Abstract
Abstract
Background
Surgical coastal expeditions (SCEs) have been organized in Greenland for many years. They aim to provide small coastal hospitals with specialist services, such as endoscopies (SCEEs), by deploying specialist personnel, surgeons, and the necessary equipment to the hospital temporarily. The purpose of this program is to increase accessibility for patients, while simultaneously reducing the costs associated with patient transport to the central hospital.
Methods
This retrospective pilot review of medical records identified quality indicators, such as bowel cleansing (BP), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates (ADR, AADR), to investigate the status and establish a system for quality monitoring of SCEsE in Greenland.
Results
During two SCEs (8 working days), 89 SCEE were performed at Qaqortoq and Sisimiut Hospitals. The 60 patients who underwent colonoscopy included 32 men and 28 women with a mean age of 61 years (range 24–80 years). The unadjusted CIR was 91.7%. In eight (13.3%) examinations, bowel preparation was rated as unsatisfactory, resulting in two incomplete procedures. The ADR and AADR were 35% and 11.7%, respectively, and one cancer was detected (1.7%).
Conclusion
The results showed satisfactory ADR, AADR, and CIR levels. However, the review also highlighted the need for increased attention to BP by developing a new procedure that considers differences due to specific eating habits in Greenland and provides much better information for patients. The review provided a snapshot of the quality of colonoscopies in Greenland, highlighting the necessity to continue this process to ensure that the quality is up to standard. Furthermore, SCE helps reduce the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy by avoiding the need for patient air transport; instead of 77 round trips (61,830 km), only 8 (6440 km) were required.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference13 articles.
1. Cole AM, Jackson JE, Doescher M (2012) Urban-rural disparities in colorectal cancer screening: cross-sectional analysis of 1998–2005 data from the Centers for Disease Control’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study. Cancer Med 1:350–356
2. Kleemann N (2022) Greenland in figures. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk
3. Evans DV, Cole AM, Norris TE (2015) Colonoscopy in rural communities: a systematic review of the frequency and quality. Rural Remote Health 15:3057
4. Azzopardi J, DeWitt DE (2012) Quality and safety issues in procedural rural practice: a prospective evaluation of current quality and safety guidelines in 3000 colonoscopies. Rural Remote Health 12:1949
5. Holub JL, Morris C, Fagnan LJ, Logan JR, Michaels LC, Lieberman DA (2018) Quality of colonoscopy performed in rural practice: experience from the clinical outcomes research initiative and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. J Rural Health 34:s75–s83