Quality in Colonoscopy

Enhancing the Quality of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Current Indicators and Future Trends

The quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) is crucial and carries significant consequences for patient outcomes, the employment of healthcare resources, and the future course of gastroenterology as a medical specialty. In this review, we navigate through the terrain of the Quality Indicators (QIs) for EGD, shedding light on their indispensable function in ensuring and augmenting the quality of patient care throughout the pre-procedural, intra-procedural, post-procedural, and outcome-oriented facets of the practice. We delve into the comprehensive scope of the QIs and the challenges impeding the delivery of high-quality EGD, from variability in practitioner training and patient compliance to the systemic limitations of current QIs and the barriers hindering the adoption of advanced techniques. Future directions for bolstering the quality of EGD are highlighted, encapsulating the integration of emergent endoscopic technologies, the evolution of patient-centered metrics, the refinement of endoscopist training and credentialing processes, and the promise held by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Particular emphasis is placed on the role of advanced endoscopic techniques and equipment in enhancing EGD quality. This article presents a cogent narrative, promoting the pursuit of excellence in EGD as an ever-evolving endeavor that necessitates the collective dedication of clinicians, researchers, educators, and policymakers.

Adenoma Detection Rate in Average-Risk Population: An Observational Consecutive Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopy is considered the most effective tool for reducing colorectal cancer-related morbidity, the age at which average-risk individuals begin colonoscopic screening is undetermined. This study aimed to compare the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates according to age and sex in a large average-risk population in the rural areas of Eastern China.

METHODS

This observational, single-center, retrospective study included patients with average colorectal cancer risk and examined the adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates using age intervals of 5 years. We also compared the size and age of patients with and without advanced adenoma.

RESULTS

We included 18 928 patients with a median age of 54 years (range 15-90 years), including 10 143 men and 8785 women. The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates were 17.08% and 5.24%, respectively, and increased with age in the whole population. The adenoma detection rates increased from 8.97% (aged 40-44) to 14.98% (aged 45-49) and 6.24% (aged 45-49) to 11.00% (aged 50-54) in men and women (both P < .001), respectively. The advanced adenoma detection rates increased from 2.19% (aged 40-44) to 4.76% (aged 45-49) and 1.89% (aged 45-49) to 3.13% (aged 50-54) in men (P = .002) and women (P = .056), respectively. Patients with advanced adenomas were significantly older than those with non-advanced adenomas (P < .001). The tumors in the advanced adenoma group were significantly larger than those in the non-advanced adenoma group (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The adenoma and advanced adenoma detection rates increased significantly in average-risk population aged 45 years and older, especially in men.

The Effectiveness of a Low-Cost Personalized Educational Program on the Quality of Bowel Cleansing Among Patients Undergoing a Colonoscopy

In relation to endoscopic practices, particularly a colonoscopy, patient education is required to maximize the quality of bowel preparation. Thus, the intention of this study is to examine how personalized patient education prior to a colonoscopy influences the quality of bowel preparation. A quasi-experimental post-test design was employed at the Kurdistan Center for Gastroenterology Hepatology and the Ebin Sina Center in Iraq from December 21, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Of 270 participants, 219 were selected for data analysis. The mean age ( SD ) of the participants was 41.18 (15.22), with a median of 41 years and a slightly higher percentage (58.4%) of females in comparison with males (41.6%). The bowel preparation quality of the control and intervention groups in the two centers was based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores and there was a significant difference ( p < .001) of M ± SD between the control (5.79 ± 1.123) and experimental (7.52 ± 1.225) groups. Findings suggest a personalized educational program is having a significant impact on increasing the quality of bowel preparation.

Updates, Controversies, and Emerging Approaches in Colorectal Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Despite the threatening statistics, the US burden for CRC has been decreasing, which is likely multifactorial and has partial contribution from widespread timely screening, more advanced CRC treatment, and daily aspirin use in some patients. While overall death rate from CRC decreased by approximately a half between 1975 and 2012, epidemiologic studies demonstrate that CRC incidence is increasing in the younger population. This pattern has prompted the American Cancer Society (ACS) to revise their guidelines. In this review, we plan to discuss the most recent changes in guidelines, data to support them, controversies concerning CRC screening methods, age to start and to stop screening, and post-colonoscopy/polypectomy surveillance guidelines.

Effect of Body Size on Quality of Bowel Preparation Among Patients Experiencing Colonoscopy

The body size of patients is considered to have an impact on the quality of bowel preparation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of body mass index (BMI) on bowel preparation and prediction of unprepared patients who underwent colonoscopies. A retrospective study was undertaken with data retrieved from health records at the Center for Gastroenterology and Hepatology in Sulaymaniyah City of 12,527 colonoscopies carried out between February 2012 and December 2018. From the 12,527 records, a total of 9,659 colonoscopy examinations were included in this study. The results showed 21.3% unacceptable colon preparations: 15% poor and 6.3% inadequate. Patients with BMI of 25 and greater accounted for 36.1%. No significant association was found between increased BMI with inadequate preparation (odds ratio [OR]: 1.104, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.869-1.401, p value .418 and OR: 0.988, 95% CI: 0.813-1.201, p value .903). However, inadequate preparation could be associated with underweight females, who report constipation, and the elderly. Although there has been shown to be in practice an adverse bias toward patients with a high BMI, this study has shown that an increased body size does not interfere with the quality of bowel preparation or resultant colonoscopy.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre-malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre-malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high-quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.

Synchronous pathologic findings in patients with colorectal cancer and preoperative incomplete colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend perioperative complete colonoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) to reduce the risk of metachronous carcinoma. Our aim was to verify these recommendations by examining the residual colon of patients with incomplete preoperative colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included patients with the initial diagnosis of CRC and preoperative incomplete or no colonoscopy. Postoperative colonoscopies were investigated to identify synchronous lesions.

RESULTS

In two-thirds of the patients, synchronous lesions could be detected. In 78% of the cases, the lesion was located proximal of the endpoint of the initial colonoscopy and therefore undiscovered. Two-thirds of the synchronous lesions were adenomata.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete perioperative colonoscopy in patients with CRC should be performed to reduce the rate of metachronous carcinoma. Postoperative completion of preoperative insufficiently colonoscoped patients is recommended.

Analysis of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Guangzhou, 2011-2015

Objective

To analyze the detection rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps by population‐based screening in Guangzhou.

Methods

From January 2011 to December 2015, the residents aged 30‐79 were selected for CRC screening. The residents were conducted Questionnaires and/or FOBT to assess high‐risk groups, the free colonoscopy examination was recommended, and the results were evaluated in detail.

Results

There were 98 927 residents involving screening, 5306 high‐risk residents identified (males 1859 and females 3447), and 4713 subjects underwent colonoscopy (males 1690 and females 3023). CRC was seen in 55 individuals (males 28 and females 27), and the detection rates in male were higher than in female (P = 0.019). And the detection rates increasing with age, for people over 60 years old, were obviously higher than those younger (x² = 18.64, P = 0.000924).

The polyps were seen in 1458 (30.94%) cases， and 1420 subjects received pathological examination (adenomas 971 and non‐adenomatous polyps 449). Advanced adenomas were seen in 462 cases (males 240 and females 222) and 509 cases of non‐advanced adenomas (males 255 and females 254). For advanced adenomas, the detection rates in male were higher than female (14.20% vs 7.34%, P = 2.64 × 10⁻¹⁴). For the detection rates of adenomas or advanced adenomas by age, the people over 40 years were higher than younger (20.91% vs 3.61% P = 7.87 × 10⁻⁶; 9.94% vs 2.41%, P = 0.009).

Conclusions

For Guangzhou residents, the detection rates of CRC and adenoma were 1.17% and 20.60%. The detection rates of CRC increasing with age, for people over 60 years old, were obviously higher than those younger. But for people over 40 years, the detection rate of adenoma and advanced adenoma was higher than younger. So for people over 40 years, the CRC screening is recommended.

Adenoma Detection Rate in Colonoscopy: Does the Participation of a Resident Matter?

Presently, endoscopic procedures are a requirement for training competency for completion of a general surgery residency. There are no studies to date that have assessed whether having a resident perform a colonoscopy impacts quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR). To retrospectively review ADR in adult patients, who undergo screening colonoscopy at a single institution with (ColFacR) and without (ColFac) the participation of a general surgery resident. A total of 792 patients were identified in the database screening colonoscopies between the ages of 45 and 80 from July 2013 to June 2015. Of those, 501 were reviewed after exclusion criteria. When comparing the ColFac group (n = 316) to the ColFacR group (n = 185), there were no differences between age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, or quality of bowel preparation. The mean number of total polyps, hyperplastic polyps, and adenomatous polyps retrieved were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in the ADR for the ColFac cases and ColFacR cases (25.95% vs 27.03%, respectively, P = 0.834). ADR is similar in elective colonoscopies that were performed with or without a general surgery resident. The participation of a general surgery resident in routine colonoscopies should not impact reported quality indicators.

Quality measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy: the current state

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize the current state of endoscopic quality measurement and use of measures in enhancing the value of endoscopic services.

RECENT FINDINGS

Initially, quality measurement of endoscopic procedures was claims based or included small unit or practice-specific efforts. Now we have a mature national registry and large electronic medical or procedural records that are designed to yield valuable data relevant to quality measurement.

SUMMARY

With the advent of better measures, we are beginning to understand that initial process and surrogate outcome measures (adenoma detection rate) can be improved to provide a better reflection of endoscopic quality. Importantly, however, even measures currently in use relate to important patient outcomes such as missed colon cancers. At a federal level, older cumbersome pay-for-performance initiatives have been combined into a new overarching program named the quality payment program within the centers for medicare and medicaid services. This program is an additional step toward furthering the progress from volume-to-value-based reimbursement. The legislation mandating the movement toward outcomes-linked (value) reimbursement is the medicare access and children's health insurance program reauthorization act, which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and will not be walked back by alterations of the affordable care act. Increasing portions of medicare reimbursement (and likely commercial to follow) will be linked to quality metrics, so familiarity with the underlying process and rationale will be important for all proceduralists.

Clinical application of methods for improving quality of colonoscopy procedure

AIM: To assess the effect of three controllable clinical factors (bowel preparation, observation methods of doctors and comfort degree of patients) on the quality of colonoscopy to improve the quality of colonoscopy.

METHODS: Nine hundred outpatients who underwent conventional colonoscopy were randomly selected and divided into different groups, based on bowel preparation, observation methods of doctors, and use of pinaverium bromide tablets or not. An experienced colonoscopist recorded the hygienic level of the bowel on a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, assessed the degree of bubbles, assessed the degree of pain, and recorded the polyp detection rate and small polyp detection rate.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in bowel preparation among different groups (P > 0.05). The bubble volume (especially in the right-side colon) in patients treated with espumisan was less than that in patients treated with polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder alone (P < 0.05). The degree of pain in patients treated with pinaverium bromide was less than that in patients treated with scopolamine (P < 0.05). The polyp detection rate and the small polyp detection rate were significantly higher in patients who were observed in the insertion and withdrawal group than in the withdrawal alone group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The bowel can be effectively cleaned with polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder, and the bubble volume can be effectively reduced after taking espumisan. The pain degree of patients taking pinaverium bromide is less than that of patients without taking. The polyp detection rate and small polyp detection rate are higher in the insertion and withdrawal group than the withdrawal alone group. These results indicate that the quality of colonoscopy could be effectively improved by all the above ways.