The incidence and cost of unexpected hospital use after scheduled outpatient endoscopy.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 10/2010; 170(19):1752-7. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.373
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Data on complications of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are limited. We evaluated prospectively the incidence and cost of hospital visits resulting from outpatient endoscopy.
We developed an electronic medical record-based system to record automatically admissions to the emergency department (ED) within 14 days after endoscopy. Physicians evaluated all reported cases for relatedness of the ED visit to the prior endoscopy based on predetermined criteria.
We evaluated 6383 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 11 632 colonoscopies (7392 for screening and surveillance). Among these, 419 ED visits and 266 hospitalizations occurred within 14 days after the procedure. One hundred thirty-four (32%) of the ED visits and 76 (29%) of the hospitalizations were procedure related, whereas 31 complications were recorded by standard physician reporting (P < .001). Procedure-related hospital visits occurred in 1.07%, 0.84%, and 0.95% of all EGDs, all colonoscopies, and screening colonoscopies, respectively. The mean costs were $1403 per ED visit and $10 123 per hospitalization based on Medicare standardized rates. Across the overall screening/surveillance colonoscopy program, these episodes added $48 per examination.
Using a novel automated system, we observed a 1% incidence of related hospital visits within 14 days of outpatient endoscopy, 2- to 3-fold higher than recent estimates. Most events were not captured by standard reporting, and strategies for automating adverse event reporting should be developed. The cost of unexpected hospital visits postendoscopy may be significant and should be taken into account in screening or surveillance programs.


Available from: Daniel A Leffler, May 28, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known about minor adverse events (MAEs) following outpatient colonoscopies and associated health care resource utilization. To estimate the rates of incident MAE at two, 14 and 30 days postcolonoscopy, and associated health care resource utilization. A secondary aim was to identify factors associated with cumulative 30-day MAE incidence. A longitudinal cohort study was conducted among individuals undergoing an outpatient colonoscopy at the Montreal General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec). Before colonoscopy, consecutive individuals were enrolled and interviewed to obtain data regarding age, sex, comorbidities, use of antiplatelets⁄anticoagulants and previous symptoms. Endoscopy reports were reviewed for intracolonoscopy procedures (biopsy, polypectomy). Telephone or Internet follow-up was used to obtain data regarding MAEs (abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, blood in the stools, rectal or anal pain, headaches, other) and health resource use (visits to emergency department, primary care doctor, gastroenterologist; consults with nurse, pharmacist or telephone hotline). Rates of incident MAEs and health resources utilization were estimated using Bayesian hierarchical modelling to account for patient clustering within physician practices. Of the 705 individuals approached, 420 (59.6%) were enrolled. Incident MAE rates at the two-, 14- and 30-day follow-ups were 17.3% (95% credible interval [CrI] 8.1% to 30%), 10.5% (95% CrI 2.9% to 23.7%) and 3.2% (95% CrI 0.01% to 19.8%), respectively. The 30-day rate of health resources utilization was 1.7%, with 0.95% of participants seeking the services of a physician. No predictors of the cumulative 30-day incidence of MAEs were identified. Discussion: The incidence of MAEs was highest in the 48 h following colonoscopy and uncommon after two weeks, supporting the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology's recommendation for assessment of late complications at 14 days. Predictors of new onset of MAEs were not identified, but wide CrIs did not rule out possible associations. Although <1% of participants reported consulting a physician for MAEs, this figure may represent a substantial number of visits given the increasing number of colonoscopies performed annually. Postcolonoscopy MAEs are common, occur mainly in the first two weeks postcolonoscopy and result in little use of health resources.
    Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie 12/2014; 28(11):595-599. · 1.97 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background More than 20 million invasive procedures are performed annually in the United States. The vast majority are performed with moderate sedation or deep sedation, yet there is limited understanding of the drivers of sedation quality and patient satisfaction. Currently, the major gap in quality assurance for invasive procedures is the lack of procedural sedation quality measures. Objective To develop and validate a robust, patient-centered measure of procedural sedation quality, the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). Design Through a series of interviews with patients, proceduralists, nurses, anesthesiologists, and an interactive patient focus group, major domains influencing procedural sedation quality were used to create a multipart survey. The pilot survey was administered and revised in sequential cohorts of adults receiving moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. After revision, the PROSAS was administered to a validation cohort. Setting GI endoscopy unit. Patients A expert panel of proceduralists, nurses, and anesthesiologists, an initial survey development cohort of 40 patients, and a validation cohort of 858 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy with additional surveys completed by the gastroenterologist, procedure nurse, and recovery nurse. Main Outcomes and Measurements Survey characteristics of the PROSAS. Results Patients were able to independently complete the PROSAS after procedural sedation before discharge. Of the patients, 91.6% reported minimal discomfort; however, 8.4% of patients reported significant discomfort and 2.4% of patients experienced hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability. There was a high correlation between patient-reported intraprocedure discomfort and both clinician assessments of procedural discomfort and patient recall of procedural pain 24 to 48 hours post procedure (P < .001 for all), suggesting high external validity. Limitations Single-center study, variability of sedation technique between providers, inclusion of patients with chronic pain taking analgesics. Conclusions The PROSAS is a clinically relevant, patient-centered, easily administered instrument that allows for standardized evaluation of procedural sedation quality. The PROSAS may be useful in both research and clinical settings.
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/2014; 81(1). DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.062 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 12/2014; 110(1). DOI:10.1038/ajg.2014.383 · 4.90 Impact Factor