Triage of colonoscopies: open access endoscopy versus outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist

Background and study aims: In many Dutch hospitals, open access referral for colonoscopy is authorized by a gastroenterologist after screening a standard referral letter (SRL) without face-to-face contact with the patient. We investigated the added value of a 7.5 min outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist (OC), regarding the patient indications, priority for colonoscopy, and the frequency of correct information about patient medications and comorbidities on SRLs.

Patients and methods: In a prospective, blinded, single-center study, gastroenterologists assessed SRLs for the accuracy and priority of the colonoscopy request (SRL). These data were compared to results from the OC, and primary outcomes were the number of patients who were not recommended for colonoscopy and priority scheduling of colonoscopy for suspicion of cancer.

Results: Patients were analyzed using both SRL and OC and, of 255 patients, 224 of them underwent colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was not recommended for 6.3 % and 11.4 % of patients using the SRL and OC, respectively (P = 0.02). Using the SRL, gastroenterologists did not recommend colonoscopy for seven patients, but the same patients were recommended for colonoscopy when OC was available. This was explained because the indications on the SRL did not match the information obtained from OC. Compared to OC , more colonoscopies were prioritized when the SRL was used to make decisions. Cancer was detected in 7/112 (SRL ) versus 7/65 (OC ) of priority-scheduled patients. SRLs did not report the use of coumarins and insulin in 1.6 % of patients or the prevalence of serious comorbid conditions in 52 % of patients.

Conclusions: A 7.5 min outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist improved the identification of indications for colonoscopy, decreased priority scheduling of patients, and increased the number of patients diagnosed with cancer in the prioritized group. SRLs frequently omitted patients’ medications and comorbidities.

• References

• 1 Brenna E, Skreden K, Waldum HL. The Benefit of Colonoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol 1990; 25: 81-88
• 2 Charles RJ, Cooper GS, Wong RC et al. Effectiveness of open-access endoscopy in routine primary-care practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 183-186
• 3 Charles RJ, Chak A, Cooper GS et al. Use of open access in GI endoscopy at an academic medical center. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 480-485
• 4 Mahajan RJ, Marshall JB. Prevalence of open-access gastrointestinal endoscopy in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 21-26
• 5 Zuccaro Jr G, Provencher K. Does an open access system properly utilize endoscopic resources?. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 15-20
• 6 van Turenhout ST, Terhaar siveDroste JS, Meijer GA et al. Anticipating implementation of colorectal cancer screening in The Netherlands: a nationwide survey on endoscopic supply and demand. BMC Cancer 2012; 46 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-46.
• 7 Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Feasibility study into population screening for bowel cancer. Detection of bowel cancer put into practice. 2011 225082001
• 8 Ramsay G, MacKay C, Nanthakumaran S et al. Urgency of referral and its impact on outcome in patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: e375-e377
• 9 Lee SK, Kim TI, Shin SJ et al. Impact of prior abdominal or pelvic surgery on colonoscopy outcomes. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 40: 711-716
• 10 Garrett KA, Church J. History of hysterectomy: a significant problem for colonoscopists that is not present in patients who have had sigmoid colectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 2010; 53: 1055-1060
• 11 Kisloff B, Peele PB, Sharam R et al. Quality of patient referral information for open-access endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 565-569