Dataset Information

Patient-centered approaches to targeting incomplete bowel preparations for inpatient colonoscopies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A high-quality colonoscopy bowel prep is vital to completing the procedure. Adequate inpatient bowel preparation has been consistently difficult to achieve because of multiple factors. Incomplete bowel prep can lead to repeated colonoscopies, poor patient experience, increased costs, and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to develop patient-centered interventions to optimize bowel prep for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Methods

The Model for Improvement and Donabedian frameworks guided this project. An interdisciplinary team compiled quality improvement tools that identified areas for improvement. Interventions development included a nursing tip sheet for troubleshooting symptoms, a standardized order label and a patient educational placemat. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were carried out to test and analyze the effects of the interventions. The project aim was a 30% reduction in incomplete inpatient colonoscopies from poor bowel prep. Process measures included the number of colonoscopy split prep order labels, and placemats used. The balancing measure was the number of repeat colonoscopies.

Results

Prior to the intervention, 44% (44/99) of inpatient colonoscopies had poor bowel prep resulting in 10 repeat procedures (10%). Post intervention, 60% (28/47) of the colonoscopies used the standardized label, 66% of physician orders used 2-L split prep, and 80% of patients were provided with the educational placemat. Of the 47 colonoscopies audited post intervention, there was a significant decrease in poor prep (27.7% [13/47], P=0.038) for colonoscopies. The percentage of repeated colonoscopies decreased to 4% (2/47).

Conclusion

Developing simple and easy-to-use patient-centered interventions can effectively improve colonoscopy preparation for hospitalized patients.

SUBMITTER: Russell L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276365 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Institute of Medicine and The Joint Commission recommend routine documentation of patients' sexual orientation in health care settings. Currently, very few health care systems collect these data since patient preferences and health care professionals' support regarding collection of data about patient sexual orientation are unknown.To identify the optimal patient-centered approach to collect sexual orientation data in the emergency department (ED) in the Emergency Department Query for Patient-Centered Approaches to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity study.An exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods design was used first to evaluate qualitative interviews conducted in the Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, DC, areas. Fifty-three patients and 26 health care professionals participated in the qualitative interviews. Interviews were followed by a national online survey, in which 1516 (potential) patients (244 lesbian, 289 gay, 179 bisexual, and 804 straight) and 429 ED health care professionals (209 physicians and 220 nurses) participated. Survey participants were recruited using random digit dialing and address-based sampling techniques.Qualitative interviews were used to obtain the perspectives of patients and health care professionals on sexual orientation data collection, and a quantitative survey was used to gauge patients' and health care professionals' willingness to provide or obtain sexual orientation information.Mean (SD) age of patient and clinician participants was 49 (16.4) and 51 (9.4) years, respectively. Qualitative interviews suggested that patients were less likely to refuse to provide sexual orientation than providers expected. Nationally, 154 patients (10.3%) reported that they would refuse to provide sexual orientation; however, 333 (77.8%) of all clinicians thought patients would refuse to provide sexual orientation. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, only bisexual patients had increased odds of refusing to provide sexual orientation compared with heterosexual patients (odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.26-4.56).Patients and health care professionals have discordant views on routine collection of data on sexual orientation. A minority of patients would refuse to provide sexual orientation. Implementation of a standardized, patient-centered approach for routine collection of sexual orientation data is required on a national scale to help to identify and address health disparities among lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-centered outcome measures for childhood obesity are limited. Identifying outcomes that patients and families consider important could be a viable avenue for better engagement of patients and interventions that are efficacious and acceptable to patients. Latino children experience high rates of obesity, and under-recognition of obesity in preschool aged children is common.MethodsWe used growth chart data to identify low-income, Latino children 2-5 years of age with obesity who decreased their adiposity (positive deviants) and a set of controls. We used qualitative interview data to identify themes around goals parents used in addressing weight. Then, we applied a modified Delphi approach across groups of caregivers and providers to identify common goals. We conducted focus groups to explore conflicts and congruency between caregivers and providers related to goals. Using the focus group data, we developed a decision tool for use between patients and providers relevant for early childhood obesity.ResultsWe identified 257 children who successfully reduced adiposity (positive deviants) from 1621 eligible growth charts. From interviews with 44 parents (21 positive deviants and 23 controls), we coded and categorized outcomes such as increased happiness, clothing size and improved activity. We recruited 81 parents, grandparents and health care providers to participate in the modified Delphi process of ranking outcomes by importance and feasibility. Focus groups (2, total n = 24) suggested potential methods for a common framework to discuss goals, including a modified growth chart. We created a decision-tool that incorporated a growth chart and a section for discussion of patient-centered goals. A final focus group (1, n = 10) provided feedback on the tool as acceptable and potentially useful.ConclusionsThe development of a patient-centered tool around achieving a healthy weight in early childhood identified common goals between providers and parents. While the tool has been developed, prospective testing of this patient-centered tool and its effects on engagement, parent motivation, and behavior change would be a useful next step.

Project description:Background:Polypharmacy is common in hospitalized older adults. Deprescribing interventions are not well described in the acute-care setting. The objective of this study was to describe a hospital-based, patient-centered deprescribing protocol (Shed-MEDS) and report pilot results. Methods:This was a pilot study set in one academic medical center in the United States. Participants consisted of a convenience sample of 40 Medicare-eligible, hospitalized patients with at least five prescribed medications. A deprescribing protocol (Shed-MEDS) was implemented among 20 intervention and 20 usual care control patients during their hospital stay. The primary outcome was the total number of medications deprescribed from hospital enrollment. Deprescribed was defined as medication termination or dose reduction. Enrollment medications reflected all prehospital medications and active in-hospital medications. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between the intervention and usual care groups using simple logistic or linear regression for categorical and continuous measures, respectively. Results:There was no significant difference between groups in mean age, sex or Charlson comorbidity index. The intervention and control groups had a comparable number of medications at enrollment, 25.2 (±6.3) and 23.4 (±3.8), respectively. The number of prehospital medications in each group was 13.3 (±4.6) and 15.3 (±4.6), respectively. The Shed-MEDS protocol compared with usual care significantly increased the mean number of deprescribed medications at hospital discharge and reduced the total medication burden by 11.6 versus 9.1 (p = 0.032) medications. The deprescribing intervention was associated with a difference of 4.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-6.7, p < 0.001] in deprescribed medications and a 0.5 point reduction (95% CI -0.01 to 1.1) in the drug burden index. Conclusions:A hospital-based, patient-centered deprescribing intervention is feasible and may reduce the medication burden in older adults.