Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 231–243 | Cite as

Evaluation of an Intervention to Increase Screening Colonoscopy in an Urban Public Hospital Setting

  • Denis Nash
  • Sulaiman Azeez
  • David Vlahov
  • Melissa Schori


Only 50% of New Yorkers aged 50 and over reported ever being screened for colorectal cancer by any modality according to a recent household survey. The objective of this investigation was to assess the impact of a hospital-based intervention aimed at eliminating health care system barriers to timely colorectal cancer screening at Lincoln Medical Center, a large, urban public hospital in one of the nation's poorest census tracts. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all colonoscopies performed over an 11-month period, during which a multi-pronged intervention to increase the number of screening colonoscopies took place. Two “patient navigators” were hired during the study period to provide continuity for colonoscopy patients. A Direct Endoscopic Referral System (DERS) was also implemented. Enhancements to the gastrointestinal (GI) suite were also made to improve operational efficiency. Immediately following the introduction of the patient navigators, there was a dramatic and sustained decline in the broken appointment rates for both screening and diagnostic colonoscopy (from 67% in May of 2003 to 5% in June of 2003). The likelihood of keeping the appointment for colonoscopy after the patient navigator intervention increased by nearly 3-fold (relative risk = 2.6, 95% CI 2.2–3.0). The rate of screening colonoscopies increased from 56.8 per month to 119 per month. The screening colonoscopy coverage provided by this facility among persons aged 50 and over in surrounding Zip codes increased from 5.2 to 15.6% (RR 3.0, 95% CI 1.9–4.7). Efforts to increase the number of screening colonoscopies were highly successful, due in large part to the influence of patient navigators, a streamlined referral system, and GI suite enhancements. These findings suggest that there are significant health-care system barriers to colonoscopy that, when addressed, could have a significant impact on screening colonoscopy rates in the general population.


Colorectal cancer Colonoscopy Patient navigators Direct endoscopic referral system Screening 


  1. 1.
    Cancer Facts and Figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CNN Money, Best Places to Live, New York, New York. Accessed March 21, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Summary of Vital Statistics 2002. New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pignone M, Rich M, Teutsch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. Jul 16 2002;137(2):132–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weir HK, Thun MJ, Hankey BF, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J Natl Cancer Inst. Sep 3 2003;95(17):1276–1299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML, Davis WW, Ballard-Barbash R. Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst. Nov 21 2001;93(22):1704–1713.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giovannucci E. Modifiable risk factors for colon cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Dec 2002;31(4):925–943.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thorpe LE, Mostashari F, Hajat A, et al. Colon cancer screening practices in New York City, 2003: results of a large random-digit dialed telephone survey. Cancer. Sep 1 2005;104(5):1075–1082.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vlahov D, Ahern J, Vazquez BS, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in screening for colon cancer: report from the New York Cancer Project. Ethn Dis. 2005 Winter;15(1):76–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feldman G, McCord C, Frieden TR. City Health Information: Preventing colorectal cancer. New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. Feb 2003;124(2):544–560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Byers T, Levin B, Rothenberger D, Dodd GD, Smith RA. American Cancer Society guidelines for screening and surveillance for early detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: update 1997. American Cancer Society Detection and Treatment Advisory Group on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. May–Jun 1997;47(3):154–160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berg AO. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations and rationale. Am J Nurs. Sep 2002;102(9):107–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karpati AM, Lu X, Mostashari F, Thorpe L, Frieden TR. Community Health Profiles: The Health of Highbridge and Morrisania, Bronx. New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thorpe L, Mostashari F, Feldman G, et al. Cancer Screening in New York City: We can do much better. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finney Rutten LJ, Nelson DE, Meissner HI. Examination of population-wide trends in barriers to cancer screening from a diffusion of innovation perspective (1987–2000). Prev Med Mar. 2004;38(3):258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health 2000. Washington, District of Columbia: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diez Roux AV, Merkin SS, Arnett D, et al. Neighborhood of residence and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. Jul 12 2001;345(2):99–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yen IH, Syme SL. The social environment and health: a discussion of the epidemiologic literature. Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:287–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diez Roux AV. Invited commentary: places, people, and health. Am J Epidemiol. Mar 15 2002;155(6):516–519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O'Campo P, Xue X, Wang MC, Caughy M. Neighborhood risk factors for low birthweight in Baltimore: a multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. Jul 1997;87(7):1113–1118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh S, Darroch JE, Frost JJ. Socioeconomic disadvantage and adolescent women's sexual and reproductive behavior: the case of five developed countries. Fam Plann Perspect. Nov–Dec 2001;33(6):251–258, 289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Nash
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sulaiman Azeez
  • David Vlahov
  • Melissa Schori
  1. 1.Center for Urban Epidemiologic StudiesThe New York Academy of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology, International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment ProgramsColumbia University, Mailman School of Public HealthNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Columbia University USA

Personalised recommendations