Browsing by Author "Maratt, Jennifer K."
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item 47745 Low-risk Adenoma Surveillance Decision-making: Perspectives from Patients and Providers(Cambridge University Press, 2021) Maratt, Jennifer K.; Matthias, Marianne; Gowan, Tayler; Imperiale, Thomas; Medicine, School of MedicineABSTRACT IMPACT: I hope that our work will improve surveillance endoscopy experiences, by engaging both patients and providers. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A large proportion of colonoscopies are performed for post-polypectomy surveillance. Data show that there is overuse of surveillance for low-risk adenomas (LRAs), which can be attributed to patient and provider factors. The objective is to understand patient and provider perspectives for decision-making for LRA surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured, one-on-one virtual interviews of patients and providers are currently being conducted at Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center and Eskenazi Health. Using a criterion sampling approach, we identified patients 50-75 years of age who had a screening colonoscopy with finding of LRAs, and providers in primary care and gastroenterology, at each site. We plan to recruit at least 8 patients and 8 providers from each site until thematic saturation. Domains that will be covered include: perceived involvement with surveillance decision-making; experiences with, and preferences for, communication about test results; and barriers and facilitators to undergoing colonoscopy. A 3-phase approach, comprising immersion, reduction, and interpretation, is being used to collect and analyze data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This study is currently in the recruitment phase and results will be forthcoming. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Understanding decision-making for LRA surveillance colonoscopy will inform future interventions to improve endoscopic resource use and efficiency while improving patient and provider experiences with endoscopic care coordination.Item AGA Institute Quality Indicator Development and Uses(Elsevier, 2023) Sheth, Sunil G.; Maratt, Jennifer K.; Newberry, Carolyn; Hung, Kenneth W.; Henry, Zachary; Leiman, David A.; Medicine, School of MedicineThe Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in 2010, established several national priorities for health care delivery, including reinforcing the importance of high-value health care. Cost and quality are fundamental functions of value. Although costs may be clearly definable, quality can be more elusive to calculate and measure. The use of structured quality measures, which are standardized tools to quantify health care processes and outcomes, can reduce variability in quality reporting. One prominent example of a gastroenterology-focused quality measure is the adenoma detection rate, which reflects the percentage of average-risk screening colonoscopies in which at least 1 adenoma is detected. Like adenoma detection rate, all quality measures require discrete specifications for calculating a numerator and denominator to allow widespread standardization and reliable measurement across practices. Ultimately, this reproducibility permits the establishment of benchmark targets, which in turn allow insights into variable measure adherence and opportunity to develop and implement improvement.Item AGA Institute Quality Measure Development for the Diagnosis and Management of COVID-19(Elsevier, 2020-11-23) Leiman, David A.; Maratt, Jennifer K.; Ketwaroo, Gyanprakash A.; Medicine, School of MedicineThis document presents the official recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) regarding quality measures related to the diagnosis and management of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. The current report outlines the process by which the Quality Committee (QC) evaluates guidance statements published by the AGA’s Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) to inform measure development. The recommendations discussed in this report relate to what remains an unprecedented event in contemporary history with unique challenges for CGC guidance-related measure development. The following recommendations were developed by the QC in consultation with the CGC. Their development was fully funded by the AGA Institute, with no additional outside funding.Item AGA Institute Quality Measure Development for the Management of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia with Helicobacter pylori(ScienceDirect, 2022) Hung, Kenneth W.; Maratt, Jennifer K.; Cho, Won Kyoo; Shah, Brijen J.; Anjou, Chioma I.; Leiman, David A.; Regenstrief Institute, School of MedicineGastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with more than 1 million incident cases diagnosed globally. 1 Non-cardia intestinal-type gastric cancer, the most common subtype of gastric cancer, develops through the Correa cascade in which chronic inflammation of normal gastric mucosa leads to atrophic gastritis, followed by gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), dysplasia, and ultimately gastric cancer. 2 GIM has an estimated prevalence of 4.8% in the United States based on an analysis of gastric biopsies from a large pathology database, but higher rates of GIM have been reported in certain racial and ethnic groups (14.8% in Asian Americans, 18.2% in Native Americans, 25.5% in African Americans, and 29.5% in Hispanic Americans). 3 ,4 Additional risk factors for GIM include tobacco use, autoimmune gastritis, and living or immigrating from an endemic area. The annual risk of progression from GIM to non-cardia intestinal-type gastric cancer is 0.16%, and factors such as persistent Helicobacter pylori infection, family history, anatomic extent and location of GIM, and histologic subtypes may confer increased risk of progression to gastric cancer. 5 Studies of U.S. endoscopists show variation in the management of patients with GIM, including use and interval for endoscopic surveillance, prompting the development of guidelines for the management of GIM.Item Oral simethicone tablets with PEG-ELS split-prep reduces frequency of inadequate bowel cleansing and decreases bubbles(Wiley, 2021) Maratt, Jennifer K.; Freeman, Alison E.; Schoenfeld, Philip; Saini, Sameer D.; Su, Grace L.; Tai, Andrew W.; Prabhu, Anoop; Rubenstein, Joel H.; Waljee, Akbar K.; Glass, Lisa; Dang, Duyen; Parikh, Neehar D.; Govani, Shail M.; Patel, Swati G.; Menees, Stacy B.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: Intraluminal bubbles may prevent the visualisation of mucosa during a colonoscopy. Simethicone minimises bubbles, but its impact on incomplete bowel preparation and optimal protocols for use are unclear. Aim: To assess the impact of oral simethicone tablets when added to 2-litre, split-prep, polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution + ascorbic acid on bubble score and frequency of incomplete bowel preparation. Methods: This QA/QI project assessed outpatients who underwent colonoscopy at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. After endoscopists were trained in intraluminal bubble scoring systems, data about bubble score, frequency of inadequate bowel preparation requiring early repeat colonoscopy, quality of bowel preparation using Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), and patient tolerance were collected before and after addition of oral simethicone 160mg to each dose of 2-litre split-prep. Results: There were no differences in patient characteristics between the baseline group (n = 348) and the simethicone group (n = 354). Simethicone improved the total mean intraluminal bubble score from 8.18 to 8.78 (P < 0.001). Early repeat colonoscopy due to inadequate bowel preparation was higher in the baseline group vs simethicone group: 8.7% vs 4.6%, P = 0.03 with an RRR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.26-0.95). Using BBPS, the frequency of having inadequate cleansing in any colon segment was higher in the baseline group vs simethicone group: 6.6% vs 3.1%; RRR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.21-0.94). Conclusions: The addition of oral simethicone to each dose of 2-litre, split-prep of polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid decreased intraluminal bubbles and reduced the frequency of inadequate bowel preparation.Item Patients’ Willingness to Share Limited Endoscopic Resources: A Brief Report on the Results of a Large Regional Survey(Sage, 2021-09-28) Piper, Marc S.; Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J.; Maratt, Jennifer K.; Kurlander, Jacob; Metko, Valbona; Waljee, Akbar K.; Saini, Sameer D.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods: We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results: Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being "not at all likely" to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion: Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.Item Tailoring Colorectal Cancer Surveillance in Lynch Syndrome: More Is Not Always Better(Science Direct, 2021-08-01) Maratt, Jennifer K.; Rubenstein, Joel H.; Medicine, School of MedicineItem Who Is at Risk for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer?(Elsevier, 2020) Maratt, Jennifer K.; Kahi, Charles J.; Medicine, School of MedicineModern medical decision making, whether preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic, emphasizes the risk stratification of patients, and is heavily informed and influenced by evidence-based guidelines. Such guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were first published in 1997,1 and subsequently by multiple professional organizations. Although there have been disagreements regarding choice of screening modality, the start age of 50 years for most average-risk individuals (with the notable exception of African Americans) has been mostly unchallenged.