- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Colorectal Cancer Screening"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Association between body-mass index and quality of split bowel preparation(Elsevier, 2013-11) Fayad, Nabil F.; Kahi, Charles J.; Abd el-jawad, Khaled H.; Shin, Andrea S.; Shah, Shenil; Lane, Kathleen A.; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Medicine, School of MedicineBACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the association between obesity and bowel preparation. We investigated whether body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation in patients who receive split preparation regimens. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of data from 2163 consecutive patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 10.5 y; 93.8% male) who received outpatient colonoscopies in 2009 at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. All patients received a split preparation, categorized as adequate (excellent or good, based on the Aronchick scale) or inadequate. We performed a multivariable analysis to identify factors independently associated with inadequate preparation. RESULTS: Bowel preparation quality was inadequate for 44.2% of patients; these patients had significantly higher mean BMIs than patients with adequate preparation (31.2 ± 6.5 vs 29.8 ± 5.9, respectively; P < .0001) and Charlson comorbidity scores (1.5 ± 1.6 vs 1.1 ± 1.4; P < .0001). Independent risk factors for inadequate preparation were a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or greater (odds ratio [OR], 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.75; P < .0001), use of tobacco (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.07-1.54; P = .0084) or narcotics (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .0179), hypertension (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.57; P = .0085), diabetes (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69; P = .0021), and dementia (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.22-7.49; P = .0169). CONCLUSIONS: BMI is an independent factor associated with inadequate split bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Additional factors associated with quality of bowel preparation include diabetes, hypertension, dementia, and use of tobacco and narcotics. Patients with BMIs of 30 kg/m(2) or greater should be considered for more intensive preparation regimens.Item The health disparities cancer collaborative: a case study of practice registry measurement in a quality improvement collaborative(BMC, 2010-06-04) Haggstrom, David A.; Clauser, Steven B.; Taplin, Stephen H.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground Practice registry measurement provides a foundation for quality improvement, but experiences in practice are not widely reported. One setting where practice registry measurement has been implemented is the Health Resources and Services Administration's Health Disparities Cancer Collaborative (HDCC). Methods Using practice registry data from 16 community health centers participating in the HDCC, we determined the completeness of data for screening, follow-up, and treatment measures. We determined the size of the change in cancer care processes that an aggregation of practices has adequate power to detect. We modeled different ways of presenting before/after changes in cancer screening, including count and proportion data at both the individual health center and aggregate collaborative level. Results All participating health centers reported data for cancer screening, but less than a third reported data regarding timely follow-up. For individual cancers, the aggregate HDCC had adequate power to detect a 2 to 3% change in cancer screening, but only had the power to detect a change of 40% or more in the initiation of treatment. Almost every health center (98%) improved cancer screening based upon count data, while fewer (77%) improved cancer screening based upon proportion data. The aggregate collaborative appeared to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates by 12%, 15%, and 4%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all before/after comparisons). In subgroup analyses, significant changes were detectable among individual health centers less than one-half of the time because of small numbers of events.Conclusions The aggregate HDCC registries had both adequate reporting rates and power to detect significant changes in cancer screening, but not follow-up care. Different measures provided different answers about improvements in cancer screening; more definitive evaluation would require validation of the registries. Limits to the implementation and interpretation of practice registry measurement in the HDCC highlight challenges and opportunities for local and aggregate quality improvement activities.