Dataset Information

Practice pattern of ileal pouch surveillance in academic medical centers in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

There is no consensus on whether, when and how to surveil an ileal pouch. The aims of this study were to evaluate experts' opinions and practice patterns on pouch surveillance and to determine if they were associated with detection of neoplasia.

Methods

Eligible physicians were identified by searching the literature in MEDLINE and the physician list of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America and surveying by questionnaire.

Results

Fifty-two eligible participants from 32 tertiary institutions were identified. Forty-one physicians (79%) felt that surveillance pouchoscopy was necessary, and 36 (69%) believed that pouchoscopy with biopsy was effective for the detection of neoplasia. Great variation exists with regard to the frequency of surveillance pouchoscopy. Eighteen physicians (35%) reported the detection of a total of 4 pouch dysplasias and 15 pouch cancers within the previous 5 years. The follow-up number of ileal pouches per year was significantly higher in the neoplasia detection group (50 vs 25, P?=?0.041). Those who reported detecting neoplasia took even fewer biopsies from the ileal pouch body during the pouchoscopy examination (>3 biopsies per location, 44% vs 82%, P?=?0.005). Multivariable analysis showed that the number of patients with ileal pouches followed up per year was the only independent factor associated with the detection of pouch neoplasia (odds ratio [OR]: 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.1; P?=?0.005).

Conclusion

Most experts agree with performing pouchoscopy and biopsy for surveillance of ileal pouch neoplasia, although the optimal interval varies greatly. The detection of pouch neoplasia appears to be related to patient volume and physician experience.

SUBMITTER: Gu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4863190 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Practice pattern of ileal pouch surveillance in academic medical centers in the United States.

Gu Jinyu J Remzi Feza H FH Lian Lei L Shen Bo B

Gastroenterology report 20151214 2

<h4>Objective</h4>There is no consensus on whether, when and how to surveil an ileal pouch. The aims of this study were to evaluate experts' opinions and practice patterns on pouch surveillance and to determine if they were associated with detection of neoplasia.<h4>Methods</h4>Eligible physicians were identified by searching the literature in MEDLINE and the physician list of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America and surveying by questionnaire.<h4>Results</h4>Fifty-two eligible particip ...[more]

PMID: 26668095

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAmerican College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.ResultsThe survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).ConclusionsSurvey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Dataset Information

Practice pattern of ileal pouch surveillance in academic medical centers in the United States.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Practice pattern of ileal pouch surveillance in academic medical centers in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets