'Chaos scheduler' boosts endoscopy utilization
“We were surprised by how much of an impact just one additional staff member on our scheduling team was able to have on the utilization rate at our endoscopy centers."
-
12/08/2025
-
by Doug Brunk
The demand for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures is steadily rising, fueled by expanding procedural capabilities and updated screening guidelines. At the same time, practices are grappling with access to specialists, anticipated workforce shortages, and declining reimbursements from both commercial insurers and government payers. Together, these pressures underscore the need for more efficient scheduling within endoscopy units to accelerate patient access, reduce delays, and keep practices operating smoothly.
In a practice management review published in Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology, first author Joshua L. Hudson, MD, a gastroenterologist and Director of Clinical Operations in the Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and colleagues highlighted previously reported strategies for improving endoscopy scheduling and throughput, and shared their own experiences at UNC, a large tertiary-care academic medical center.
In their review, the authors noted that existing recommendations to optimize endoscopy unit performance in terms of scheduling are largely conceptual, with few studies reporting measurable outcomes. For example, a discrete-event simulation study at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital demonstrated potential efficiency gains in the pre-procedure area and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Adding staff in the pre-procedure area increased procedural volume by 14.6 cases per week, while reducing PACU recovery times to 30 minutes could yield an additional 13.8 cases per week. “Taken together, these findings highlight the tension between theoretical modeling and real-world feasibility,” Dr. Hudson and colleagues wrote. “The literature on endoscopy unit optimization remains limited in scope, with relatively little reporting on actual implementation outcomes.”
To address these gaps, the authors shared their own experience improving pre-procedure workflows at UNC, highlighting practical ways to make targeted changes within the routine operations of an endoscopy unit.
Successful strategies include:
-
Standardized Protocols and Forms: The authors created a uniform anti-thrombotic form that provides guidance on commonly used anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents, including recommended hold ties, to facilitate consistent practice. Forms can be shared electronically or embedded in the electronic medical record using SmartPhrases, allowing referring providers to document relevant information efficiently.
-
Dedicated Antithrombotic Workflow: Patients on anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy can be triaged into a dedicated queue managed by trained nurses who coordinate with the prescribing provider. Once the necessary documentation is received, patients can be transitioned to a “ready-to-schedule” queue, ensuring clarity and reducing delays.
-
Enhanced Patient Communication: Clear instructions regarding medication management can be provided through electronic messaging or patient portals, supporting adherence and improving patient safety.
Last-minute appointment cancellations are another common headache for endoscopy units. At UNC, an average of 12 endoscopic procedures per week were unfilled due to cancellations that occurred 1–3 days before the date of service, a term the authors referred to as the “chaos period.” To address this, the authors hired a dedicated “chaos scheduler” whose only responsibility is to reassign cancelled slots.
From the launch of the chaos scheduler model at UNC 89% of patients successfully completed procedures. Weekly, an average of 11.7 slots that would have remained vacant were filled, increasing utilization in ambulatory endoscopy units from 83–87% to consistently above 95%. In higher-complexity units, utilization improved from 88% to 92%. The authors estimate that over the course of a year, this approach could allow 550–600 more procedures to be completed without needing major new equipment or facilities.
“We were surprised by how much of an impact just one additional staff member on our scheduling team was able to have on the utilization rate at our endoscopy centers,” Dr. Hudson said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News. “Particularly at our high-volume, ASC-like unit, the addition of the ‘chaos scheduler’ significantly improved room utilization. While hiring a new staff member is an investment, this was and remains an investment that has paid dividends back to our practice and to patient access.”
At the same time, the authors introduced an automated reminder system using both phone calls and electronic messaging to reduce no-shows and same-day cancellations. “Prior studies in gastroenterology and other ambulatory specialties have shown that automated reminders can decrease no-show rates by 20–30%, while also improving patient adherence to pre-procedure instructions, such as bowel preparation,” they wrote.
In Dr. Hudson’s opinion, a key take-home message of the review “is to work closely with your endoscopy scheduling teams and listen to their input and feedback,” he said. “Much of the processes for our practice surrounding the chaos scheduler and scheduling standardization came from our scheduling team. Their ongoing leadership has been key to the success of these measures.”
The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
Summary content
7 Key Takeaways
-
1
Developed a paper-based colorimetric sensor array for chemical threat detection.
-
2
Can detect 12 chemical agents, including industrial toxins.
-
3
Production cost is under 20 cents per chip.
-
4
Utilizes dye-loaded silica particles on self-adhesive paper.
-
5
Provides rapid, simultaneous identification through image analysis.
-
6
Inspired by the mammalian olfactory system for pattern recognition.
-
7
Future developments include a machine learning-enabled reader device.
The guidelines emphasize four-hour gastric emptying studies over two-hour testing. How do you see this affecting diagnostic workflows in practice?
Dr. Staller: Moving to a four-hour solid-meal scintigraphy will actually simplify decision-making. The two-hour reads miss a meaningful proportion of delayed emptying; standardizing on four hours reduces false negatives and the “maybe gastroparesis” purgatory that leads to repeat testing. Practically, it means closer coordination with nuclear medicine (longer slots, consistent standardized meal), updating order sets to default to a four-hour protocol, and educating front-line teams so patients arrive appropriately prepped. The payoff is fewer equivocal studies and more confident treatment plans.
Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the only agents conditionally recommended for initial therapy. How does this align with what is being currently prescribed?
Dr. Staller: This largely mirrors real-world practice. Metoclopramide remains the only FDA-approved prokinetic for gastroparesis, and short “pulsed” erythromycin courses are familiar to many of us—recognizing tachyphylaxis limits durability. Our recommendation is “conditional” because the underlying evidence is modest and patient responses are heterogeneous, but it formalizes what many clinicians already do: start with metoclopramide (lowest effective dose, limited duration, counsel on neurologic adverse effects) and reserve erythromycin for targeted use (exacerbations, bridging).
Several agents, including domperidone and prucalopride, received recommendations against first-line use. How will that influence discussions with patients who ask about these therapies?
Dr. Staller: Two points I share with patients: evidence and access/safety. For domperidone, the data quality is mixed, and US access is through an FDA IND mechanism; you’re committing patients to EKG monitoring and a non-trivial administrative lift. For prucalopride, the gastroparesis-specific evidence isn’t strong enough yet to justify first-line use. So, our stance is not “never,” it’s just “not first.” If someone fails or cannot tolerate initial therapy, we can revisit these options through shared decision-making, setting expectations about benefit, monitoring, and off-label use. The guideline language helps clinicians have a transparent, evidence-based conversation at the first visit.
The guidelines suggest reserving procedures like G-POEM and gastric electrical stimulation for refractory cases. In your practice, how do you decide when a patient is “refractory” to medical therapy?
Dr. Staller: I define “refractory” with three anchors.
1. Adequate trials of foundational care: dietary optimization and glycemic control; an antiemetic; and at least one prokinetic at appropriate dose/duration (with intolerance documented if stopped early).
2. Persistent, function-limiting symptoms: ongoing nausea/vomiting, weight loss, dehydration, ER visits/hospitalizations, or malnutrition despite the above—ideally tracked with a validated instrument (e.g., GCSI) plus nutritional metrics.
3. Objective correlation: delayed emptying on a standardized 4-hour solid-meal study that aligns with the clinical picture (and medications that slow emptying addressed).
At that point, referral to a center with procedural expertise for G-POEM or consideration of gastric electrical stimulation becomes appropriate, with multidisciplinary evaluation (GI, nutrition, psychology, and, when needed, surgery).
What role do you see dietary modification and glycemic control playing alongside pharmacologic therapy in light of these recommendations?
Dr. Staller: They’re the bedrock. A small-particle, lower-fat, calorie-dense diet—often leaning on nutrient-rich liquids—can meaningfully reduce symptom burden. Partnering with dietitians early pays dividends. For diabetes, tighter glycemic control can improve gastric emptying and symptoms; I explicitly review medications that can slow emptying (e.g., opioids; consider timing/necessity of GLP-1 receptor agonists) and encourage continuous glucose monitor-informed adjustments. Pharmacotherapy sits on top of those pillars; without them, medications will likely underperform.
The guideline notes “considerable unmet need” in gastroparesis treatment. Where do you think future therapies or research are most urgently needed?
Dr. Staller: I see three major areas.
1. Truly durable prokinetics: agents that improve emptying and symptoms over months, with better safety than legacy options (e.g., next-gen motilin/ghrelin agonists, better-studied 5-HT4 strategies).
2. Endotyping and biomarkers: we need to stop treating all gastroparesis as one disease. Clinical, physiologic, and microbiome/omic signatures that predict who benefits from which therapy (drug vs G-POEM vs GES) would transform care.
3. Patient-centered trials: larger, longer RCTs that prioritize validated symptom and quality-of-life outcomes, include nutritional endpoints, and reflect real-world medication confounders.
Our guideline intentionally highlights these gaps to hopefully catalyze better trials and smarter referral pathways.
Dr. Staller is with the Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.