An integrated electronic health record-based workflow to improve management of colonoscopy-generated pathology results.

Purpose: Managing and communicating colonoscopy-generated pathology results and appropriate follow-up recommendations can be challenging. To improve this process, we developed and implemented a standardized electronic health record-based intervention with built-in decision support.
Methods: Fourteen attending endoscopists performed enough colonoscopies to qualify for the study. For each, we randomly sampled and abstracted data from 35 colonoscopies that met prespecified inclusion criteria during both the pre-intervention and also post-intervention periods. Follow-up recommendations were compared to guidelines. We used the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to assess the change in the proportion of cases with guideline-concordant results, the proportion with a documented follow-up result letter, and the median time to letter completion. A brief survey assessed endoscopists' satisfaction with the intervention.
Results: In total, 1,947 colonoscopies were extracted, of which 968 met inclusion criteria. The proportion of follow-up recommendations that were guideline concordant increased from a median of 82.9% pre-intervention to 85.7% post-intervention ( P =0.72). The proportion of observations with a documented follow-up result letter increased from a median of 88.9% pre-intervention to 97.1% post-intervention ( P =0.07). The number of calendar days between the date of the colonoscopy and the date the letter was sent decreased from a median of 7.7 days pre-intervention to 6.8 days post-intervention ( P =0.79). Eighty-six percentage of endoscopists were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the overall process.
Conclusion: The intervention was not associated with a statistically significant increase in guideline-concordant recommendations or efficiency measures, perhaps due to high baseline performance. The intervention was well received by endoscopists and captured data necessary for important downstream processes.
Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.