Search

Background and aims: Open-access scheduling is highly utilized for facilitating generally low-risk endoscopies. Preprocedural screening addresses sedation requirements; however, procedural safety may be compromised if screening is inaccurate. We sought to determine the reliability of our open-access scheduling system for appropriate use of conscious sedation. Methods: We prospectively and consecutively enrolled outpatient procedures booked at an academic center by open-access using screening after in-office gastroenterology (GI) consultation. We collected the cases inappropriately booked for conscious sedation and compared the characteristics for significant differences. Results: A total of 8063 outpatients were scheduled for procedures with conscious sedation, and 5959 were booked with open-access. Only 78 patients (0.97%, 78/8063) were identified as subsequently needing anesthesiologist-assisted sedation; 44 (56.4%, 44/78) were booked through open-access, of which chronic opioid (47.7%, 21/44) or benzodiazepine use (34.1%, 15/44) were the most common reasons for needing anesthesiologist-assisted sedation. Patients on chronic benzodiazepines required more midazolam than those not on chronic benzodiazepines (P = .03) of those patients who underwent conscious sedation. Similarly, patients with chronic opioid use required more fentanyl than those without chronic opioid use (P = .04). Advanced liver disease and alcohol use were common reasons for patients being booked after in-office consultation and were significantly higher than those booked with open-access (both P < .01). Conclusions: We observed that the majority of patients can be triaged for conscious sedation using a multi-tiered screening process. Importantly, few patients (