Evaluating the Referral Pathway for Colonoscopy in a District General Hospital (2025)

Type of publication:

Conference abstract

Author(s):

*Lakshmipathy G.R.; *Zaman H.; *Ball W.; *Smith M.

Citation:

British Journal of Surgery. Conference: 49th ASiT Annual Surgical Conference. Belfast United Kingdom. 112(Supplement 10) (pp x109-x110), 2025. Date of Publication: 01 Jun 2025.

Abstract:

Objectives: We aim to evaluate: Method, urgency and appropriateness of colonoscopy referrals. Colonoscopies repeated within two years. Reasoning behind procedure modification or cancellation on the day Method: Data was collected between 5/1/24 and 28/2/24 using questionnaires completed by endoscopists. 112 colonoscopies in 51% (57) males and 49% (55) females were included. Result(s): The most common to least common referral sources are: Colorectal CNS telephone clinic 29(26%), consultant surgeon face-to-face Clinic 28(25%), triage system 14(12.5%), consultant surgeon telephone clinic 13(11.6%), others 13(11.6%), gastroenterology consultant face-to-face clinic 11(9.8%) and gastroenterologist telephone clinic 1(0.8%). Majority of referrals were two-week wait or urgent 97 (86.5%). Endoscopists were 18-week team 70(62.5%) followed by trust-employed consultant surgeons 26(23%). Four patients had repeat colonoscopies in last two years. 9(8%) scopes were modified or cancelled. Conclusion(s): Except for one scope, repeat scopes within two years had valid indications. Majority of the modified or cancelled scopes originated from telephone consultation referrals. Reasons for cancellation on the day included lack of fitness for scopy, ineffective bowel preparation, patient factor like uncontrolled atrial fibrillation on the day and no indication for colonoscopy. Modifications included switching from requests for flexible sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy; colonoscopy to CTVC and vice versa. In light of this study, we aim to provide face-to-face appointments for patients referred through the urgent suspected cancer pathway. We plan to expand this study to evaluate the popularity of CTVC use as an alternative modality when colonoscopy is not possible.

DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znaf128.znaf128.438