Dataset Information

Triage of colonoscopies: open access endoscopy versus outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist.

ABSTRACT: In many Dutch hospitals, open access referral for colonoscopy is authorized by a gastroenterologist after screening a standard referral letter (SRL) without face-to-face contact with the patient. We investigated the added value of a 7.5 min outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist (OC), regarding the patient indications, priority for colonoscopy, and the frequency of correct information about patient medications and comorbidities on SRLs.In a prospective, blinded, single-center study, gastroenterologists assessed SRLs for the accuracy and priority of the colonoscopy request (SRL). These data were compared to results from the OC, and primary outcomes were the number of patients who were not recommended for colonoscopy and priority scheduling of colonoscopy for suspicion of cancer.Patients were analyzed using both SRL and OC and, of 255 patients, 224 of them underwent colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was not recommended for 6.3 % and 11.4 % of patients using the SRL and OC, respectively (P = 0.02). Using the SRL, gastroenterologists did not recommend colonoscopy for seven patients, but the same patients were recommended for colonoscopy when OC was available. This was explained because the indications on the SRL did not match the information obtained from OC. Compared to OC , more colonoscopies were prioritized when the SRL was used to make decisions. Cancer was detected in 7/112 (SRL ) versus 7/65 (OC ) of priority-scheduled patients. SRLs did not report the use of coumarins and insulin in 1.6 % of patients or the prevalence of serious comorbid conditions in 52 % of patients.A 7.5 min outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist improved the identification of indications for colonoscopy, decreased priority scheduling of patients, and increased the number of patients diagnosed with cancer in the prioritized group. SRLs frequently omitted patients' medications and comorbidities.

SUBMITTER: Wichers CD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4812814 | biostudies-other | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDue to the hygiene measures during the coronavirus pandemic at the beginning of 2020, psychotherapy by personal attendance was no longer possible or only possible to a limited extent in many places in Germany. In its place, psychotherapy via video conference was used as an alternative option for treatment.ObjectiveThe present study was concerned with the question of the actual use of this form of psychotherapy during the lockdown.Material and methodsTherapists in the psychotherapeutic training outpatient department of the Medical School of Hanover were questioned on their experiences and the experiences of patients with the use of the video consultation during running guideline psychotherapy. Data from 338 patents could be collated. The data contained information, for example on acceptance or rejection of the offer of a video consultation, on the reasons for rejection and on technical problems by the execution.ResultsThe presented data show that 35% of patients could not be reached by the video consultation. Approximately half of the patients from this group could not use this form of therapy due to the lack of technical equipment. The other half did not want therapy using the video consultation, although the technical requirements were available. In the group of patients who used the video consultation, the session was interrupted due to technical disturbances in 31% of the cases. In a further 10% of the cases the disturbances even led to a premature termination of the session. The presented data make it clear that the use of therapy via video consultation significantly decreases with increasing age and reduced education level.ConclusionThe results of the present study show that a considerable proportion of the patients could not be reached by the offer, despite the dissemination of the video consultation; therefore, in the case of further lockdowns special offers for this group should be considered. The authors recommend that the health insurance companies provide support for patients who do not have the technical requirements at their disposal. Patients who do not want to participate in this form of treatment need therapeutically motivating support.

Project description:BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the Otolaryngology outpatient clinical practice, which is at high risk of respiratory viral transmission due to the close contact between the examiner and the patient's airway secretions [1]. Moreover, most otolaryngological procedures, including oropharyngoscopy, generate droplets or aerosols from high viral shedding areas [1]. Thus, only non-deferrable consultations were performed in the outbreak's acute phase. Along with the re-opening of elective clinical services and the impending second wave of the outbreak, a reorganization is necessary to minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission [1].MethodsThis video (Video 1) shows how to safely conduct an outpatient Otorhinolaryngological consultation, focusing on complete ear, nose and throat examination, according to evidences from the published literature and Otolaryngological societies guidelines [2,3].ResultsAfter telephonic screening, patients reporting Covid-19 symptoms or closecontact with a Covid-19 case within the last 14 days are referred to telehealth services [1-3]. To avoid crowding, the patient is admitted alone, after body temperature control, except for underage or disabled people [1]. The waiting room assessment must guarantee a social distance of 6 ft [1-3]. The consultation room is reorganized into two separate areas (Fig. 1): 1) a clean desk area, where an assistant wearing a surgical mask and gloves, handles the patient's documentation and writes the medical report, keeping proper distance from the patient, and 2) a separate consultation area, where the examiner, equipped with proper personal protective equipment (Fig. 2) [3,4], carries out the medical interview and physical examination. Endoscopic-assisted ear, nose and throat inspection using a dedicated monitor allows the examiner to maintain an adequate distance from the patient throughout the procedure while providing an optimal view (Figs. 3-6) [3]. Recent evidence shows that nasal endoscopy does not increase droplet production compared to traditional otolaryngological examination [5]. When necessary, nasal topic decongestion and anesthesia must be performed using cottonoids rather than sprays [3]. The patient keeps the nose and mouth covered throughout the consultation, lowering the surgical mask on the mouth for nasal endoscopy and removing it only for oropharyngoscopy. After the consultation, the doffing procedure must be carried out carefully to avoid contamination [4]. All the equipment and surfaces must undergo high-level disinfection with 70% alcohol or 0.1% bleach solutions [3]. Proper room ventilation must precede the next consultation [3].ConclusionsThe hints provided in this video are useful to ensure both patient and examiner safety during Otolaryngological outpatient consultations and to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Universal access to health care is valued in Canada but increasing wait times for services (eg, cardiology consultation) raise safety questions. Observations suggest that deficiencies in the process of care contribute to wait times. Consequently, an outpatient clinic was designed for Ensuring Access and Speedy Evaluation (Cardiac EASE) in a university group practice, providing cardiac consultative services for northern Alberta. Cardiac EASE has two components: a single-point-ofentry intake service (prospective testing using physician-approved algorithms and previsit triage) and a multidisciplinary clinic (staffed by cardiologists, nurse practitioners and doctoral-trained pharmacists). OBJECTIVES:It was hypothesized that Cardiac EASE would reduce the time to initial consultation and a definitive diagnosis, and also increase the referral capacity. METHODS:The primary and secondary outcomes were time from referral to initial consultation, and time to achieve a definitive diagnosis and management plan, respectively. A conventionally managed historical control group (three-month pre-EASE period in 2003) was compared with the EASE group (2004 to 2006). The conventional referral mechanism continued concurrently with EASE. RESULTS:A comparison between pre-EASE (n=311) and EASE (n=3096) revealed no difference in the mean (+/- SD) age (60+/-16 years), sex (55% and 52% men, respectively) or reason for referral, including chest pain (31% and 40%, respectively) and arrhythmia (27% and 29%, respectively). Cardiac EASE reduced the time to initial cardiac consultation (from 71+/-45 days to 33+/-19 days) and time to a definitive diagnosis (from 120+/-86 days to 51+/-58 days) (P<0.0001). The annual number of new referrals increased from 1512 in 2002 to 2574 in 2006 due to growth in the Cardiac EASE clinic. The number of patients seen through the conventional referral mechanism and their wait times remained constant during the study period. CONCLUSIONS:Cardiac EASE reduced wait times, increased capacity and shortened time to achieve a diagnosis. The EASE model could shorten wait times for consultative services in Canada.

Dataset Information

Triage of colonoscopies: open access endoscopy versus outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets