Screening colonoscopy: High quality regardless of endoscopist specialty

Transdisciplinary entrustable professional activities

Healthcare has become highly specialized. Specialists, in medicine as well as in nursing, determine much of the high quality of current health care. But healthcare has also become increasingly fragmented, with professionals trained in separate postgraduate silos, with boundaries often difficult to cross. While a century ago, generalists dominated patient care provision, now specialists prevail and risk becoming alienated from each other, losing the ability to adapt to neighboring professional domains. Current health care requires a flexible workforce, ready to serve in multiple contexts, as the COVID-19 crisis has shown.The new concept of transdisciplinary entrustable professional activities, EPAs applicable in more than one specialty, was recently conceived to enhance collaboration and transfer between educational programs in postgraduate nursing in the Netherlands.In this paper, we reflect on our experiences so far, and on practical and conceptual issues concerning transdisciplinary EPAs, such as: who should define, train, assess, and register transdisciplinary EPAs? How can different prior education prepare for similar EPAs? And how do transdisciplinary EPAs affect professional identity?We believe that transdisciplinary EPAs can contribute to creating more flexible curricula and hence to a more coherent, collaborative healthcare workforce, less determined by the boundaries of traditional specialties.

Association Between Endoscopist Specialty and Colonoscopy Quality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy quality indicators provide measurable assessments of performance, but significant provider-level variations exist. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether endoscopist specialty is associated with adenoma detection rate (ADR) - the primary outcome - or cecal intubation rate, adverse event rates, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Citations underwent duplicate full-text review, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted in duplicate. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions.

RESULTS

Of 11,314 citations, 36 studies representing 3,500,832 colonoscopies were included. Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by surgeons were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and lower cecal intubation rates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92). Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by other (non-gastroenterologist, non-surgeon) endoscopists were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96), higher perforation rates (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.51), and higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Substantial to considerable heterogeneity existed for most analyses, and overall certainty in the evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopies performed by surgeons or other endoscopists were associated with poorer quality metrics and outcomes compared with those performed by gastroenterologists. Targeted quality improvement efforts may be warranted.

Comparison of procedural outcomes between morning and afternoon colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy is a common procedure performed by colorectal surgeons for screening, diagnosis, and surveillance of various colorectal diseases. Existing literature has conflicting data on quality outcomes of colonoscopies performed in the afternoon and the morning schedules and only includes colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists. We sought to analyze procedural outcomes between morning and afternoon colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons.

DATA SOURCES AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A retrospective chart review of colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons at a tertiary care center from October 2018 through July 2020 was performed. Complete colonoscopies with documented times were included. Patients with colonic resection and incomplete colonoscopy were excluded. Main outcome measures adenoma and polyp detection rates and colonoscopy time variables were compared between morning and afternoon colonoscopies.

RESULTS

A total of 781 patients were analyzed. Colonoscopies were evenly distributed during shifts (49% morning and 51% afternoon). The overall polyp and adenoma detection rates were 46% and 29%, respectively. There were no significant differences in adenoma and polyp detection rates and colonoscopy duration between morning and afternoon colonoscopies. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that history of prior polypectomy was an independent predictor of adenoma detection rate (OR: 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, p = 0.002) and was associated with significantly increased colonoscopy times in afternoon shift.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in quality outcomes of adenoma and polyp detection rates between morning and afternoon colonoscopies performed by colorectal surgeons. In addition to known predictors, cecal intubation time and history of polypectomy were also independent predictors of adenoma detection rate. Patients with prior polypectomy had increased colonoscopy times in afternoon shift. Since colorectal surgeons perform higher proportion of diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies, these patients may be better suited for colonoscopies in morning shift.

Geographic distribution of colonoscopy providers in the United States: An analysis of medicare claims data

INTRODUCTION

Screening colonoscopy is one of the few procedures that can prevent cancer. While the majority of colonoscopies in the USA are performed by gastroenterologists, general surgeons play a key role in at-risk, rural populations. The aim of this study was to examine geographic practice patterns in colonoscopy using a nationwide Medicare claims database.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The 2017 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment database was used to identify physicians performing colonoscopy. Providers were classified as gastroenterologists, surgeons, ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), or other. Rural-Urban Commuting Area classification at the zip code level was used to determine whether the practice location for an individual provider was in a rural area/small town (< 10,000 people), micropolitan area (10-50,000 people), or metropolitan area (> 50,000 people).

RESULTS

Claims data from 3,861,187 colonoscopy procedures on Medicare patients were included. The majority of procedures were performed by gastroenterologists (57.2%) and ASCs (32.1%). Surgeons performed 6.8% of cases overall. When examined at a zip code level, surgeons performed 51.6% of procedures in small towns/rural areas and 21.7% of procedures in micropolitan areas. Individual surgeons performed fewer annual procedures as compared to gastroenterologists (median 51 vs. 187, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons perform the majority of colonoscopies in rural zip codes on Medicare patients. High-quality, surgical training in endoscopy is essential to ensure access to colonoscopy for patients outside of major metropolitan areas.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.

Role of Bowel Preparation in Adenoma Detection Rate and Follow-up Recommendations in African American Dominant Patient Population

Introduction: Bowel preparation quality in colonoscopy is one of the most essential components of quality assessment. According to the latest guidelines, inadequate bowel preparation warrants repeat colonoscopy in less than a year. Our aim was to investigate the role of bowel preparation in adenoma detection rate (ADR), its relationship with patients' demographics, and compliance with subsequent surveillance recommendations with guidelines.

Methods: This is a retrospective chart review study. Bowel preparation quality was divided into three categories: high, intermediate, and low. ADR and polyp detection rates (PDR) were calculated as the number of patients with adenoma or polyp divided by the total number of patients.

Results: Among 1,062 patients (934 African American and 128 non-African American) 81%, 11%, and 8% had high, intermediate, and low-quality bowel preparations, respectively. Race, gender, age, type of endoscopist, and body mass index did not play any role in bowel preparation quality. ADR and PDR were significantly higher in African Americans as compared to non-African Americans. ADR was significantly lower in the low-quality as compared to the high- and intermediate-quality bowel preparations (OR=2.13; p=0.0032). Bowel preparation quality was not correlated with subsequent follow-up recommendations. Academic gastroenterologists and surgeons had the highest and lowest compliance with surveillance guidelines, respectively.

Conclusions: Racial and gender disparity appears to have no meaningful effect on the quality of bowel preparation. Only two categories (adequate [high/intermediate] or inadequate [low-quality]) may be used for follow-up recommendations. Non-compliance with surveillance guidelines is concerning and may inadvertently increase the interval risk of colorectal cancer.