Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WRM20, are there facilities that cut corners? Wonder what that looks like...
It would look like the facility in NYC that was reusing the disposable endorectal coils used during MRI exams of the prostate. The coils are inserted into the rectum to give a closer look at the prostate gland. At that time, 12 years ago, they cost > $150 billed to the patient, as they were a one time use item. Except this facility decided billing the patient and then reusing them to bill again was even better... until they were caught.
This facility was not certified by the various entities that assure a basic standard is being met at an imaging center. This is likely not an isolated incident in profit driven imaging centers.
His colon was perforated and he started hemorrhaging after he got home. He died within the month. Of course he was 80 and from I have been reading colonoscopies should not be given in elderly patients (80+) because the intestinal lining gets thin and weak and is more apt to perforate or have other complications.
However, my mother (83) still gets them every year or so despite the fact that every one has been normal.
His colon was perforated and he started hemorrhaging after he got home. He died within the month. Of course he was 80 and from I have been reading colonoscopies should not be given in elderly patients (80+) because the intestinal lining gets thin and weak and is more apt to perforate or have other complications.
However, my mother (83) still gets them every year or so despite the fact that every one has been normal.
That's an awful thing to have happened to your stepfather.:
As I understand it, colonoscopies on older people ( ie, over 75 yrs old) aren't recommended except on an individual "as needed" basis, ie, when the patient has a history of colon cancer or an intestinal disorder ( such as Crohn's disease) where the progression is monitored and treatment guided by the findings in colonoscopies.
I can't imagine why anyone would have a yearly colonoscopy, unless it was to follow an active intestinal disease process ( like cancer or inflammatory bowel disease) and guide treatment, or something like that. With normal findings I can't imagine why any doctor would even agree to do colonoscopies, let alone recommend them that frequently, no matter the age of the patient. Is there some specific reason your mother has them done that often?
I recently had a colonoscopy (along with an EGD), to determine the location of GI bleeding, the source was found in the stomach, the colonoscopy was clean. The doc recommended another colonoscopy in 10 yrs, but I will be 80 by then, so I doubt I will have that done, at least not for colon cancer screening purposes. I think I am done with colonoscopies, and I am not sure I would have had this one had it not been for the positivd occult blood. It looks to me as though my primary doc ( and a few other docs around here as well, from what I hear,) are using fecal occult blood testing as periodic colon cancer screening in patients at low to moderate risk of developing colon cancer.
A friend on another health group sent me info on this issue, I had never thought of it, but I think I do recall a incident at UCLA and didn't pay that much attention. There are many other links on this subject too. Something to think about if one has not already. If this does not belong here, please move to best place ... it needs to be circulated.
I was just reading the second link...the results are reported in a strange manner:
The endoscopes were examined after undergoing the first phase of a widely accepted cleaning process following being used to look at patients' gastrointestinal tracts.
In the first phase, a manual cleaning is done with an enzymatic agent, and a technician then flushes the device. That first phase is meant to get rid of bio-dirt that can shelter potentially dangerous microorganism from the high-level disinfectant that is used to soak the endoscopes in the second cleaning phase, Bommarito said.
He said that if the scope isn't sufficiently cleaned during the first phase, the microorganism can survive the second phase—and remain in the device when used on future patients. "It's a dirty scope," he said.
It is odd that they report on the level of cleanliness that seems to be lacking after the first phase of the cleaning process...but say nothing about after the second phase. I mean, it is interesting - but I want to know if cleaning failed to hit the standards at the END of the process and they say nothing about that. Which to me leaves the possibility that everything ended up fine but someone was looking for a story to report so they focused on the intermediate cleaning stage.
Anyway, I'm not overly concerned - it does not appear to negate the overall benefit of having a colonoscopy and I would guess that those in poor health already are most at risk of infection since they mention the infection rate was worse if you'd been hospitalized just prior to the procedure.
I was just reading the second link...the results are reported in a strange manner:
The endoscopes were examined after undergoing the first phase of a widely accepted cleaning process following being used to look at patients' gastrointestinal tracts.
In the first phase, a manual cleaning is done with an enzymatic agent, and a technician then flushes the device. That first phase is meant to get rid of bio-dirt that can shelter potentially dangerous microorganism from the high-level disinfectant that is used to soak the endoscopes in the second cleaning phase, Bommarito said.
He said that if the scope isn't sufficiently cleaned during the first phase, the microorganism can survive the second phase—and remain in the device when used on future patients. "It's a dirty scope," he said.
It is odd that they report on the level of cleanliness that seems to be lacking after the first phase of the cleaning process...but say nothing about after the second phase. I mean, it is interesting - but I want to know if cleaning failed to hit the standards at the END of the process and they say nothing about that. Which to me leaves the possibility that everything ended up fine but someone was looking for a story to report so they focused on the intermediate cleaning stage.
Anyway, I'm not overly concerned - it does not appear to negate the overall benefit of having a colonoscopy and I would guess that those in poor health already are most at risk of infection since they mention the infection rate was worse if you'd been hospitalized just prior to the procedure.
They focused on the initial cleaning because if that is inadequate it is difficult for the disinfectant to perform. It would be a bit like working in the garden, getting dirt under your fingernails, and expecting hand sanitizer to work. You have to physically remove the dirt from under your nails.
Here's one of the main takeaways from the cnbc link:
"If everyone aged 50 years or older had regular screening tests, at least 60 percent of deaths from this cancer could be avoided"
I think it is wonderful of you to create a thread to emphasize that colonoscopies save lives!!
Well done, jaminhealth!
Yes it does give factual information for both sides of the story!
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Yes, scopes should be disinfected properly.
Absolutely and I am going to bet that 99.9% of them are. But I am a gambler by nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness
I was having regular colonoscopies and a few years ago decided to do some research - WOW - is all I have to say . . . I have decided to have no more.
My understanding of disease has changed since I first started getting checked. I won't go into detail, but I don't believe the standard mainstream ideas regarding who gets colon cancer and why.
I believe the screening procedure is largely unnecessary and is one of those procedures (like mammograms - another questionable procedure) that enriches doctors, testing facilities, etc.
Thanks for sharing this info - even though you will always get pushback from the mainstream medical promotors, one or two people might be educated, who would have not been otherwise - so ignore the haters and keep posting (and maybe be prepared for the haters and their predictable comments).
Yes, I was infuriated that a particular hospital initially gave me a "clean bill of health" then arbitrarily insisted I had further procedures. Needless to say they weren't happy with my decision!
For those who have a family medical history for colon cancer and polyps I think it is a risk worth taking, but that's just me and as usual everyone can make up their own mind as to how important it is for them to take this risk. I will take this risk due to my family's medical history. Nothing would persuade me otherwise.
They focused on the initial cleaning because if that is inadequate it is difficult for the disinfectant to perform. It would be a bit like working in the garden, getting dirt under your fingernails, and expecting hand sanitizer to work. You have to physically remove the dirt from under your nails.
I get that...but I then want to know, rather than assuming the hand sanitizer (in your example) CAN'T work, I want an actual measure of the degree that it failed at the point it would actually get used for the next test. In this case the intermediate metric really doesn't mean much compared to the endpoint.
Look, $hit happens. Car's are recalled. Lettuce contaminated with e coli. B1B ejection seat's don't work. Being effected is odds similar to winning the lottery.
Everything around us has side effects.
That is not a reason to not have an uncomfortable test that can save your life
If you want to die a miserable death that could have been prevented years ago, THAT'S ON YOU! I'll take my chance to possibly live longer
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
:
