Background and study aims: Open-access endoscopy has been developed to meet the increasing demand for endoscopy, and guidelines have been produced for selecting suitable patients. This study was designed to assess the appropriateness of these guidelines in patients referred to open-access endoscopy services at a district general hospital.
Patients and methods: A series of 1000 consecutive patients referred for open-access endoscopy was audited. The waiting time was 18 weeks and patients continued to take any acid-suppressing medication prescribed by their general practitioner. The endoscopy findings were compared in those who met and did not meet currently accepted guidelines. In addition the outcome for all patients in whom gastro-oesophageal malignancy was detected was reviewed.
Results: 301 patients (30.1 %) did not meet accepted guidelines for open-access endoscopy. No cases of malignancy would have been missed if the guidelines had been implemented. Gastro-oesophageal malignancy was detected in 17 patients, all of whom died. When malignancy was excluded, there were no statistically significant differences between the detection rates for pathology in the two groups. The commonest finding, in 32.3 % of patients, was of a normal endoscopic appearance.
Conclusions: If current guidelines are applied, all cases of malignancy may be picked up, but identification of patients with curable disease is poor. Use of the guidelines did not select patients with other upper gastrointestinal disease, although many patients were receiving acid-suppression therapy at the time of their endoscopy. Implementation of test-and-treat strategies would result in a significant reduction in the workload of open-access endoscopy.