A comprehensive intervention to enhance inpatient colon preparation quality for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Adequate colon preparation is a critical component of high-quality colonoscopy especially for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy for acute indications. Inpatient colonoscopy has a high incidence of inadequate preparations. We report implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve inpatient colonoscopy preparations. METHODS: Bowel preparation quality from inpatient colonoscopies performed for the 12 months prior to the comprehensive intervention were compared to colonoscopies performed for 12 months following the intervention. The intervention had multiple components including: 1) EMR-based colonoscopy preparation order set; 2) automated EMR alerts prompting nursing assessment of preparation progress; 3) standardized nursing charting processes for tracking preparation progress; and 4) standardized education for nursing staff and ordering providers on adequate colon preparation, assessment of colon preparation quality, and use of the above processes; and print and video patient education materials. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight inpatient colonoscopies were performed in the preintervention assessment period and 163 colonoscopies in the postintervention period. Median preintervention Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) was 6 and 26% of patients had inadequate colon preparation. Median postintervention BBPS was 8 with 16% inadequate colon preparation (P=0.016). The postintervention group had less ASA class I patients and used a lower dose of fentanyl than the preintervention group. There were no other significant differences between the pre- and postintervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a comprehensive colon preparation quality intervention resulted in significantly improved inpatient colon preparation quality and decreased frequency of inadequate preparations. The intervention consisting of an EMR-based order-set, nursing alerts and charting process, and patient education materials is continually being refined.

Exploring Surgeon Variability in Recommendations for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: What Matters Most?

BACKGROUND: American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) guidelines state that it is the responsibility of the surgeon to discuss the risks/benefits of and give a recommendation regarding contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM). We conducted a survey of ASBrS members to evaluate the factors that affect this recommendation, confidence in this recommendation, and awareness/adoption of the guidelines. METHODS: A survey was sent to the ASBrS membership. Vignettes with the following variables about breast cancer patient were randomly included: age, disease stage, receptor status, family history (FH) of breast cancer, and patient preference for CPM. Respondents were asked to estimate the patient's chance of developing contralateral cancer, whether they would recommend CPM, and their confidence in this recommendation, and about their familiarity with and use of the guidelines. RESULTS: 536 members (21.9%) responded. The odds of recommending CPM and confidence in recommendation were higher in a younger patient, higher-stage disease, triple-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2+ relative to estrogen receptor (ER)+, and in women with FH. Of surgeons, 51% were familiar or very familiar with the guidelines and 38% used the guidelines most or all of the time. Surgeons who used the guidelines were not less likely to recommend CPM. CONCLUSIONS: While surgeons generally agree on the factors that are important in making a recommendation on CPM, there is variability in how strongly the different factors influence the recommendation and their confidence in that recommendation. In addition, while most surgeons were at least a little familiar with the ASBrS guidelines, the vast majority do not routinely use them.