An open-access endoscopy screen correctly and safely identifies patients for conscious sedation
MetadataShow full item record
CitationKothari, Darshan, Joseph D. Feuerstein, Laureen Moss, Julie D’Souza, Kerri Montanaro, Daniel A. Leffler, and Sunil G. Sheth. 2016. “An open-access endoscopy screen correctly and safely identifies patients for conscious sedation.” Gastroenterology Report 4 (4): 281-286. doi:10.1093/gastro/gow020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gow020.
AbstractBackground 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 (<1.0%) were inappropriately booked for conscious sedation. The most common reasons for considering anesthesiologist-assisted sedation were chronic opioid, benzodiazepine and/or alcohol use and advanced liver disease. This suggests that these entities could be included in screening processes for open-access scheduling.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:30370957
- HMS Scholarly Articles