A patient-centered framework for health systems engineering in gastroenterology: improving inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient colonoscopy bowel preparation (ICBP) is frequently inadequate and can lead to adverse events, delayed or repeated procedures, and negative patient outcomes. Guidelines to overcome the complex factors in this setting are not well established. Our aims were to use health systems engineering principles to comprehensively evaluate the ICBP process, create an ICBP protocol, increase adequate ICBP, and decrease length of stay. Our goal was to provide adaptable tools for other institutions and procedural specialties. METHODS: Patients admitted to our tertiary care academic hospital that underwent inpatient colonoscopy between July 3, 2017 to June 8, 2018 were included. Our multi-disciplinary team created a protocol employing health systems engineering techniques (i.e., process mapping, cause-effect diagrams, and plan-do-study-act cycles). We collected demographic and colonoscopy data. Our outcome measures were adequate preparation and length of stay. We compared pre-intervention (120 ICBP) vs. post-intervention (129 ICBP) outcomes using generalized linear regression models. Our new ICBP protocol included: split-dose 6-L polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution, a gastroenterology electronic note template, and an education plan for patients, nurses, and physicians. RESULTS: The percent of adequate ICBPs significantly increased with the intervention from 61% pre-intervention to 74% post-intervention (adjusted odds ratio of 1.87, p value = 0.023). The median length of stay decreased by approximately 25%, from 4 days pre-intervention to 3 days post-intervention (p value = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: By addressing issues at patient, provider, and system levels with health systems engineering principles, we addressed patient safety and quality of care provided by improving rates of adequate ICBP.

Comparison of powered drill & manual bone biopsy systems: Does the diagnostic yield justify the cost?

Bone biopsies are traditionally performed using manual drill devices. More recently, powered drill biopsy systems have been developed, ostensibly to improve diagnostic yield. We compare the powered drill biopsy system to traditional manual needle devices on the basis of diagnostic yield, specimen size and material costs. 309 consecutive bone biopsy procedures performed with imaging guidance from a single academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. Specimen diagnostic adequacy, qualitative interpretation of diagnostically inadequate specimens, aggregate specimen volume and material costs were assessed. Econometric analysis was performed to assess the relationship between materials cost and diagnostic yield. Diagnostic yield and average core specimen volume were significantly higher in the powered drill group, with 86% of cases yielding adequate biopsy specimens versus 67% of cases using the manual method. The materials cost associated with the powered drill device was higher than those of any of the manual needle devices with an average difference of $270.19 per case, however, this was offset due to higher diagnostic yield suggesting that the increased diagnostic accuracy achieved by the powered drill does not carry a significant added financial burden. The powered drill bone biopsy system results in a significantly higher yield of diagnostically adequate biopsy specimens compared to traditional manual needles, possibly attributed to larger and more intact obtained core specimen volumes and is more economically viable off-setting the higher cost.