Search

Background: This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.Methods: PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).Results: A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.Discussion: This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delivering well-coordinated care is essential for optimizing clinical outcomes, enhancing patient care experiences, minimizing costs, and increasing provider satisfaction. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has built a strong foundation for internally coordinating care. However, VA faces mounting internal care coordination challenges due to growth in the number of Veterans using VA care, high complexity in Veterans' care needs, the breadth and depth of VA services, and increasing use of virtual care. VA's Health Services Research and Development service with the Office of Research and Development held a conference assessing the state-of-the-art (SOTA) on care coordination. One workgroup within the SOTA focused on coordination between VA providers for high-need Veterans, including (1) Veterans with multiple chronic conditions; (2) Veterans with high-intensity, focused, specialty care needs; (3) Veterans experiencing care transitions; (4) Veterans with severe mental illness; (5) and Veterans with homelessness and/or substance use disorders. We report on this workgroup's recommendations for policy and organizational initiatives and identify questions for further research. Recommendations from a separate workgroup on coordinating VA and non-VA care are contained in a companion paper. Leaders from research, clinical services, and VA policy will need to partner closely as they develop, implement, assess, and spread effective practices if VA is to fully realize its potential for delivering highly coordinated care to every Veteran. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient complexity is often operationalized by counting multiple chronic conditions (MCC) without considering contextual factors that can affect patient risk for adverse outcomes.Objective: Our objective was to develop a conceptual model of complexity addressing gaps identified in a review of published conceptual models.Data Sources: We searched for English-language MEDLINE papers published between 1 January 2004 and 16 January 2014. Two reviewers independently evaluated abstracts and all authors contributed to the development of the conceptual model in an iterative process.Results: From 1606 identified abstracts, six conceptual models were selected. One additional model was identified through reference review. Each model had strengths, but several constructs were not fully considered: 1) contextual factors; 2) dynamics of complexity; 3) patients' preferences; 4) acute health shocks; and 5) resilience. Our Cycle of Complexity model illustrates relationships between acute shocks and medical events, healthcare access and utilization, workload and capacity, and patient preferences in the context of interpersonal, organizational, and community factors.Conclusions/implications: This model may inform studies on the etiology of and changes in complexity, the relationship between complexity and patient outcomes, and intervention development to improve modifiable elements of complex patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]