Dataset Information

Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey.

ABSTRACT: Background and study aims ?Optical real-time diagnosis (=?resect-and-discard strategy) is an alternative to histopathology for diminutive colorectal polyps. However, clinical adoption of this approach seems sparse. We were interested in evaluating potential clinical uptake and barriers for implementation of this approach. Methods ?We conducted an international survey using the "Google forms" platform. Nine endoscopy societies distributed the survey. Survey questions measured current clinical uptake and barriers for implementing the resect-and-discard strategy , perceived cancer risk associated with diminutive polyps and potential concerns with using CT-colonography as follow-up, as well as non-resection of diminutive polyps. Results ?Eight hundred and eight endoscopists participated in the survey. 84.2?% (95?% CI 81.6?%-86.7?%) of endoscopists are currently not using the resect-and-discard strategy and 59.9?% (95?% CI 56.5?%-63.2?%) do not believe that the resect-and-discard strategy is feasible for implementation in its current form. European (38.5?%) and Asian (45?%) endoscopists had the highest rates of resect-and-discard practice, while Canadian (13.8?%) and American (5.1?%) endoscopists had some of the lowest implementation rates. 80.3?% (95?% CI 77.5?%-83.0?%) of endoscopists believe that using the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive polyps will not increase cancer risk. 48.4?% (95?% CI 45.0?%-51.9?%) of endoscopists believe that leaving diminutive polyps in place is associated with increased cancer risk. This proportion was slightly higher (54.7?%; 95?% CI 53.6?%-60.4?%) when asked if current CT-colonography screening practice might increase cancer risks. Conclusion ?Clinical uptake of resect-and-discard is very low. Most endoscopists believe that resect-and-discard is not feasible for clinical implementation in its current form. The most important barriers for implementation are fear of making an incorrect diagnosis, assigning incorrect surveillance intervals and medico-legal consequences.

SUBMITTER: Willems P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7165012 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey.

Willems Philippe P Djinbachian Roupen R Ditisheim Saskia S Orkut Sinan S Pohl Heiko H Barkun Alan A Bouin Mickael M Faulques Bernard B von Renteln Daniel D

Endoscopy international open 20200417 5

<b>Background and study aims</b> Optical real-time diagnosis (= resect-and-discard strategy) is an alternative to histopathology for diminutive colorectal polyps. However, clinical adoption of this approach seems sparse. We were interested in evaluating potential clinical uptake and barriers for implementation of this approach. <b>Methods</b> We conducted an international survey using the "Google forms" platform. Nine endoscopy societies distributed the survey. Survey questions measured curren ...[more]

PMID: 32355888

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsNarrow-band imaging (NBI) allows real-time histologic classification of colorectal polyps. We investigated whether endoscopists without prior training in NBI can achieve the following thresholds recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: for diminutive colorectal polyps characterized with high confidence, a ≥90% negative predictive value for adenomas in the rectosigmoid and a ≥90% agreement in surveillance intervals.MethodsTwenty-six endoscopists from 2 tertiary care centers underwent standardized training in NBI interpretation. Endoscopists made real-time predictions of diminutive colorectal polyp histology and surveillance interval predictions based on NBI. Their performance was evaluated by comparing predicted with actual findings from histologic analysis. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess predictors of performance. Cumulative summation analysis was used to characterize learning curves.ResultsThe endoscopists performed 1451 colonoscopies and made 3012 diminutive polyp predictions (74.3% high confidence) using NBI. They made 898 immediate post-procedure surveillance interval predictions. An additional 505 surveillance intervals were determined with histology input. The overall negative predictive value for high-confidence characterizations in the rectosigmoid was 94.7% (95% confidence interval: 92.6%-96.8%) and the surveillance interval agreement was 91.2% (95% confidence interval: 89.7%-92.7%). Overall, 97.0% of surveillance interval predictions would have brought patients back on time or early. High-confidence characterization was the strongest predictor of accuracy (odds ratio = 3.42; 95% confidence interval: 2.72-4.29; P < .001). Performance improved over time, however, according to cumulative summation analysis, only 7 participants (26.9%) identified adenomas with sufficient sensitivity such that further auditing is not required.ConclusionsWith standardized training, gastroenterologists without prior expertise in NBI were able to meet the negative predictive value and surveillance interval thresholds set forth by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The majority of disagreement in surveillance interval brought patients back early. Performance improves with time, but most endoscopists will require ongoing auditing of performance. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02441998.

Project description:Accurate optical characterisation and removal of small adenomas (<10?mm) at colonoscopy would allow hyperplastic polyps to be left in situ and surveillance intervals to be determined without the need for histopathology. Although accurate in specialist practice the performance of narrow band imaging (NBI), colonoscopy in routine clinical practice is poorly understood.NBI-assisted optical diagnosis was compared with reference standard histopathological findings in a prospective, blinded study, which recruited adults undergoing routine colonoscopy in six general hospitals in the UK. Participating colonoscopists (N=28) were trained using the NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) classification (relating to colour, vessel structure and surface pattern). By comparing the optical and histological findings in patients with only small polyps, test sensitivity was determined at the patient level using two thresholds: presence of adenoma and need for surveillance. Accuracy of identifying adenomatous polyps <10?mm was compared at the polyp level using hierarchical models, allowing determinants of accuracy to be explored.Of 1688 patients recruited, 722 (42.8%) had polyps <10?mm with 567 (78.5%) having only polyps <10?mm. Test sensitivity (presence of adenoma, N=499 patients) by NBI optical diagnosis was 83.4% (95% CI 79.6% to 86.9%), significantly less than the 95% sensitivity (p<0.001) this study was powered to detect. Test sensitivity (need for surveillance) was 73.0% (95% CI 66.5% to 79.9%). Analysed at the polyp level, test sensitivity (presence of adenoma, N=1620 polyps) was 76.1% (95% CI 72.8% to 79.1%). In fully adjusted analyses, test sensitivity was 99.4% (95% CI 98.2% to 99.8%) if two or more NICE adenoma characteristics were identified. Neither colonoscopist expertise, confidence in diagnosis nor use of high definition colonoscopy independently improved test accuracy.This large multicentre study demonstrates that NBI optical diagnosis cannot currently be recommended for application in routine clinical practice. Further work is required to evaluate whether variation in test accuracy is related to polyp characteristics or colonoscopist training.The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01603927).

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators to international implementation of a prospective system for standardized outcomes measurement in cleft care.DesignCleft teams that have implemented the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Standard Set for cleft care were invited to participate in this 2-part qualitative study: (1) an exploratory survey among clinicians, health information technology professionals, and project coordinators, and (2) semistructured interviews of project leads. Thematic content analysis was performed, with organization of themes according to the dimensions of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance.ResultsFour cleft teams in Europe and North America participated in this study. Thirteen participants completed exploratory questionnaires and 5 interviewees participated in follow-up interviews. Survey responses and thematic content analysis revealed common facilitators and barriers to implementation at all sites. Teams reach patients either via email or during the clinic visit to capture patient-reported outcomes. Adopting routine data collection is enhanced by aligning priorities at the organizational and cleft team level. Streamlining workflows and developing an efficient data collection platform are necessary early on, followed by pilot testing or stepwise implementation. Regular meetings and financial resources are crucial for implementing, sustaining, analyzing collected data, and providing feedback to health care professionals and patients. Fostering patient-centered care was articulated as a positive outcome, whereas time presented challenges across all RE-AIM dimensions.ConclusionsIdentified themes can inform ongoing implementation efforts. Intentionally investing time to lay a sound foundation early on will benefit every phase of implementation and help overcome barriers such as lack of support or motivation.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To develop recommendations regarding opportunities and barriers for nature-based care in oncology contexts using a structured knowledge generation process involving relevant healthcare and design experts. DESIGN:Four-round modified electronic Delphi study. Oncology patients' nature-based recommendations, uncovered in preceding qualitative investigation, were included in the first round for the expert participants' consideration. Key items (opportunities and barriers) were developed using data aggregation and synthesis, followed by item prioritisation and 10-point Likert scale ranking (1=not?important, 10=very?important). Descriptive statistics were calculated to assess items of highest importance representing expert recommendations. CONTEXT:Online Delphi process constituting an electronic international survey. PARTICIPANTS:A purposive sample of 200 potential panellists (recruitment target n=40) comprising healthcare practitioners, managers, designers, architects and researchers were invited to participate; experts were identified via research networks, snowballing and systematic literature review. RESULTS:38 experts across seven countries (Australia, USA, UK, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark and Sweden) returned questionnaire 1, which determined consent and acceptance for participation. Initial response rate was 19%, and subsequent response rates were 84%, 82% and 84% for rounds 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The Delphi panel developed recommendations consisting of 10 opportunities and 10 barriers. The following opportunities were rated to be of highest importance: window views from clinical areas onto nature; outdoor settings, gardens and courtyards with easy and effortless access; and nature-based physical exercise adapted to patient requirements. Highest-rated barriers for nature-based oncology care included lack of knowledge and awareness about benefits of nature engagement and inaccessibility, not considering access requirements for the very sick and frail. CONCLUSIONS:Experts suggested and agreed on a set of recommendations, which represent critical considerations for the safe adoption of nature-based oncology opportunities. These findings fill a gap in understanding about helpful nature-based oncology care and may translate into oncology design and innovation.

Dataset Information

Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey.

Publications

Uptake and barriers for implementation of the resect and discard strategy: an international survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure