Endoscopists' Written Communication After Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults Is Often Unclear

IF 1.2 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tige.2022.10.003
Elliot Coburn , Soham Rege , Douglas J. Robertson , Audrey H. Calderwood
{"title":"Endoscopists' Written Communication After Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults Is Often Unclear","authors":"Elliot Coburn ,&nbsp;Soham Rege ,&nbsp;Douglas J. Robertson ,&nbsp;Audrey H. Calderwood","doi":"10.1016/j.tige.2022.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><p>Current guidelines recommend that the decision to pursue surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with polyps be individualized, yet how these recommendations are communicated has not been characterized. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopist recommendations after colonoscopy in communicating the need for future surveillance in older adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a single-center, retrospective chart review of adults age ≥ 75 years who underwent colonoscopy for polyp surveillance or screening during which polyps were detected. We performed content analysis of the recommendations from both colonoscopy reports and post-pathology follow-up letters. Recommendations were classified as optimal or less optimal based on whether they were clear, contained a rationale, and maintained consistency between the report and follow-up letter.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Between 2012 and 2019, there were 1428 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists, of which 874 (61%) were optimal and 554 (39%) were less optimal. Among the less optimal recommendations, 76 (14%) lacked a recommendation, 233 (42%) were unclear, and 409 (74%) lacked a rationale. Among the 954 post-pathology follow-up letters, 80 (8%) were inconsistent with the original colonoscopy report recommendation, of which 30 (38%) resulted in a change in management. The frequency of less optimal recommendations ranged from 0% to 50% by endoscopist.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Following colonoscopy in older adults, we found that roughly one-third of the reports were less than optimal, and there was sizable variation in individual endoscopist performance. Discrepancies between colonoscopy reports and patient follow-up letters could be minimized by avoiding providing recommendations on future colonoscopy before pathologic interpretation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36169,"journal":{"name":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590030722000782","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background and Aims

Current guidelines recommend that the decision to pursue surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with polyps be individualized, yet how these recommendations are communicated has not been characterized. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopist recommendations after colonoscopy in communicating the need for future surveillance in older adults.

Methods

We performed a single-center, retrospective chart review of adults age ≥ 75 years who underwent colonoscopy for polyp surveillance or screening during which polyps were detected. We performed content analysis of the recommendations from both colonoscopy reports and post-pathology follow-up letters. Recommendations were classified as optimal or less optimal based on whether they were clear, contained a rationale, and maintained consistency between the report and follow-up letter.

Results

Between 2012 and 2019, there were 1428 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists, of which 874 (61%) were optimal and 554 (39%) were less optimal. Among the less optimal recommendations, 76 (14%) lacked a recommendation, 233 (42%) were unclear, and 409 (74%) lacked a rationale. Among the 954 post-pathology follow-up letters, 80 (8%) were inconsistent with the original colonoscopy report recommendation, of which 30 (38%) resulted in a change in management. The frequency of less optimal recommendations ranged from 0% to 50% by endoscopist.

Conclusion

Following colonoscopy in older adults, we found that roughly one-third of the reports were less than optimal, and there was sizable variation in individual endoscopist performance. Discrepancies between colonoscopy reports and patient follow-up letters could be minimized by avoiding providing recommendations on future colonoscopy before pathologic interpretation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
老年人结肠镜检查后内窥镜医师的书面沟通常常不清楚
背景和目的目前的指南建议,对患有息肉的老年人进行监测结肠镜检查的决定是个性化的,但这些建议的传达方式尚未确定。我们旨在评估结肠镜检查后内镜医生建议在传达老年人未来监测需求方面的有效性。方法我们对年龄≥75岁的成年人进行了单中心回顾性图表审查,这些人在接受结肠镜检查进行息肉监测或筛查时发现了息肉。我们对结肠镜检查报告和病理后随访信中的建议进行了内容分析。根据建议是否明确、是否包含理由以及报告和后续信函之间是否保持一致性,将建议分为最佳或不太最佳。结果2012年至2019年间,17名内镜医生共进行了1428次结肠镜检查,其中874次(61%)为最佳检查,554次(39%)为不太理想检查。在不太理想的建议中,76个(14%)缺乏建议,233个(42%)不清楚,409个(74%)缺乏理由。在954封病理后随访信中,80封(8%)与最初的结肠镜检查报告建议不一致,其中30封(38%)导致管理层发生变化。内窥镜医生推荐的不太理想的频率从0%到50%不等。结论在对老年人进行结肠镜检查后,我们发现大约三分之一的报告不是最佳的,并且个体内镜医生的表现存在相当大的差异。结肠镜检查报告和患者随访信之间的差异可以通过避免在病理解释之前提供未来结肠镜检查的建议来最小化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
50.00%
发文量
60
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Editorial Board Table of Contents Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1