regarding colon cleansing and incomplete colonoscopy. Hence, the written and verbal information at our institution regarding the bowel preparation procedure was altered according to the split-dose regimen, emphasizing the importance of adequate oral fluid intake and complete intake of the solution in order to ensure a safe and effective procedure.

Improvement of nutritional care after colon surgery: the impact of early oral nutrition in the postanesthesia care unit.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of implementing early oral nutritional supplements in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) after colon surgery. DESIGN: A randomized controlled intervention study. METHODS: Patients admitted for elective colon surgery were randomly assigned to either a group receiving early oral nutritional supplements (n=24) or traditional treatment with water or lemonade (n=22) in the PACU. FINDING: On the second postoperative day, patients in the early nutritional supplement group had a higher cumulative intake of energy (P=.019) and protein (P=.015) compared with the traditional treatment. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, pain, length of stay in the PACU, and need of a nasogastric tube did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The nutritional course for patients undergoing colon surgery can be improved by implementing early oral nutritional supplements in the PACU.