1 / 29

Improving Screening Colonoscopy Rates: The Mount Sinai Experience

Improving Screening Colonoscopy Rates: The Mount Sinai Experience. Professor of Medicine Associate Director, Division of Gastroenterology Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York, NY (steven.itzkowitz@mountsinai.org). Steven Itzkowitz, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF .

Anita
Download Presentation

Improving Screening Colonoscopy Rates: The Mount Sinai Experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving Screening Colonoscopy Rates:The Mount Sinai Experience Professor of Medicine Associate Director, Division of Gastroenterology Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York, NY (steven.itzkowitz@mountsinai.org) Steven Itzkowitz, MD, FACP, FACG, AGAF

  2. Screening Colonoscopy Rates are Low:East Harlem, NYC

  3. Barriers to CRC Screening • Physician barriers: • Problems: Failure to recommend (any) CRC screening; difficulty arranging colonoscopy • Solution: Open Access Endoscopy • Patient barriers: • Problems: Fear; distrust; fatalism; language; inconvenience; literacy; education • Solution: Patient Navigation • Organizational barriers • Problems: Systems for scheduling; Insurance • Solution: Open Access Endoscopy

  4. Definition: PCPs refer average-risk patients directly for screening without a prior GI Clinic consultation Advantage: More convenient for patients Disadvantage: Potentially less understanding by patient of the procedure indications/prep than with initial GI Clinic visit Ways to Facilitate Colonoscopy:1. Open Access Endoscopy (OAE)

  5. Definition: Patient Navigator is someone who guides the patient through the process of completing colonoscopy after PCP referral. Roles of the Navigator: Assist with scheduling, transportation, patient education re: colonoscopy (rationale, importance, prep) Remind patient about their appointment Help allay fears Ways to Facilitate Colonoscopy:2. Patient Navigation (PN)

  6. Hypothesis: “If we build it, they will come.” Reduce barriers for referring physicians: Nov. 2003: Open Access system started Help patients complete their colonoscopy: April 2004: Patient Navigator hired Bilingual Hispanic female health educator Remove insurance as an obstacle: Medicaid patients (directly referred from Internal Medicine Associates and GYN Clinic). Mount Sinai Screening Colonoscopy Demonstration Project

  7. Open Access Endoscopy Direct Referral Form faxed by Primary Care Provider Reviewed by Gastroenterologist Appropriate cases given to Patient Navigator Patient Navigator then does the following: Step 1: Scheduling Phone Call Step 2: Reminder Postcard Step 3: Two Week Reminder Call Step 4: Three Day Reminder Call Approach

  8. Patient Navigator:Ms. Anabella Castillo

  9. Review the following with the patient: Reason for referral Importance of having a colonoscopy Review current medications Review and mail prep materials Ensure escort Answer all questions Address concerns Step 1: Scheduling Phone Call

  10. D O C T O R’ S O R D E R Step 2: Post Card G E T S C R E E N E D

  11. Confirm receipt of prep and how to perform prep Confirm appointment time and location Confirm escort Review importance of having a colonoscopy Answer all questions Address concerns Steps 3 & 4: Reminder Phone Calls(2 weeks, and 3 days prior to procedure)

  12. RESULTS Total Referrals into OAE System n=1169 • Did Not Qualify for Navigation (n=264) • Required evaluation in GI Clinic (n=208) (18%) • Referral prior to onset of PN program (n=56) Qualified for Navigation n=905 • Ineligible for SC (n=217) • Completed SC without navigation (n=44) • Multiple referrals (n=149) • Not yet contacted by PN (n=21) • Scheduled for future (n=3) Eligible for SC n=688 • Non-navigated, non-completers n=156 (23%) • GI appt necessary (n-38) • Unable to contact (n=92) • Language not English or Spanish (n=4) • Insurance expired, left country, deceased (n=22) Navigated n=532 (77%) Completers n=353 (67%) Non-completers n=179 (33%) Chen et al. Clin Gastro Hepatol, in press

  13. Demographics of Study Population * New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygeine

  14. Predictors of Completion * p<0.05

  15. Predictors of Completion • Women were more likely to complete than men. • OR = 1.31 (95% CI 1.11-2.63) • Hispanics were more likely to complete than African Americans. • OR = 1.67 (95% CI 1.11-2.50) • Multivariate: Hispanic women were more likely to complete than Hispanic men. • OR = 1.5 (95% CI 1.23-4.21)

  16. Pathology Detected • Pts w/ adenomas 58/353 (16.4%) • Pts w/ advanced adenoma 7/353 (2.0%) • 2 cancers (Stage I) • 1 HGD • 1 villous adenoma

  17. Patient Satisfaction(amongst completers) • 64% of patients would not have completed colonoscopy without the assistance of the Patient Navigator • Felt the procedure had been explained: • by PCP: 84.2% • by PN: 92.1% • Understood bowel prep: • by PCP: 34.9% • by PN: 58.5% • Satisfied with bowel prep explanation: • by PCP: 83.0% • by PN: 99.1%

  18. What’s in it for the Hospital? The following slides provide a crude estimate of financial benefits afforded by hiring a Patient Navigator. The data show that: • Without changing any Endoscopy Unit operations, a Patient Navigator prevents “lost” revenue to the hospital. • By increasing efficiency and adding more cases per week, additional revenue is captured.

  19. Patient Navigation Improves Efficiency • Prep Quality: Inadequate or Poor • Pre-Navigation: 12% • Post-Navigation: 5% • “No-Show” Rates • Pre-Navigation: 40% • Post-Navigation: 9.8%

  20. Financial Impact of: Better Prep Rates • Assuming 2,500 colos per year: 12% poor prep without PN 300 5% poor prep with PN125 More completed colos 175* *4 more cases per week Revenue: @ $500 per case $ 87,500 @ $1000 per case $175,000

  21. Financial Impact of: Improved No-Show Rate • Assuming 2,500 colos per year: 40% no-show without PN 1,000 15% no-show with PN- 375 More completed colos 625* * 14 more cases per week Revenue: @ $500 per case $312,000 @ $1000 per case $625,000

  22. Financial Impact of: “Lost” Colonoscopies • Poor preps: 4 cases/week • No-shows:14 cases/week Total: Lost colos: 18 cases/week Without navigation, lost revenue (for the same overhead): @ $500 per case $405,000 @ $1000 per case $810,000

  23. Financial Impact of: Enhanced Efficiency Avoiding Lost Colonoscopies (for the same overhead): @ $500 per case $405,000 @ $1000 per case $810,000 Increasing efficiency of existing operations: 15 new cases added per week @$500 per case $338,000 @$1,000 per case $675,000

  24. Financial Impact of: PN + Enhanced Efficiency • 33 more cases per week • 18 due to PN • 15 new cases due to better efficiency • 1,485 more colos per year Revenue: @ $500 per case $ 742,500/yr @ $1000 per case $1,485,000/yr Pathology detected: Adenomas (16% incidence) 238 new cases Cancers (@0.6% incidence) 8-9 new cases

  25. Financial Implications:Hospital Expenses • To get the job done, the Hospital may have to consider the following financial investments: Patient navigator: $ 50,000 Physician(s):$200,000 TOTAL: $250,000 But: These expenses are counterbalanced by enhanced efficiency and through-put…..

  26. Conclusions • The Mount Sinai Screening Colonoscopy Demonstration Project reveals the following: • Minority patients in East Harlem can be successfully navigated into screening colonoscopy. • Patient Navigation improves the existing efficiency of Endoscopy Unit operations by markedly lowering the “no-show” and “poor prep” rates. • The Hospital benefits financially from this program.

  27. Areas for Future Improvement • Even with systems in place to optimize the ease of obtaining colonoscopy (health insurance, open access referral, patient navigation), one third of urban minority subjects still did not complete colonoscopy. • Women were more likely to complete than men, and Hispanics were more likely to complete than African-Americans • How do we improve upon the 33% non-completion rate? • What behavioral and/or cultural issues define patients who complete navigation versus those who do not? • Is there a role for peer navigation? Culturally targeted interventions? • How do we get physicians at voluntary hospitals to scope underinsured/uninsured patients?

  28. Acknowledgements • Gastroenterologists • Maria Abreu, MD • Peter Chang, MD • Sita Chokhavatia, MD • Eric Goldstein, MD • Peter Legnani, MD • Michelle Kim, MD • Lloyd Mayer, MD • Thomas Ullman, MD • Xianyang Yio, MD, PhD Navigation Program • Steven Itzkowitz, MD • Jennifer Christie, MD • Lina Jandorf • Anabella Castillo • Yira Duplessi • Lea Ann Chen, MD (medical intern) • Stephanie Santos, MD (GI fellow) • Grant Support • NYC DOHMH & American Cancer Society • Mount Sinai Dept of Medicine Advisory Board

  29. D O C T O R’ S O R D E R Step 2: Post Card G E T S C R E E N E D

More Related