The Medical Journal of Australia · 2018 · 35 citations · 18 references
MedicineOncologyPreventive MedicineCancer PreventionDisease SurveillanceHealth Care ComplianceCancer SurveillanceColorectal CancerGuideline ImplementationProspective AuditRecall Interval DeterminationSurveillance MethodsColorectal Cancer PreventionColorectal Cancer ScreeningComplianceGastrointestinal Illness SurveillanceNeoplasia PrevalenceOutcome MeasuresPatient Adherence To SurveillanceSurveillance Colonoscopy
OBJECTIVE: To examine the compliance of colorectal cancer surveillance decisions for individuals at greater risk with current evidence-based guidelines and to determine whether compliance differs between surveillance models. DESIGN: Prospective auditing of compliance of surveillance decisions with evidence-based guidelines (NHMRC) in two decision-making models: nurse coordinator-led decision making in public academic hospitals and physician-led decision making in private non-academic hospitals. SETTING: Selected South Australian hospitals participating in the Southern Co-operative Program for the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer (SCOOP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of recall recommendations that matched NHMRC guideline recommendations (March-May 2015); numbers of surveillance colonoscopies undertaken more than 6 months ahead of schedule (January-December 2015); proportions of significant neoplasia findings during the 15 years of SCOOP operation (2000-2015). RESULTS: For the nurse-led/public academic hospital model, the recall interval recommendation following 398 of 410 colonoscopies (97%) with findings covered by NHMRC guidelines corresponded to the guideline recommendations; for the physician-led/private non-academic hospital model, this applied to 257 of 310 colonoscopies (83%) (P < 0.001). During 2015, 27% of colonoscopies in public academic hospitals (mean, 27 months; SD, 13 months) and 20% of those in private non-academic hospitals (mean, 23 months; SD, 12 months) were performed more than 6 months earlier than scheduled, in most cases because of patient-related factors (symptoms, faecal occult blood test results). The ratio of the numbers of high risk adenomas to cancers increased from 6.6:1 during 2001-2005 to 16:1 during 2011-2015. CONCLUSION: The nurse-led/public academic hospital model for decisions about colorectal cancer surveillance intervals achieves a high degree of compliance with guideline recommendations, which should relieve burdening of colonoscopy resources.
18
Prevention of Colorectal Cancer by Colonoscopic Polypectomy
Sidney J. Winawer, Ann G. Zauber, May Nah Ho et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 1993 · 4.6K citations · Full text
Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study
Vanessa Cottet, Valérie Jooste, Isabelle Fournel et al. · Gut · 2011 · 285 citations
Han‐Mo Chiu, Sam Li‐Sheng Chen, Amy Ming‐Fang Yen et al. · Cancer · 2015 · 277 citations · Full text
Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study
Wendy Atkin, Kate Wooldrage, Amy Brenner et al. · The Lancet Oncology · 2017 · 245 citations · Full text