Quality issues for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP)

Purpose: This two-part research project was undertaken as part of the planning process by Queensland Health (QH), Cancer Screening Services Unit (CSSU), Queensland Bowel Cancer Screening Program (QBCSP), in partnership with the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP), to prepare for the implementation of the NBCSP in public sector colonoscopy services in QLD in late 2006. There was no prior information available on the quality of colonoscopy services in Queensland (QLD) and no prior studies that assessed the quality of colonoscopy training in Australia. Furthermore, the NBCSP was introduced without extra funding for colonoscopy service improvement or provision for increases in colonoscopic capacity resulting from the introduction of the NBCSP. The main purpose of the research was to record baseline data on colonoscopy referral and practice in QLD and current training in colonoscopy Australia-wide. It was undertaken from a quality improvement perspective. Implementation of the NBCSP requires that all aspects of the screening pathway, in particular colonoscopy services for the assessment of positive Faecal Occult Blood Tests (FOBTs), will be effective, efficient, equitable and evidence-based. This study examined two important aspects of the continuous quality improvement framework for the NBCSP as they relate to colonoscopy services: (1) evidence-based practice, and (2) quality of colonoscopy training. The Principal Investigator was employed as Senior Project Officer (Training) in the QBCSP during the conduct of this research project. Recommendations from this research have been used to inform the development and implementation of quality improvement initiatives for provision of colonoscopy in the NBCSP, its QLD counterpart the QBCSP and colonoscopy services in QLD, in general. Methods – Part 1 Chart audit of evidence-based practice: The research was undertaken in two parts from 2005-2007. The first part of this research comprised a retrospective chart audit of 1484 colonoscopy records (some 13% of all colonoscopies conducted in public sector facilities in the year 2005) in three QLD colonoscopy services. Whilst some 70% of colonoscopies are currently conducted in the private sector, only public sector colonoscopy facilities provided colonoscopies under the NBCSP. The aim of this study was to compare colonoscopy referral and practice with explicit criteria derived from the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (1999) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Early Detection and Management of Colorectal Cancer, and describe the nature of variance with the guidelines. Symptomatic presentations were the most common indication for colonoscopy (60.9%). These comprised per rectal bleeding (31.0%), change of bowel habit (22.1%), abdominal pain (19.6%), iron deficiency anaemia (16.2%), inflammatory bowel disease (8.9%) and other symptoms (11.4%). Surveillance and follow-up colonoscopies accounted for approximately one-third of the remaining colonoscopy workload across sites. Gastroenterologists (GEs) performed relatively more colonoscopies per annum (59.9%) compared to general surgeons (GS) (24.1%), colorectal surgeons (CRS) (9.4%) and general physicians (GPs) (6.5%). Guideline compliance varied with the designation of the colonoscopist. Compliance was lower for CRS (62.9%) compared to GPs (76.0%), GEs (75.0%), GSs (70.9%, p<0.05). Compliance with guideline recommendations for colonoscopic surveillance for family history of colorectal cancer (23.9%), polyps (37.0%) and a past history of bowel cancer (42.7%), was by comparison significantly lower than for symptomatic presentations (94.4%), (p<0.001). Variation with guideline recommendations occurred more frequently for polyp surveillance (earlier than guidelines recommend, 47.9%) and follow-up for past history of bowel cancer (later than recommended, 61.7%, p<0.001). Bowel cancer cases detected at colonoscopy comprised 3.6% of all audited colonoscopies. Incomplete colonoscopies occurred in 4.3% of audited colonoscopies and were more common among women (76.6%). For all colonoscopies audited, the rate of incomplete colonoscopies for GEs was 1.6% (CI 0.9-2.6), GPs 2.0% (CI 0.6-7.2), GS 7.0% (CI 4.8-10.1) and CRS 16.4% (CI 11.2-23.5). 18.6% (n=55) of patients with a documented family history of bowel cancer had colonoscopy performed against guidelines recommendations (for general (category 1) population risk, for reasons of patient request or family history of polyps, rather than for high risk status for colorectal cancer). In general, family history was inadequately documented and subsequently applied to colonoscopy referral and practice. Methods - Part 2 Surveys of quality of colonoscopy training: The second part of the research consisted of Australia-wide anonymous, self-completed surveys of colonoscopy trainers and their trainees to ascertain their opinions on the current apprenticeship model of colonoscopy in Australia and to identify any training needs. Overall, 127 surveys were received from colonoscopy trainers (estimated response rate 30.2%). Approximately 50% of trainers agreed and 27% disagreed that current numbers of training places were adequate to maintain a skilled colonoscopy workforce in preparation for the NBCSP. Approximately 70% of trainers also supported UK-style colonoscopy training within dedicated accredited training centres using a variety of training approaches including simulation. A collaborative approach with the private sector was seen as beneficial by 65% of trainers. Non-gastroenterologists (non-GEs) were more likely than GEs to be of the opinion that simulators are beneficial for colonoscopy training (χ2-test = 5.55, P = 0.026). Approximately 60% of trainers considered that the current requirements for recognition of training in colonoscopy could be insufficient for trainees to gain competence and 80% of those indicated that ≥ 200 colonoscopies were needed. GEs (73.4%) were more likely than non-GEs (36.2%) to be of the opinion that the Conjoint Committee standard is insufficient to gain competence in colonoscopy (χ2-test = 16.97, P = 0.0001). The majority of trainers did not support training either nurses (73%) or GPs in colonoscopy (71%). Only 81 (estimated response rate 17.9%) surveys were received from GS trainees (72.1%), GE trainees (26.3%) and GP trainees (1.2%). The majority were males (75.9%), with a median age 32 years and who had trained in New South Wales (41.0%) or Victoria (30%). Overall, two-thirds (60.8%) of trainees indicated that they deemed the Conjoint Committee standard sufficient to gain competency in colonoscopy. Between specialties, 75.4% of GS trainees indicated that the Conjoint Committee standard for recognition of colonoscopy was sufficient to gain competence in colonoscopy compared to only 38.5% of GE trainees. Measures of competency assessed and recorded by trainees in logbooks centred mainly on caecal intubation (94.7-100%), complications (78.9-100%) and withdrawal time (51-76.2%). Trainees described limited access to colonoscopy training lists due to the time inefficiency of the apprenticeship model and perceived monopolisation of these by GEs and their trainees. Improvements to the current training model suggested by trainees included: more use of simulation, training tools, a United Kingdom (UK)-style training course, concentration on quality indicators, increased access to training lists, accreditation of trainers and interdisciplinary colonoscopy training. Implications for the NBCSP/QBCSP: The introduction of the NBCSP/QBCSP necessitates higher quality colonoscopy services if it is to achieve its ultimate goal of decreasing the incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with bowel cancer in Australia. This will be achieved under a new paradigm for colonoscopy training and implementation of evidence-based practice across the screening pathway and specifically targeting areas highlighted in this thesis. Recommendations for improvement of NBCSP/QBCSP effectiveness and efficiency include the following: 1. Implementation of NBCSP and QBCSP health promotion activities that target men, in particular, to increase FOBT screening uptake. 2. Improved colonoscopy training for trainees and refresher courses or retraining for existing proceduralists to improve completion rates (especially for female NBCSP/QBCSP participants), and polyp and adenoma detection and removal, including newer techniques to detect flat and depressed lesions. 3. Introduction of colonoscopy training initiatives for trainees that are aligned with NBCSP/QBCSP colonoscopy quality indicators, including measurement of training outcomes using objective quality indicators such as caecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate. 4. Introduction of standardised, interdisciplinary colonoscopy training to reduce apparent differences between specialties with regard to compliance with guideline recommendations, completion rates, and quality of polypectomy. 5. Improved quality of colonoscopy training by adoption of a UK-style training program with centres of excellence, incorporating newer, more objective assessment methods, use of a variety of training tools such as simulation and rotations of trainees between metropolitan, rural, and public and private sector training facilities. 6. Incorporation of NHMRC guidelines into colonoscopy information systems to improve documentation, provide guideline recommendations at the point of care, use of gastroenterology nurse coordinators to facilitate compliance with guidelines and provision of guideline-based colonoscopy referral letters for GPs. 7. Provision of information and education about the NBCSP/QBCSP, bowel cancer risk factors, including family history and polyp surveillance guidelines, for participants, GPs and proceduralists. 8. Improved referral of NBCSP/QBCSP participants found to have a high-risk family history of bowel cancer to appropriate genetics services.

Clinical tips: Bowel cancer screening

So, when was the last time you checked your poo? Checking your poo – it probably is not a conversation many patients want to have with their pharmacists. But bowel cancer screening remains an important tool in cancer detection...

Modulatory roles of microRNAs in the regulation of different signalling pathways in large bowel cancer stem cells

There are emerging data to suggest that microRNAs (miRNAs) have significant roles in regulating the function of normal cells and cancer stem cells (CSCs). This review aims to analyse the roles of miRNAs in the regulation of colon CSCs through their interaction with various signalling pathways. Studies showed a large number of miRNAs that are reported to be deregulated in colon CSCs. However, few of the studies available were able to outline the function of miRNAs in colon CSCs and uncover their signalling pathways. From those miRNAs, which are better described, miR-21 followed by miR-34, miR-200 and miR-215 are the most reported miRNAs to have roles in colon CSC regulation. In particular, miRNAs have been reported to regulate the stemness features of colon CSCs mainly via Wnt/B-catenin and Notch signalling pathways. Additionally, miRNAs have been reported to act on processes involving CSCs through cell cycle regulation genes and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. The relative paucity of data available on the significance of miRNAs in CSCs means that new studies will be of great importance to determine their roles and to identify the signalling pathways through which they operate. Such studies may in future guide further research to target these genes for more effective cancer treatment. miRNAs were shown to regulate the function of cancer stem cells in large bowel cancer by targeting a few key signalling pathways in cells.

Reasons for non-participation in the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES: To identify the reasons why some people do not participate in bowel cancer screening so that steps can be taken to improve informed decision-making.

DESIGN: Qualitative study, using focus groups with thematic analysis of data to identify, analyse and report patterns. Transcripts were repeatedly read and inductively coded using a phenomenological perspective, and organised into key themes.

SETTING: Belfast and Armagh, two areas of Northern Ireland with relatively low uptake of bowel cancer screening.

PARTICIPANTS: Ten women and 18 men in three single-gender focus groups (two male and one female), each with 9-10 participants. Study participants were recruited by convenience sampling from the general public and were eligible for, but had not taken part in, the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

RESULTS: Key themes identified were fear of cancer; the test procedure; social norms; past experience of cancer and screening; lack of knowledge or understanding about bowel cancer screening; and resulting behaviour towards the test. Fear about receiving bad news and reluctance to conduct the test themselves were reactions that participants seemed willing to overcome after taking part in open discussion about the test.

CONCLUSIONS: We identified barriers to participation in bowel cancer screening and used these insights to develop new materials to support delivery of the programme. Some of the issues raised have been identified in other UK settings, suggesting that knowledge about barriers, and strategies to improve uptake, may be generalisable.

Prebiotics and bowel cancer

Bowel cancer is a growing malignancy, with more than a million annual cases reported worldwide. It has been suggested that there is microbial involvement in onset of the disease and that an altered composition has previously been observed in those suffering from the malignancy, compared to healthy counterparts. The use of prebiotic functional foods to modify the colonic microflora may provide a method of reducing genotoxic potential within the colon, whilst offering-Protective strategies in the form of metabolites such as butyrate. The following review highlights some of the studies that demonstrate the potentia role for prebiotics as protective factors against bowel cancer.

Polyphenols, glucosinolates, dietary fibre and colon cancer: Understanding the potential of specific types of fruit and vegetables to reduce bowel cancer progression

Colorectal cancer is the third most prevalent cancer worldwide and the most common diet-related cancer, influenced by diets rich in red meat, low in plant foods and high in saturated fats. Observational studies have shown that fruit and vegetable intake may reduce colorectal cancer risks, although the precise bioactive components remain unclear. This review will outline the evidence for the role of polyphenols, glucosinolates and fibres against cancer progression in the gastrointestinal tract. Those bioactive compounds are considered protective agents against colon cancer, with evidence taken from epidemiological, human clinical, animal and in vitro studies. Various mechanisms of action have been postulated, such as the potential of polyphenols and glucosinolates to inhibit cancer cell growth and the actions of insoluble fibres as prebiotics and the evidence for these actions are detailed within. In addition, recent evidence suggests that polyphenols also have the potential to shift the gut ecology in a beneficial manner. Such actions of both fibre and polyphenols in the gastrointestinal tract and through interaction with gut epithelial cells may act in an additive manner to help explain why certain fruits and vegetables, but not all, act to differing extents to inhibit cancer incidence and progression. Indeed, a focus on the individual actions of such fruit and vegetable components, in particular polyphenols, glucosinolates and fibres is necessary to help explain which components are active in reducing gastrointestinal cancer risk.

A preliminary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program – demonstrating the potential value of comprehensive real world data

Background The complexity and cost of treating cancer patients is escalating rapidly and increasingly difficult decisions are being made regarding which interventions provide value for money. BioGrid Australia supports collection and analysis of comprehensive treatment and outcome data across multiple sites. Here we use preliminary data regarding the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) and stage-specific treatment costs for colorectal cancer (CRC) to demonstrate the potential value of real world data for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA).

Methods Data regarding the impact of NBCSP on stage at diagnosis was combined with stage-specific CRC treatment costs and existing literature. An incremental CEA was undertaken from a government healthcare perspective, comparing NBCSP to no-screening. The 2008 invited population (n=681,915) was modelled in both scenarios. Effectiveness was expressed as CRC-related life years saved (LYS). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

Results Over the lifetime and relative to no-screening, NBCSP was predicted to save 1,265 life-years, prevent 225 CRC cases and cost an additional $48.3 million, equivalent to a cost-effectiveness ratio of $38,217 per LYS. A scenario analysis assuming full participation improved this to $23,395.

Conclusions This preliminary CEA based largely on contemporary real world data suggests population-based FOBT screening for CRC is attractive. Planned ongoing data collection will enable repeated analyses over time, using the same methodology in the same patient populations, permitting an accurate analysis of the impact of new therapies and changing practice. Similar CEA using real world data related to other disease types and interventions appears desirable.

The national bowel cancer screening program

The Australian Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program was conducted in Mackay, Melbourne and Adelaide during 2003 and 2004. The primary aim was to provide information about the feasibility, acceptability and cost effectiveness of bowel cancer screening amongst the Australian population in both rural and urban areas. This presentation will present key results from the analysis of the pilot monitoring data and describe some implications of these results for the National Bowel Screening Program’s design.

Bowel cancer screening : how do we measure success?

A key part of monitoring and evaluating any health intervention is to define what constitutes success for that intervention and how we would measure whether or not the intervention has achieved this success. This presentation will present an overview of the objectives of the National Bowel Screening Program and what data are needed to monitor the program’s success in meeting these objectives.

The Australian bowel cancer screening pilot program : analysis of routinely collected screening data

This report presents analyses of monitoring data from the Australian Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program. The purpose of the analyses is to support the overall evaluation of the Pilot and to inform the planning of the proposed national bowel cancer screening program.