Efficiency is defined as the use of resources in such a way as to maximize the production of goods and services. Improving efficiency has been the focus of management in many industries; however, it has not been until recently that incorporating efficiency models into healthcare has occurred. In particular, the study and development of improvement projects aimed at enhancing efficiency in GI have been growing rapidly in recent years. This focus on improving efficiency in GI has been spurred by the dramatic rise in the demand for endoscopic procedures as well as the rising number of insured patients requiring GI care coupled at the same time with limited resources in terms of staffing and space in endoscopy centers. This paper will critically review the history of efficiency in endoscopy centers, first by looking at other healthcare industries that have extensively studied and improved efficiency in their fields, examine a number of proposed efficiency metrics and benchmarks in endoscopy centers, and finally discuss opportunities where endoscopy centers could improve their efficiency.

Diarrhea in patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has proven to be both a diagnostic and treatment challenge since the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) virus more than 30 years ago. Among the main etiologies of diarrhea in this group of patients are infectious agents that span the array of viruses, bacteria, protozoa, parasites, and fungal organisms. In many instances, highly active antiretroviral therapy remains the cornerstone of therapy for both AIDS and AIDS-related diarrhea, but other targeted therapies have been developed as new pathogens are identified; however, some infections remain treatment challenges. Once identifiable infections as well as other causes of diarrhea are investigated and excluded, a unique entity known as AIDS enteropathy can be diagnosed. Known as an idiopathic, pathogen-negative diarrhea, this disease has been investigated extensively. Atypical viral pathogens, including HIV itself, as well as inflammatory and immunologic responses are potential leading causes of it. Although AIDS enteropathy can pose a diagnostic challenge so too does the treatment of it. Highly active antiretroviral therapy, nutritional supplementation, electrolyte replacements, targeted therapy for infection if indicated, and medications for symptom control all are key elements in the treatment regimen. Importantly, a multidisciplinary approach among the gastroenterologist, infectious disease physician, HIV specialists, oncology, and surgery is necessary for many patients.

Background and study aims

Demand for endoscopic procedures worldwide has increased while the number of physicians trained to perform endoscopy has remained relatively constant. The objective of this study was to characterize non-physician performance of lower and upper endoscopic procedures.

Patients and methods

Bibliographical searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were included where patients underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or upper endoscopy done by a non-physician (nurse, nurse practitioner, physician assistant) and outcome measures were reported (detection of polyps, adenomas, cancer, and/or adverse events). Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups.

Results

Most studies involved nurses performing flexible sigmoidoscopies for colorectal cancer screening. Nurses and nurse-practitioners/physician assistants performing flexible sigmoidoscopies showed pooled polyp detection rates of 9.9 % and 23.7 %, adenoma detection rates of 2.9 % and 7.2 %, colorectal cancer detection rates of 1.3 % and 1.2 %, and adverse event rates of 0.3 and 0 per 1000 sigmoidoscopies, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp and adenoma detection rates in sigmoidoscopy performance studies comparing nurses or nurse-practitioners/physician assistants with physicians. For the 3 studies of non-physician performance of colonoscopy, pooled adenoma detection rate was 26.4 %, cecal intubation rate was 93.5 %, and adverse event rate was 2.2 /1000 colonoscopies. In the few studies examining upper endoscopies, 99.4 % of upper endoscopy procedures performed by nurses were successful with no reported adverse events.

Conclusion

Available studies suggest that when non-physicians perform endoscopic procedures, especially lower endoscopies, outcomes and adverse events are in line with those of physicians.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), and national guidelines recommend screening patients with CRC for LS. However, there is a paucity of data related to Lynch syndrome in the underserved population, in which unique issues of access, cultural beliefs regarding cancer, language barriers, immigration status, and financial restraints exist. We performed a descriptive, retrospective review of a selective LS screening protocol at an urban safety net hospital between 2009 and 2014 with the aim of describing the detected prevalence of LS as well as reporting the high quality and suboptimal screening rates. A total of 154 cases of CRC were identified over the 5-year period, of which 57 met selective LS screening criteria. Eleven patients had a positive screen, and three patients were diagnosed with LS, leading to an overall detected LS prevalence of 1.9 %. The rate of high quality screen was greater than 90 %, consistent with prior studies. Thus, we show that screening for LS in a safety net hospital can be successful in achieving high quality screening and provide an example for other public hospitals considering implementation of hereditary cancer screening.

Demand for endoscopic procedures scheduled with anesthesia is increasing and no-show to appointments carries significant patient health and financial impact, yet little is known about predictors of no-show.We performed a 16-month retrospective observationa

Background and study aims

 Limited international data have shown that non-physicians can safely perform upper endoscopy, but no such study has been performed in the United States. Our aim was to assess the quality of outpatient upper endoscopies performed by nurse practitioners (NPs).

Patients and methods

 Retrospective chart review of upper endoscopies performed by 3 NPs between 2010 and 2013 was performed. Comparisons among all NPs performing upper endoscopy and assessment of individual NP performance over time with respect to quality indicators were performed.

Results

Three NPs performed 333 upper endoscopies (distribution of 166, 44, and 123, respectively). Of the cases, 98.2 %s were successfully completed to the second portion of the duodenum. In most cases, photo-documentation of required anatomical landmarks was performed: GE junction (84.2 %), GE junction in retroflexed view (84.2 %), antrum (82.1 %) and duodenum (80.9 %). Photo-documentation improved with increasing experience. NPs appropriately performed biopsies for specific medical conditions: 10/11 (90.9 %) gastric ulcers were biopsied and 63/66 (95.5) of patients with iron deficiency had duodenal biopsies performed for celiac disease. A physician endoscopist was required during the procedure 22.5 % of the time. Important parameters such as documenting informed consent (100 %) and documenting a discharge plan (99.4 %) in the procedure reports were overwhelming present. There was a single adverse event during the study period.

Conclusion

 In the first US study of NPs performing upper endoscopy, they were able to perform high-quality and safe upper endoscopies. These findings support incorporation of non-physicians alongside physicians to help meet the growing demand for endoscopic services across the United States.

Background

Studies on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and incidence among American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) are few.

Aims

Our aim was to determine CRC screening prevalence and to calculate CRC incidence among AI/AN receiving care within the Indian Health Service (IHS).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of AI/AN who utilized IHS from 1996 to 2004. AI/AN who were average-risk for CRC and received primary care within IHS were identified by searching the IHS Resource Patient Management System for selected ICD-9/CPT codes (n = 142,051). CRC screening prevalence was calculated and predictors of screening were determined for this group. CRC incidence rates were ascertained for the entire AI/AN population ages 50-80 who received IHS medical care between 1996 and 2004 (n = 283,717).

Results

CRC screening was performed in 4.0% of average-risk AI/AN. CRC screening was more common among women than men (RR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.4-1.7) and among AI/AN living in the Alaska region compared to the Pacific Coast region (RR = 2.5, 95% CI 2.2-2.8) while patients living in the Northern Plains (RR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.4) were less likely to have been screened. CRC screening was less common among patients with a greater number of primary care visits. The age-adjusted CRC incidence among AI/AN ages 50-80 was 227 cancers per 100,000 person-years.

Conclusions

CRC was common among AI/AN receiving medical care within IHS. However, CRC screening prevalence was far lower than has been reported for the U.S. population.

In-hospital substance use is common among patients with addiction because of undertreated withdrawal, undertreated pain, negative feelings, and stigma. Health care system responses to in-hospital substance use often perpetuate stigma and criminalization of people with addiction, long etched into our culture by the racist War on Drugs. In this commentary, we describe how our hospital convened an interprofessional workgroup to revise our in-hospital substance use policy. Our updated policy recommends health care workers respond to substance use concerns by offering patients adequate pain control, evidence-based addiction treatment, and supportive services instead of punitive responses. We provide best-practice recommendations for in-hospital substance use policies.

Abstract Background Little is known about endoscopic services provided or operational practice variation within California public hospital endoscopy centers. Methods A survey was distributed to all 18 California public hospitals with endoscopy centers to assess operational practices. Results Eight of 18 hospitals responded to the survey. Six of the eight responding hospitals used a closed access system for patient referrals. Mean wait time for an endoscopic procedure was 42.4 ± 37.7 days (N = 8) with a mean procedure no-show/cancellation rate of 14.5 ± 8.0% (N = 7). All responding public hospitals performed colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, PEG tube placement, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with two hospitals performing endoscopic ultrasound. There was significant practice variation in the documentation of endoscopic quality and performance measurements among the responding hospitals. Multiple methods were used to communicate pathology results to patients: GI clinic visit (6/8), primary physician (4/8), telephone (2/8) or letter (1/8). Conclusion Our study highlights the diversity and practice variations of endoscopy center operations at California public hospitals and serves as a catalyst for future collaborations among safety-net hospitals.