Search

Abstract Background The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. Methods We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. Conclusions Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. Trial registration #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

Abstract Background In spite of past efforts to increase screening uptake, the rates of screening-detectable cancers including breast, cervical, colorectal and lung are rising among Indigenous persons in Ontario compared to other Ontarians. The Ontario Ministry of Health has an equity framework, the Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) Tool, that was developed to guide organizations in the provision of more equitable health and social services. Although the HEIA Tool identifies that the health of Indigenous persons may benefit from more equitable provision of health and social services, it provides very little specific guidance on how to apply the HEIA Tool in a culturally relevant way to policies and programs that may impact Indigenous peoples. Discussion Guided by the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an Indigenous Lens Tool was developed through a collaborative and iterative process with stakeholders at Cancer Care Ontario and with representatives from Indigenous community-based organizations. The Indigenous Lens Tool consists of four scenarios, with supporting documentation that provide context for each step of the HEIA Tool and thereby facilitate application of the equity framework to programs and policies. The document is in no way meant to be comprehensive or representative of the diverse health care experiences of Indigenous peoples living in Canada nor the social determinants that surround health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Rather, this document provides a first step to support development of policies and programs that recognize and uphold the rights to health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Conclusions The Indigenous Lens Tool was created to facilitate implementation of an existing health equity framework within Cancer Care Ontario (now Ontario Health). Even though the Indigenous Lens Tool was created for this purpose, the principles contained within it are translatable to other health and social service policy applications.

Abstract Background Little is known about the association between the COVID‐19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients. Methods This retrospective population‐based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre‐pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time‐varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type. Results Among 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post‐diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96–1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95–0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05–1.49]). Conclusions Among patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one‐year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID‐19 pandemic impact on cancer care.

Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50–74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15—December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016—March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % – 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % – 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.

Background and aims Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited.Methods We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically.Results We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed.Conclusion Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured.PROSPERO registration number 42020173906.

Introduction Cancer screening is an integral component of primary care, and providers can play a key role in facilitating screening. While much work has focused on patient interventions, there has been less attention on primary care provider (PCP) interventions. In addition, marginalised patients experience disparities in cancer screening which are likely to worsen if not addressed. The objective of this scoping review is to report on the range, extent and nature of PCP interventions that maximise cancer screening participation among marginalised patients. Our review will target cancers where there is strong evidence to support screening, including lung, cervical, breast and colorectal cancers.Methods and analysis This is a scoping review conducted in accordance with the framework by Levac et al. Comprehensive searches will be conducted by a health sciences librarian using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include peer-reviewed English language literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2022 that describes PCP interventions to maximise cancer screening participation for breast, cervical, lung and colorectal cancers. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles and identify eligible studies for inclusion in two stages: title and abstract, then full text. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Charted data will be synthesised through a narrative synthesis using a piloted data extraction form informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.Ethics and dissemination Since this is a synthesis of digitally published literature, no ethics approval is needed for this work. We will target appropriate primary care or cancer screening journals and conference presentations to publish and disseminate the results of this scoping review. The results will also be used to inform an ongoing research study developing PCP interventions for addressing cancer screening with marginalised patients.

Abstract Background The use of social media presents a unique opportunity for cancer screening programs to motivate individuals to get screened. However, we need a better understanding of what types of social media messages for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are preferred. The objective of this study was to develop social media messages promoting CRC screening uptake to identify messages preferred by the target audience. Methods We conducted a qualitative descriptive study and collected data through focus groups with Facebook users of screen-eligible age. Participants were presented with social media messages and asked to provide feedback. Messages were informed by the Health Belief Model, current evidence regarding screening communication and health communication and social media best practices. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysis was completed by two independent coders. If messages generated sufficient discussion, we developed a recommendation regarding the use of the message in a future social media campaign. Recommendations included: strongly consider using this message, consider using this message, proceed with caution, and do not use this message. General considerations about social media campaigns were also noted. Results A total of 45 individuals participated in six focus groups. We developed recommendations for 7 out of the 18 messages tested; 1 was classified as strongly consider using this message, 4 as consider using this message and 2 as proceed with caution. The data suggest that participants preferred social media messages that were believed to be credible, educational, and with a positive or reassuring tone. Preferred messages tended to increase awareness about CRC risk and screening and prompted participants to ask questions, and to want to learn more about what they could do to lower their risk. Messages that were viewed as humorous, strange or offensive or that had a negative or excessively fearful tone were less well received by study participants. Conclusions Facebook users prefer social media messages for CRC that have a positive or reassuring tone, are educational, and that have a credible ad sponsor. Campaign planners should proceed with caution when considering messages that use humor or a fearful tone to avoid undermining their campaign objectives.

BackgroundCancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal. ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening. MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model. ResultsWe screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types. ConclusionsScreening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411

Background and study aims We aimed to estimate the rate of hospital admissions for perforation and for post-polypectomy bleeding, after outpatient colonoscopy following a first positive fecal occult blood test screen through the population-based ColonCancerCheck program in Ontario, Canada. Patients and methods We identified all individuals aged 50 to 74 years with a first positive CCC gFOBT screening result from 2008 to 2017 who underwent outpatient colonoscopy ≤ 6 months later and who did not receive a diagnosis of CRC ≤ 24 months later. We identified inpatient hospital admissions for colonic perforation ≤ 7 days after and for post-polypectomy bleeding ≤ 14 days following colonoscopy. Results Among 121,626 individuals who underwent colonoscopy, the rate of perforation was 0.6 per 1000 from 2008 to 2012 and 0.4 per 1000 from 2013 to 2017. The rate was elevated among those aged 70 to 74 years; those with comorbidities; when colonoscopy was performed by endoscopists other than gastroenterologists or endoscopists with low prior year volume; and when polypectomy was performed during colonoscopy. The rate of bleeding was 4.3 per 1000 and was elevated among those aged 70 to 74 years, those with comorbidity, and with complex polypectomy. Both outcomes were more common among those aged 70 to 74 years, those with a 5-year cumulative Charlson score ≥ 1, those with prior hospitalization for ischemic heart disease, and those with endoscopists whose prior year colonoscopy volume was in the three lower quartiles. Conclusions Colonic perforation and post-polypectomy bleeding, among participants of population-based colorectal screening programs who test positive in the absence of colorectal cancer, are infrequent but serious complications, which increase with participant age and comorbidity, and with endoscopist characteristics.

ObjectiveAlthough sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.DesignWe recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.ResultsTwenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.ConclusionThe recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

IntroductionCancer is one of the leading causes of death globally and many jurisdictions have developed population-based cancer screening programmes to reduce the public health burden of disease. However, screening participation remains suboptimal. Social media and other mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly being used for health promotion and behaviour change. This paper reports on the protocol for a systematic review exploring the effect of social media and other mHealth interventions on cancer screening participation and intention.Methods and analysisThis protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include any randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with a pre/post design conducted in adults ≥18 years of age that report on the effectiveness of a social media or mHealth intervention on screening participation or intention (inclusive of breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate and lung cancer). Interventions will be inclusive of those delivered online or through a computer using an established social media platform or a new purpose-built platform, or those delivered through cellphones or other wireless technologies. Any comparator will be acceptable (control group, alternate intervention or pre/post design). We will search Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication and Mass Media Complete from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2019. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles with conflicts resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer, as needed. The two reviewers will also independently complete risk of bias assessments for each included study. We will report on the characteristics of the studies, participants and interventions in descriptive narrative form and report the absolute and relative differences in screening and intention attributable to social media and mobile technology interventions.Ethics and disseminationAs this is a systematic review, ethical approval for conduct of this study is not required. We will pursue publication of study results in a relevant peer-reviewed journal and report our findings according to the PRISMA checklist.Trial registration numberCRD42019139615.

Abstract Background The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) cluster randomized trial in primary care settings demonstrated a 30% improvement in adherence to evidence-based Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) activities. CDPS activities included healthy activities, lifestyle modifications, and screening tests. We present a protocol for the adaptation of BETTER to a public health setting, and testing the adaptation in a cluster randomized trial (BETTER HEALTH: Durham) among low income neighbourhoods in Durham Region, Ontario (Canada). Methods The BETTER intervention consists of a personalized prevention visit between a participant and a prevention practitioner, which is focused on the participant’s eligible CDPS activities, and uses Brief Action Planning, to empower the participant to set achievable short-term goals. BETTER HEALTH: Durham aims to establish that the BETTER intervention can be adapted and proven effective among 40–64 year old residents of low income areas when provided in the community by public health nurses trained as prevention practitioners. Focus groups and key informant interviews among stakeholders and eligible residents of low income areas will inform the adaptation, along with feedback from the trial’s Community Advisory Committee. We have created a sampling frame of 16 clusters composed of census dissemination areas in the lowest urban quintile of median household income, and will sample 10 clusters to be randomly allocated to immediate intervention or six month wait list control. Accounting for the clustered design effect, the trial will have 80% power to detect an absolute 30% difference in the primary outcome, a composite score of completed eligible CDPS actions six months after enrollment. The prevention practitioner will attempt to link participants without a primary care provider (PCP) to a local PCP. The implementation of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be evaluated by focus groups and key informant interviews. Discussion The effectiveness of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be tested for delivery in low income neighbourhoods by a public health department. Trial Registration: NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017.

Abstract Background The risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) varies around the world and between females and males. We aimed to compare the risk of CRC among immigrants to Ontario, Canada, to its general population. Methods We used an exposure-control matched design. We identified persons in the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Permanent Resident Database with first eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan between July 1, 1991 and June 30, 2008 at age 40 years or older, and matched five controls by year of birth and sex on the immigrant’s first eligibility date. We identified CRC from the Ontario Cancer Registry between the index date and December 31, 2014. All analyses were stratified by sex. We calculated crude and relative rates of CRC. We estimated risk of CRC over time by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared immigrants to controls in age and sex stratified strata using log-rank tests. We modeled the hazard of CRC using Cox proportional hazards regression, accounting for within-cluster correlation by a robust sandwich variance estimation approach, and assessed an interaction with time since eligibility. Results Among females, 1877 cases of CRC were observed among 209,843 immigrants, and 16,517 cases among 1,049,215 controls; the crude relative rate among female immigrants was 0.623. Among males, 1956 cases of CRC were observed among 191,792 immigrants and 18,329 cases among 958,960 controls; the crude relative rate among male immigrants was 0.582.. Comparing immigrants to controls in all age and sex stratified strata, the log rank test p = 75 years at index, where p = 0.01. The age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for CRC among female immigrants was 0.63 (95% CI 0.59, 0.67) during the first 10 years, and 0.66 (95% CI 0.59, 0.74) thereafter. Among male immigrants the age-adjusted HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.52, 0.59) during the first 10 years and increased to 0.63 (95% CI 0.57, 0.71) thereafter. The adjusted HR > = 1 only among immigrants born in Europe and Central Asia. Conclusions The risk of CRC among immigrants to Ontario relative to controls varies by origin and over time since immigration.

This 2014 roundtable discussion, hosted by the Canadian Association of General Surgeons, brought together general surgeons and gastroenterologists with expertise in endoscopy from across Canada to discuss the state of endoscopy in Canada. The focus of the roundtable was the evaluation of the competence of general surgeons at endoscopy, reviewing quality assurance parameters for high-quality endoscopy, measuring and assessing surgical resident preparedness for endoscopy practice, evaluating credentialing programs for the endosuite and predicting the future of endoscopic services in Canada. The roundtable noted several important observations. There exist inadequacies in both resident training and the assessment of competency in endoscopy. From these observations, several collaborative recommendations were then stated. These included the need for a formal and standardized system of both accreditation and training endoscopists.

Background. The goal of this study is to examine utilization of early repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure. Methods. We identified persons having repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months following outpatient colonoscopy without prior colonoscopy ≤ 5 years or prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). We modeled repeat colonoscopy using a generalized estimating equation with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of patients by endoscopist. Results. The population included 334,663 persons, 7,892 (2.36%) of whom had an early repeat colonoscopy within 6 months. Overall, endoscopist prior year colonoscopy volume was inversely related to repeat ≤ 6 months. Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months varied by the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy (adjusted OR = 1.41 (95% CI 1.29–1.55)) at nonhospital facilities compared to teaching or community hospitals. Among those who had polypectomy or biopsy, the adjusted OR for early repeat ≤ 6 months was elevated among those whose index colonoscopy was at a nonhospital facility (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.30–1.60), compared to those at a teaching hospital or community hospital. Conclusions. Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure is associated with the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND:The ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms. METHODS:We used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity. RESULTS:Compared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300. INTERPRETATION:Compared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

Colonoscopy is fundamental to the diagnosis and management of digestive diseases and plays a key role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to ensure that colonoscopy is of high quality. The present guidance document updates the evidence and recommendations in Cancer Care Ontario’s 2007 Colonoscopy Standards, and was conducted under the aegis of the Program in Evidence-Based Care. It is intended to support quality improvement for colonoscopies for all indications, including follow-up to a positive fecal occult blood test, screening for individuals who have a family history of CRC and those at average risk, investigation for symptomatic patients, and surveillance of those with a history of adenomatous polyps or CRC. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the existing evidence concerning the following three key aspects of colonoscopy: physician endoscopist training and maintenance of competency; institutional quality assurance parameters; and colonoscopy quality indicators and auditable outcomes. Where appropriate, indicators were designated quality indicators (where there was sufficient evidence to recommend a specific target) and auditable outcomes (insufficient evidence to recommend a specific target, but which should be monitored for quality assurance purposes). The guidance document may be used to support colonoscopy quality assurance programs to improve the quality of colonoscopy regardless of indication. Improvements in colonoscopy quality are anticipated to improve important outcomes in digestive diseases, such as reduction of the incidence of and mortality from CRC.

OBJECTIVES: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published consensus recommendations for safety and quality indicators in digestive endoscopy. The present article focuses specifically on the identification of key elements that should be found in all electronic endoscopy reports detailing recommendations adopted by the CAG consensus group.

BACKGROUND Open-access (OA) colonoscopy may increase efficiency and decrease wait times; however, because the patient is seen for the first time at the endoscopy appointment, previous processes, such as information about the procedure, preparation and appropriate triage, may be suboptimal.

Self-expandable stents for obstructing colorectal cancer (CRC) offer an alternative to operative management. The objective of the study was to determine stent utilization for CRC obstruction in the province of Ontario between April 1, 2000, and March 30, 2009. Colonic stent utilization characteristics, poststent insertion health outcomes, and health care encounters were recorded. 225 patients were identified over the study period. Median age was 69 years, 2/3 were male, and 2/3 had metastatic disease. Stent use for CRC increased over the study period and gastroenterologists inserted most stents. The median survival after stent insertion was 199 (IQR, 69–834) days. 37% of patients required an additional procedure. Patients with metastatic disease were less likely to go on to surgery (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06–0.32, p

Background. Audit and feedback (A/F) reports are one of the few knowledge translation activities that can effect change in physician behavior. In this study, we pilot-tested an endoscopist A/F report to elicit opinions about the proposed report’s usability, acceptability and usefulness, and implications for knowledge translation. Methods. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven endoscopists in Ontario, Canada. We tested an A/F report template comprising 9 validated, accepted colonoscopy quality indicators populated with simulated data. Interview transcripts were coded using techniques such as constant comparison and themes were identified inductively over several team meetings. Results. Four interrelated themes were identified: (1) overall perceptions of the A/F report; (2) accountability and consequences for poor performance; (3) motivation to change/improve skills; and (4) training for performance enhancement and available resources. The A/F report was well received; however, participants cited some possible threats to the report’s effectiveness including the perceived threat of loss of privileges or licensing and the potential for the data to be dismissed. Conclusions. Participants agreed that A/F has the potential to improve colonoscopy performance. However, in order to be effective in changing physician behavior, A/F must be thoughtfully implemented with attention to the potential concerns of its recipients.

Background. This work examines the occurrence of interval colorectal cancers (CRCs) in the Ontario ColonCancerCheck (CCC) program. We define interval CRC as CRC diagnosed within 2 years following normal guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT). Methods. Persons aged 50–74 who completed a baseline CCC gFOBT kit in 2008 and 2009, without a prior history of CRC, or recent colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or gFOBT, were identified. Rates of CRC following positive and normal results at baseline and subsequent gFOBT screens were computed and overall survival was compared between those following positive and normal results. Results. Interval CRC was diagnosed within 24 months following the baseline screen among 0.16% of normals and following the subsequent screen among 0.18% of normals. Interval cancers comprised 38.70% of CRC following the baseline screen and 50.86% following the subsequent screen. Adjusting for age and sex, the hazard ratio (HR) for death following interval cancer compared to CRC following positive result was 1.65 (1.32, 2.05) following the first screen and 1.71 (1.00, 2.91) following the second screen. Conclusion. Interval CRCs following gFOBT screening comprise a significant proportion of CRC diagnosed within 2 years after gFOBT testing and are associated with a higher risk of death.

Introduction. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the evidence for different CRC screening tests and to determine the most appropriate ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening and the most appropriate screening intervals for selected CRC screening tests in people at average risk for CRC. Methods. Electronic databases were searched for studies that addressed the research objectives. Meta-analyses were conducted with clinically homogenous trials. A working group reviewed the evidence to develop conclusions. Results. Thirty RCTs and 29 observational studies were included. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) prevented CRC and led to the largest reduction in CRC mortality with a smaller but significant reduction in CRC mortality with the use of guaiac fecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs). There was insufficient or low quality evidence to support the use of other screening tests, including colonoscopy, as well as changing the ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening with gFOBTs in Ontario. Either annual or biennial screening using gFOBT reduces CRC-related mortality. Conclusion. The evidentiary base supports the use of FS or FOBT (either annual or biennial) to screen patients at average risk for CRC. This work will guide the development of the provincial CRC screening program.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is increasingly performed in nonhospital facilities, studies to date examining differences between colonoscopy services in hospital and nonhospital settings have been limited, in large part, to administrative databases.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori is a WHO class I carcinogen also associated with nonmalignant gastrointestinal diseases. Effective treatment exists, and all persons infected with H pylori should receive treatment. However, data regarding the rates of treatment prescription in clinical practice are lacking.

BACKGROUND: Increasing demand combined with limited capacity has resulted in long wait times for average-risk adults referred for screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer. Management of patients on these growing wait lists is an emerging clinical issue.

BACKGROUND: Determining whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes can facilitate clinical practice and research. However, there is no simple method to determine the colonoscopy indication using patient medical files or health administrative databases.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is being increasingly performed in facilities outside of hospitals. Regulation of these facilities is variable, and concerns regarding the quality of procedures in nonhospital (NH) settings have been raised. Further study is needed to better understand endoscopic practice in these facilities.

BACKGROUND: A sizeable number of individuals who participate in population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs and have a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) do not have an identifiable lesion found at colonoscopy to account for their positive FOBT screen.

The clinical course and management of a rare case of gastrointestinal mucormycosis occurring in a renal transplant patient are presented. The diagnosis was made on pathological examination of surgically resected tissue from the colon, spleen and stomach. The patient did not survive the infection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the 11th reported case of gastrointestinal mucormycosis in a solid organ transplant patient. The pathophysiology, incidence and prognosis of this disease are discussed.