Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2021 Jun;36(6):1666-1672.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06464-z. Epub 2021 Mar 31.

Increased Driving Distance to Screening Colonoscopy Negatively Affects Bowel Preparation Quality: an Observational Study

Amit Gupta  1 , Sameer D Saini  1   2 , Keith B Naylor  3
Affiliations
Observational Study

Increased Driving Distance to Screening Colonoscopy Negatively Affects Bowel Preparation Quality: an Observational Study

Amit Gupta et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Background: To prepare for colonoscopy, patients must consume a bowel purgative and travel from their home to the site of their procedure. The timing of bowel purgative ingestion predicts bowel preparation quality. Currently, it is not known if driving distance impacts bowel preparation quality or adenoma detection.

Objective: This study investigates the effect of driving distance on bowel preparation and adenoma detection.

Design: This is a cross-sectional retrospective analysis of outpatient screening colonoscopy procedures that were completed at an academic medical center.

Participants: A total of 5089 patients who completed screening colonoscopy across 3 procedure units were analyzed.

Main measures: Description of bowel preparation was dichotomized to either adequate or inadequate. Patient residential addresses were converted into geographic coordinates for geospatial analysis of driving distance to their colonoscopy site.

Key results: Median driving distance was 13.1 miles. Eighty-nine percent of patients had an adequate bowel preparation. The rate of adenoma detection was 37%. On multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance, endoscopist, and site, increasing driving distance (10-mile increments) was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.97), while adenoma detection was positively associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.88) but not with driving distance (odds ratio = 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.06). Driving distances of 30 miles or less were associated with adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio = 1.37; 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.72).

Conclusions: Increasing driving distance to screening colonoscopy was negatively associated with adequate bowel preparation but not adenoma detection. Among an academic medical center population, the likelihood of adequate bowel preparation was highest in patients traveling 30 miles or less to their screening colonoscopy. Patient driving distance to colonoscopy is an important consideration in optimizing screening colonoscopy quality.

Keywords: colonoscopy; quality assurance; screening; travel time.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Geographic distribution of outpatients who completed screening colonoscopy. Legend: formula image, University Hospital; formula image, University Hospital outpatients (n = 1495); formula image, East Ann Arbor Health Center; formula image, East Ann Arbor Health Center outpatients (n = 2423); formula image, Northville Health Center; formula image, Northville Health Center outpatients (n = 1171); formula image, all outpatients (n = 5089); formula image, State of Michigan census tract boundaries.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Odds ratios for an adequate bowel preparation according to driving distance to procedure site. Legend: formula image, odds ratio; formula image, 95% confidence interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(1):307–23. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter CM, Webber EM, O’Connor E, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Jama. 2016;315(23):2576–94. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.3332. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2015;81(1):31–53. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Serper M, Gawron AJ, Smith SG, Pandit AA, Dahlke AR, Bojarski EA, et al. Patient factors that affect quality of colonoscopy preparation. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2014;12(3):451–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.036. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, Fanelli RD, Hyman N, Shen B, et al. A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2006;20(7):1147–60. doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-0152-y. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources