Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice

Quality of upper GI endoscopy: a prospective cohort study on impact of endoscopist education

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines on quality of upper GI (UGI) endoscopy have been proposed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). However, these guidelines have not been evaluated in clinical practice. We aimed to measure the impact of endoscopist education on the quality of gastroscopy based on these guidelines and the association between compliance with guidelines and the detection of clinically significant premalignant pathology such as Barrett's esophagus (BE), esophageal squamous dysplasia, gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), and Helicobacter pylori.

METHODS

Endoscopists participated in a 1-hour education session on recommended performance measures and endoscopic detection of premalignant pathologies. A controlled before and after study was performed, measuring compliance with guidelines and rates of detection of pathology in control and intervention groups.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, 2719 procedures were performed: 1412 in the control group and 1307 in the intervention group. The proportion of procedures complying with guidelines was higher in the intervention group. The use of biopsy sampling protocols (eg, management of precancerous conditions of the stomach, 52% vs 91%; P = .007) and standardized terminology (eg, Forrest classification, 24% vs 68%; P < .001) was significantly higher. Detection of H pylori was higher in the intervention group (5.5% vs 9.8%, P = .003). Minimum inspection time of 7 minutes was associated with detection of BE (7.4% vs 2.0%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A simple endoscopist education session enhanced the quality of UGI endoscopy by improving compliance with BSG and ESGE recommendations and increasing the detection of clinically significant pathology. A minimum inspection time of 7 minutes was associated with increased diagnostic yield and may be a feasible quality indicator for clinical practice.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopists and Endoscopists in Training: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with 7 corresponding indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high-quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%).

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN.

A Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Control System Incorporated With Deep Learning Improved Endoscopist Performance in a Pretest and Post-Test Trial

INTRODUCTION

Gastrointestinal endoscopic quality is operator-dependent. To ensure the endoscopy quality, we constructed an endoscopic audit and feedback system named Endo.Adm and evaluated its effect in a form of pretest and posttest trial.

METHODS

Endo.Adm system was developed using Python and Deep Convolutional Neural Ne2rk models. Sixteen endoscopists were recruited from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University and were randomly assigned to undergo feedback of Endo.Adm or not (8 for the feedback group and 8 for the control group). The feedback group received weekly quality report cards which were automatically generated by Endo.Adm. We then compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and gastric precancerous conditions detection rate between baseline and postintervention phase for endoscopists in each group to evaluate the impact of Endo.Adm feedback. In total, 1,191 colonoscopies and 3,515 gastroscopies were included for analysis.

RESULTS

ADR was increased after Endo.Adm feedback (10.8%-20.3%, P < 0.01,

DISCUSSION

Endo.Adm feedback contributed to multifaceted gastrointestinal endoscopic quality improvement. This system is practical to implement and may serve as a standard model for quality improvement in routine work (http://www.chictr.org.cn/, ChiCTR1900024153).

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adenoma/diagnostic imaging
• Adenoma/epidemiology
• Adult
• China
• Clinical Competence
• Colonoscopy/standards
• Deep Learning
• Early Detection of Cancer
• Feedback
• Female
• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Quality Improvement
• Quality Indicators, Health Care/statistics & numerical data
• Risk Factors

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Liwen Yao Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Jun Liu Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Lianlian Wu Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Lihui Zhang Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Xiao Hu Wuhan ENDOANGEL Medical Technology Company, Wuhan, China;
Jinzhu Liu Wuhan ENDOANGEL Medical Technology Company, Wuhan, China;
Zihua Lu Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Dexin Gong Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Ping An Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Jun Zhang Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Guiying Hu Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Di Chen Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Renquan Luo Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;
Shan Hu Wuhan ENDOANGEL Medical Technology Company, Wuhan, China;
Yanning Yang Department of Ophthalmology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Honggang Yu Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China;

Collapse

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.

Methods

A literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I²=82%). ADR improved in both active or passive feedback, irrespective of whether endoscopists knew about being monitored for their performance or not.

Conclusions

Monitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.

Colorectal cancer risk factors in asymptomatic Chilean population: a survey of international collaboration between Japan and Chile

In Chile, the mortality from colorectal cancer has been on the rise. A national screening program based on a fecal immunochemical test was started in 2012 as an international collaboration with Japan. This case-control study was designed to identify the risk factors for colorectal cancer, with a goal of increasing the participation rate for colorectal cancer screening. In accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, we conducted a case-control study from 2012 to 2017; 23 845 asymptomatic participants were enrolled in the study. Participants who were fecal immunochemical test-positive or had a family history of colorectal cancer underwent a colonoscopy. We analyzed the odds ratio of the risk factors for colorectal cancer, including sex, age, family history, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity, and daily intake of certain food items. For the screening program, 202 cases of colorectal cancer were detected, and 195 of them were evaluated pathologically after resection. Of these, 173 cases (88.7%) had colorectal cancer stage 0/1, 151 (77.4%) of which were treated with endoscopic resection. In the multivariate analysis, male sex, family history of colorectal cancer, and low intake of cereals or fibers were closely related to a high colorectal cancer incidence. Moreover, participants in their 60s and 70s had a higher incidence of colorectal cancer than those in their 50s. These results suggest that intensive screening of the high-risk population can help in improving the detection of colorectal cancer, whereas higher consumption of cereals or fibers can be effective in preventing its onset.

Factors associated with polyp detection during colonoscopy: A retrospective observational study

The polyp detection rate (PDR) is an important quality indicator for colonoscopy. Several factors have been shown to be associated with PDR. However, whether the moderate sedation is a factor for polyp detection remains controversial. This study aims to assess factors associated with polyp detection including the moderate sedation factor during colonoscopy. Patients who underwent colonoscopy from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015 were enrolled into this retrospective study. Patients with poor colon preparation and failure to reach the cecum were excluded. The clinical factors, including patient's sex, age, midazolam/fentanyl sedation, indications, endoscopist colonoscopy volume, and use of antispasmodic agent were evaluated by multivariate analysis. A total of 3373 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 55.8 years, and 1980 patients (58.7%) were male. Among the 3373 patients, 2513 (74.5%) underwent midazolam/fentanyl-based sedated colonoscopy. The multivariate analysis showed that male sex, age over 50 years old, midazolam/fentanyl sedation and indications of screening and surveillance were significantly associated with polyp detection. Moreover, when stratified by sex and age, the midazolam/fentanyl sedation was associated with polyp detection in male patients and patients over 50 years old. This study has highlighted the role of midazolam/fentanyl sedation administered by colonoscopists as a modifiable factor that may increase polyp detection during colonoscopy.

Quality Improvement in Gastroenterology: A Systematic Review of Practical Interventions for Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) identifies practical methods to improve patient care; however, it is not always widely known which QI methods are successful. We sought to create a primer of QI in gastroenterology for the practicing clinician.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of QI literature in gastroenterology. We included search terms for inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, pancreatitis, liver disease, colorectal cancer screening, endoscopy, and gastrointestinal bleeding. We used general search terms for QI as well as specific terms to capture established quality metrics for each GI disease area.

RESULTS

We found 33 studies that met our definitions for QI. There were 17 studies of endoscopy including screening colonoscopy, six on liver disease, four on IBD, two on GERD, three on GI bleeding, and one on celiac disease. Education was the most common intervention, although most successful studies combined education with another intervention. Other effective interventions included retraining sessions to reach ADR goals in colonoscopy, nursing protocols to increase HCC screening, and EMR decision support tools to prompt reassessment of PPI therapy. Many studies showed improved compliance to metrics, but few were able to show differences in length of stay, readmissions, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of quality improvement literature in gastroenterology revealed common themes of successful programs: Education was frequently used but often insufficient, the EMR may be underutilized in guiding decision making, and patient-reported outcomes were infrequently assessed. Further research may be needed to compare QI strategies directly.

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rates: Outcomes of quality improvement program

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Feedback has been shown to improve performance in colonoscopy including adenoma detection rate (ADR). The frequency at which feedback should be given is unknown. As part of a quality improvement program, we sought to measure the outcome of providing quarterly and monthly feedback on colonoscopy quality measures.

METHODS

All screening colonoscopies performed at endoscopy unit at Mayo Clinic Arizona by gastroenterologists between October 2010 and December 2012 were reviewed. Quality indicators, including ADR, were extracted for each individual endoscopist, and feedback was provided. The study period was divided into four distinct groups: pre-intervention that served as baseline, quarterly feedback, monthly feedback, and post-intervention. Based on ADR, endoscopists were grouped into "low detectors" (≤ 25%), "average detectors" (26-35%), and "high detectors" (> 35%).

RESULTS

A total of 3420 screening colonoscopies were performed during the study period (555 patients during pre-intervention, 1209 patients during quarterly feedback, 599 during monthly feedback, and 1057 during the post-intervention period) by 16 gastroenterologists. The overall ADR for the group improved from 30.5% to 37.7% (P = 0.003). Compared with the pre-interventional period, all quality indicators measured significantly improved during the monthly feedback and post-intervention periods but not in the quarterly feedback period.

CONCLUSIONS

In our quality improvement program, monthly feedback significantly improved colonoscopy quality measures, including ADR, while quarterly feedback did not. The impact of the intervention was most prominent in the "low detectors" group. Results were durable up to 6 months following the intervention.

Distribution of colorectal polyps: Implications for screening

BACKGROUND

During the last decades data from different studies reported modifications of the topographic distribution of colorectal cancers (CRCs), with an increased frequency of tumours in proximal colonic segments. Given the documented link between adenomas and CRC, a proximal migration of adenomas over time could be expected as well.

AIM

To evaluate available evidence about the prevalence of adenomas and of sessile serrated polyps across colonic segments, the changing trends in their distribution across the colon and the diagnostic performance of screening tests currently adopted in population based screening programs for lesions located in different colonic segments.

METHODS

Literature search on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects with reference to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA), considering all adult human studies in English, published between January 2000 and February 2017.

RESULTS

Cross-sectional analysis of endoscopy and pathology data-bases are consistently showing a trend toward an increase with age of the proportion of adenomas located in the proximal colon. Several observational studies analysed the site distribution of adenomas, testing the hypothesis of a proximal shift of these lesions, and most of them reported an increase in the proportion of right-sided adenomas over time, although a similar trend was not confirmed by others. Also the quality of the retrieved evidence was low. Both endoscopy and FIT are showing a different level of sensitivity for lesions arising in different colonic segments, depending also on screenees characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence is supporting the hypothesis of an increase in the proportion of right-sided adenomas with age, while a similar increase has not been reported for SSP/A, at least among subjects aged 50 or older. The trend toward a proximalization of colorectal adenomas over time, reported by some authors, likely results from improved diagnostic performances and/or the process of population ageing.

Performance report cards increase adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important measure of colonoscopy quality, as are polyp, advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rates. We investigated whether performance report cards improved these outcome measures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Endoscopists were given report cards comparing their detection rates to the institutional mean on an annual basis. Detection rates were evaluated at baseline, 1 year after report cards (Year 1), and 2 years after report cards (Year 2). Endoscopists were unaware of the study and received no other interventions. The primary outcome was ADR and secondary outcomes were polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR, and adenocarcinoma detection rate. Multivariate regression was performed to adjust for temporal trends in patient, endoscopists, and procedural factors.

RESULTS

 Seventeen physicians performed 3,118 screening colonoscopies in patients with positive FOBT or family history of colon cancer. The ADR increased from 34.5 % (baseline) to 39.4 % (Year 1) and 41.2 % (Year 2) ( P  = 0.0037). The PDR increased from 45 % (baseline) to 48.8 % (Year 1) and 51.8 % (Year 2) ( P  = 0.011). There was no significant improvement in advanced ADR or adenocarcinoma detection rates. On multivariate analysis, the ADR increased by 22 % in Year 1 ( P  = 0.03) and 30 % in Year 2 ( P  = 0.008). Among physicians with a baseline ADR < 25 %, improvement in ADR was even greater, increasing 2.2 times by the end of the study ( P  = 0.004). Improvements in ADR were not correlated with specialty although gastroenterologists were 52 % more likely to find an adenoma than general surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

 Annual performance report cards increased adenoma detection rates, especially among physicians with low ADR < 25 %.

Quality assurance in gastrointestinal endoscopy: An Egyptian experience

Over the last four decades, gastrointestinal endoscopy has become of paramount importance to diagnose, treat and prevent diseases of the digestive tract. Practice variation, however, is likely to have an important effect on the effectiveness of endoscopy and can impair the delivery of high-quality endoscopic procedures. There have been increasing demands to assess the quality of service and track and improve patient outcomes. Quality assurance has paved its way into professional guidelines for physicians. Developing a modern endoscopy unit demands the institution of a quality assurance programme, continuous training and monitoring of service delivery. This article describes our experience in implementing a quality assurance programme in endoscopy in a secondary care government hospital in Egypt. The implementation of quality assurance and improvement programme can lead to dramatic improvements in the quality of endoscopic care and patient outcomes. Quality assurance and continual improvement can be applied in developing countries.

Audit and feedback interventions to improve endoscopist performance: Principles and effectiveness

There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy, attributable in part to endoscopist performance. Audit and feedback (A&F) provides health professionals with a summary of their performance over a period of time and is a common strategy used to improve provider performance. In this review, we discuss current understanding of the mechanism of A&F and describe specific features of effective A&F. To date, trials of A&F to improve colonoscopy performance report heterogeneous results, in part because colonoscopy is a complex procedural skill but also because the quality improvement interventions were sub-optimally implemented or inadequately evaluated. Nonetheless, evidence from a wide range of literature suggests that A&F has the potential to improve endoscopist performance. We discuss future directions for research in this area and provide guidance for providers or health system planners wishing to implement A&F to address quality of colonoscopy in their practice and/or jurisdiction.

Factors influencing variation in physician adenoma detection rates: a theory-based approach for performance improvement

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Interventions to improve physician adenoma detection rates for colonoscopy have generally not been successful, and there are little data on the factors contributing to variation that may be appropriate targets for intervention. We sought to identify factors that may influence variation in detection rates by using theory-based tools for understanding behavior.

METHODS

We separately studied gastroenterologists and endoscopy nurses at 3 Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers to identify potentially modifiable factors relevant to physician adenoma detection rate variability by using structured group interviews (focus groups) and theory-based tools for understanding behavior and eliciting behavior change: the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation behavior model; the Theoretical Domains Framework; and the Behavior Change Wheel.

RESULTS

Nine factors potentially associated with adenoma detection rate variability were identified, including 6 related to capability (uncertainty about which types of polyps to remove, style of endoscopy team leadership, compromised ability to focus during an examination due to distractions, examination technique during withdrawal, difficulty detecting certain types of adenomas, and examiner fatigue and pain), 2 related to opportunity (perceived pressure due to the number of examinations expected per shift and social pressure to finish examinations before scheduled breaks or the end of a shift), and 1 related to motivation (valuing a meticulous examination as the top priority). Examples of potential intervention strategies are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

By using theory-based tools, this study identified several novel and potentially modifiable factors relating to capability, opportunity, and motivation that may contribute to adenoma detection rate variability and be appropriate targets for future intervention trials.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing continuous quality improvement programs in colonoscopy services: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) programs may result in quality of care and outcome improvement. However, the implementation of such programs has proven to be very challenging. This mixed methods systematic review identifies barriers and facilitators pertaining to the implementation of CQI programs in colonoscopy services and how they relate to endoscopists, nurses, managers, and patients.

METHODS

We developed a search strategy adapted to 15 databases. Studies had to report on the implementation of a CQI intervention and identified barriers or facilitators relating to any of the four groups of actors directly concerned by the provision of colonoscopies. The quality of the selected studies was assessed and findings were extracted, categorized, and synthesized using a generic extraction grid customized through an iterative process.

RESULTS

We extracted 99 findings from the 15 selected publications. Although involving all actors is the most cited factor, the literature mainly focuses on the facilitators and barriers associated with the endoscopists' perspective. The most reported facilitators to CQI implementation are perception of feasibility, adoption of a formative approach, training and education, confidentiality, and assessing a limited number of quality indicators. Receptive attitudes, a sense of ownership and perceptions of positive impacts also facilitate the implementation. Finally, an organizational environment conducive to quality improvement has to be inclusive of all user groups, explicitly supportive, and provide appropriate resources.

CONCLUSION

Our findings corroborate the current models of adoption of innovations. However, a significant knowledge gap remains with respect to barriers and facilitators pertaining to nurses, patients, and managers.

Implementation of a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy increases the neoplasia detection rate: a prospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopists worldwide have been encouraged to report quality indicators in order to evaluate their performance. We aimed to determine whether a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy results in better rates of neoplasia detection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study set in a private endoscopy center. From May 2009 to March 2010, we evaluated 1573 consecutive colonoscopies (group 1). After the implementation of a quality program, from February 2011 to January 2012, we prospectively evaluated 1583 colonoscopies (group 2). Our quality-enhancing intervention consisted of instructing both patients and endoscopists. We measured the cecal intubation rate and the neoplasia detection rate. Overall neoplasias, high-risk adenomas, carcinomas, right colon adenomas, and adenomas detected in screening studies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation was documented in 1384 cases from group 1 (88 %) and 1534 from group 2 (96.9 %) (P < 0.0001). The neoplasia detection rates in groups 1 and 2 were, respectively: neoplasias 288 (18.3 %) and 427 (27 %) (P < 0.0001), high-risk adenomas 76 (4.8 %) and 142 (9 %) (P < 0.0001), carcinomas 16 (1 %) and 21 (1.3 %) (P = 0.52), right colon adenomas 112 (7.1 %) and 154 (9.7 %) (P = 0.01), and adenomas 141 (16.5 %) and 233 (28 %) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a quality program improves the neoplasia detection rate. Because of the small number of cancerous lesions found in both groups, we were unable to identify differences in the carcinoma detection rate.

A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting

Colonoscopy reports are important communication tools for providers and patients with potential to serve as information sources for research, quality, performance, and resource management. Despite decades of work, studies continue to indicate that colonoscopy reports are often incomplete. Although electronic medical records (EMRs) and databases can address this problem, costs, workflow, and interoperability (difficulty exchanging information between systems) continue to limit adoption and implementation of endoscopy EMRs in Canada and elsewhere. Quality and reporting guidelines alone have proven to be insufficient. In this review we have derived and applied five key themes to challenges in the current state of colonoscopy reporting and propose strategies to address them.

Improved bowel preparation increases polyp detection and unmasks significant polyp miss rate

AIM: To retrospectively compare previous-day vs split-dose preparation in terms of bowel cleanliness and polyp detection in patients referred for polypectomy.

METHODS: Fifty patients underwent two colonoscopies: one diagnostic in a private clinic and a second for polypectomy in a University Hospital. The latter procedures were performed within 12 wk of the index ones. Examinations were accomplished by two experienced endoscopists, different in each facility. Twenty-seven patients underwent screening/surveillance colonoscopy, while the rest were symptomatic. Previous day bowel preparation was utilized initially and split-dose for polypectomy. Colon cleansing was evaluated using the Aronchick scale. We measured the number of detected polyps, and the polyp miss rates per-polyp.

RESULTS: Excellent/good preparation was reported in 38 cases with previous-day preparation (76%) vs 46 with split-dose (92%), respectively (P = 0.03). One hundred and twenty-six polyps were detected initially and 169 subsequently (P < 0.0001); 88 vs 126 polyps were diminutive (P < 0.0001), 25 vs 29 small (P = 0.048) and 13 vs 14 equal or larger than 10 mm. The miss rates for total, diminutive, small and large polyps were 25.4%, 30.1%, 13.7% and 6.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that split-dose preparation was significantly associated (OR, P) with increased number of polyps detected overall (0.869, P < 0.001), in the right (0.418, P = 0.008) and in the left colon (0.452, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION: Split-dose preparation improved colon cleansing, enhanced polyp detection and unmasked significant polyp miss rates.

International collaboration between Japan and Chile to improve detection rates in colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In Chile, mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased rapidly. To help address this issue, the Prevention Project for Neoplasia of the Colon and Rectum (PRENEC) program was initiated in 2012 with intensive support from Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) in Tokyo, Japan, as part of an international collaboration.

METHODS

From June 2012 to July 2014, a total of 10,575 asymptomatic participants were enrolled in PRENEC. Participants with positive immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) results or a family history of CRC underwent colonoscopy. The colonoscopy results from a similar, previous project in Chile (PREVICOLON) were compared with those from PRENEC. Furthermore, the initial colonoscopies of 1562 participants in PRENEC were analyzed according to whether the colonoscopists were from TMDU or Chile.

RESULTS

The complete colonoscopy, adenoma detection, and cancer detection rates were 88.0%, 26.7%, and 1.1%, respectively, in PREVICOLON, while the corresponding values were 94.4%, 41.8%, and 6.0%, respectively, in PRENEC. In PRENEC, 107 cases of CRC were detected, amounting for 1.0% of all participants. Considering initial colonoscopies in PRENEC, the complete colonoscopy, adenoma detection, and cancer detection rates were 97.4%, 45.3%, and 9.3%, respectively, for physicians at TMDU and 93.3%, 41.5%, and 5.1%, respectively for Chilean physicians. The detection rates of intramucosal cancer were 7.3% and 3.7%, respectively, for TMDU and Chilean physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality indicators of colonoscopy substantially improved from PREVICOLON to PRENEC. The assessments made by Chilean physicians alone were improved in PRENEC, but remained better in the TMDU group. Moreover, physicians from TMDU detected more CRCs than Chilean physicians, especially at earlier stages.

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Colonoscopy: quality indicators

Effective endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), one of the few preventable cancers, is dependent on the adequate detection and removal of potentially precancerous lesions. However, observed variation in colonoscopy performance in practice and outcomes has highlighted the need for consistent quality measures. Quality indicators or measures are tools that help to quantify health-care processes and can aid in providing high-quality health care. The primary colonoscopy quality indicator is the adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is defined as the proportion of an endoscopist's screening colonoscopies in which one or more adenomas have been detected. The risk of post-colonoscopy CRC is inversely correlated with an endoscopist's ADR. However, ADR is dependent on other quality measures, including cecal intubation rates, withdrawal times, and quality of bowel preparation. Achieving suggested benchmarks for these other quality measures will aid the endoscopist in achieving the recently updated ADR benchmark of 25% in their practice. In addition, beyond ensuring adequate ADRs, endoscopists should have high compliance rates with guideline-recommended and evidence-based screening and surveillance intervals. Compliance with quality measures will ensure effective and safe CRC prevention and better patient outcomes.

Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

Optimized sedation improves colonoscopy quality long-term. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:195093. [PMID: 25648556 PMCID: PMC4306400 DOI: 10.1155/2015/195093]

Background. Quality monitoring and improvement is prerequisite for efficient colonoscopy. Aim. To assess the effects of increased sedation administration on colonoscopy performance. Materials and Methods. During Era 1 we prospectively measured four colonoscopy quality indicators: sedation administration, colonoscopy completion rate, adenoma detection rate, and early complications rate in three cohorts: cohort A: intention for total colonoscopy cases; cohort B: cohort A excluding bowel obstruction cases; cohort C: CRC screening-surveillance cases within cohort B. We identified deficiencies and implemented our plan to optimize sedation. We prospectively evaluated its effects in both short- (Era 2) and long-term period (Era 3). Results. We identified that sedation administration and colonoscopy completion rates were below recommended standards. After sedation optimization its use rate increased significantly (38.1% to 55.8% to 69.5%) and colonoscopy completion rate increased from 88.3% to 90.6% to 96.4% in cohort B and from 93.2% to 95.3% to 98.3% in cohort C, in Eras 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Adenoma detection rate increased in cohort C (25.9% to 30.6% to 35%) and early complications rate decreased from 3.4% to 1.9% to 0.3%. Most endoscopists increased significantly their completion rate and this was preserved long-term. Conclusion. Increased sedation administration results in long-lasting improvement of colonoscopy quality indicators.

One or two operator technique and quality performance of colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The two-operator technique for colonoscopy, with the endoscopy assistant actively advancing and withdrawing the scope, is still commonly practiced in Europe. As uncontrolled data has suggested that the one-operator technique is associated with a higher adenoma detection rate, we tested the hypothesis that the two-operator-technique can achieve comparable performances in terms of adenoma detection.

METHODS

Non-inferiority trial in which consecutive adult outpatients were randomised to undergo colonoscopy by one (one-operator) or by four endoscopists. Each performed half the procedures by one-operator and half by two-operator technique independently of routine clinical practice. Main outcome measure was adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

352 subjects (49% males, mean age 60 ± 12.1 years) were randomised to one (n=176) or to two-operator technique (n=176) colonoscopy. No significant differences were found in adenoma detection (33% vs. 30.7%, p=0.65), or cecal intubation rate, procedure times, and patient tolerability. No differences were found in the subgroup analysis according to routinely adopted colonoscopy technique.

CONCLUSIONS

This study does not confirm a higher adenoma detection rate for one-operator technique colonoscopy. Changing current practice to improve adenoma detection rate for endoscopists routinely using two-operator technique is not warranted.

Quality in colonoscopy: European perspectives and practice

Colonoscopy is the 'gold standard' investigation of the colon. High quality colonoscopy is essential to diagnose early cancer and reduce its incidence through the detection and removal of pre-malignant adenomas. In this review, we discuss the key components of a high quality colonoscopy, review methods for improving quality, emerging technologies that have the potential to improve quality and highlight areas for future work.

Different standards for healthy screenees than patients in routine clinics?

Less than 5% of colorectal adenomas will become malignant, but we do not have sufficient knowledge about their natural course to target removal of these 5% only. Thus, 95% of polypectomies are a waste of time exposing patients to a small risk of complications. Recently, a new type of polyps, sessile serrated polyps, has attracted attention. Previously considered innocuous, they are now found to have molecular similarities to cancer and some guidelines recommend to have them removed. These lesions are often flat, covered by mucous, not easily seen and situated in the proximal colon where the bowel wall is thinner. Thus, polypectomy carries a higher risk of perforation than predominantly left-sided, stalked adenomas - and we do not know what is gained in terms of cancer prevention. Screening is a neat balance between harms and benefit for presumptively healthy participants not interested in risk exposure to obtain confirmation of being healthy. The situation is quite different for patient worried about symptom. Thus, the standards set for evidence-based practice may be higher for screening than for routine clinics - a mechanism which may benefit patients in the long run.

Training and teaching innovations in colonoscopy

Optimization of training and teaching methods in colonoscopy at all levels of experience is critical to ensure consistent high-quality procedures in practice. Competency in colonoscopy may not be achieved until more than 250 colonoscopies are performed by trainees. Such tools as computer-based endoscopic simulators can aid in accelerating the early phases of training in colonoscopy, and magnetic endoscopic imaging technology can guide the position of the colonoscope and aid with loop reduction. Periodic feedback and retraining experienced endoscopists can improve the detection of colonic lesions.

Hyoscine N-butylbromide for adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Hyoscine N-butylbromide (HBB), commonly used during colonoscopy to facilitate cecal intubation, has been proposed to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

AIMS

To evaluate whether HBB administration increases the adenoma detection rate and influences patients' tolerance.

METHODS

Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients were randomized after cecal intubation to receive either 20mg HBB or placebo i.v. The number, size, histology and location of polyps were recorded. The air retained in the abdomen was either indirectly estimated by ΔAC (difference in the abdominal circumference measured before and after colonoscopy) or directly evaluated by patients' perception (visual analogic scale, range 0-100).

RESULTS

402 patients (44% male; mean age 57.7±12.5years) received either HBB or placebo. No differences in ADR (31.7% vs. 28%, p=0.48), advanced-ADR (7.4% vs. 10.5%, p=0.35) were observed between HBB and placebo group, respectively. A significantly lower detection rate of flat/depressed lesions was observed in the HBB group (0.5% vs. 5.5%, p=0.003). The ΔAC and the bloating perception were comparable between the two groups (p=0.22 and p=0.48, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

HBB administered before colonoscope withdrawal does not increase adenoma detection rate and seems to hamper the visualization of flat/depressed lesions. This finding raises concerns on the indiscriminate use of HBB during colonoscopy.

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS REGARDING ACCEPTANCE TO THE COLONOSCOPY?

ContextColonoscopy plays an indubitable role in the setting of clinical practice, however, it is an invasive exam; complex, lengthy, embarrassing, not devoid of risks and discomfort that yields fear and anxiety in the majority of patients. In a new era of rising competition between health institutions, where the quality of health care and client satisfaction are praised, studies regarding tolerance-related colonoscopy issues yield great potential to be explored. In the present study, tolerance is defined as willingness to repeat the exam.ObjectivesEvaluate information associated to bowel preparation, the exam itself and post-examination period that might interfere with the tolerance to the colonoscopy.MethodsAnalysis of the tolerance to the colonoscopy at three stages (pre, post, and during) through a checklist: patient's questionnaire and a medical assessment form were used.ResultsIn this present study, 91.2% of 373 patients exhibited positive tolerance to the colonoscopy. Aspects related to a negative level of tolerance were patient gender (12.9% of women versus 3.2% of men would not repeat the exam), age extremes (less than 20 years and greater than 80 years of age), and abdominal pain, both during the bowel preparation and after the procedure.ConclusionsGender, age, patient cooperation and abdominal pain were the decisive components regarding tolerance to the colonoscopy. Notably, in two phases of the exam, the abdominal pain was the most important feature associated to a lessened tolerance.

An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas

OBJECTIVES

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key measure of quality in colonoscopy. Low ADRs are associated with development of interval cancer after "negative" colonoscopy. Uncontrolled studies mandating longer withdrawal time, and other incentives, have not significantly improved ADR. We hypothesized that an endoscopist training program would increase ADRs.

METHODS

Our Endoscopic Quality Improvement Program (EQUIP) was an educational intervention for staff endoscopists. We measured ADRs for a baseline period, then randomly assigned half of the 15 endoscopists to undergo EQUIP training. We then examined baseline and post-training study ADRs for all endoscopists (trained and un-trained) to evaluate the impact of training. A total of 1,200 procedures were completed in each of the two study phases.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between randomization groups and between study phases. The overall ADR in baseline phase was 36% for both groups of endoscopists. In the post-training phase, the group of endoscopists randomized to EQUIP training had an increase in ADR to 47%, whereas the ADR for the group of endoscopists who were not trained remained unchanged at 35%. The effect of training on the endoscopist-specific ADRs was estimated with an odds ratio of 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.24-2.41, P=0.0013).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that ADRs can be improved considerably through simple educational efforts. Ultimately, a trial involving a larger number of endoscopists is needed to validate the utility of our training methods and determine whether improvements in ADRs lead to reduced colorectal cancer.

Variation of quality of colonoscopy in Italy over five years: a nation-wide observational study

BACKGROUND/AIM

A nation-wide survey of colonoscopy practice carried out in 2004 showed disappointing data on colonoscopy quality in Italy. Present study was aimed prospectively at re-evaluating quality indicators of colonoscopy and their changes over a five-year-period.

METHODS

The main features of each Endoscopy Unit and performance indicators on consecutive colonoscopies performed in a 2-week period were recorded. Variation of colonoscopy quality was assessed by comparing caecal-intubation and polyp-detection rates in present survey with those collected five-years before; statistical analysis was restricted to centres participating in both data collections.

RESULTS

6158 colonoscopies from 116 centres were evaluated; unadjusted caecal-intubation rate was 83.0%, with 21.6% centres reporting a value >90%; mean polyp-detection rate was 32.0% (range 9.6-71.2% across centres). To assess variation of performance indicators, 4452 procedures from 77 centres were compared to 3589 procedures performed five-years before, in the same centres. A significant difference between the two rounds of data collections was observed for both caecal-intubation (82.6% versus 80.9%, p=0.043) and polyp-detection (31.3% versus 28.1%, p=0.002). However, 52 centres maintained a caecal-intubation rate constantly <90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Present data show that colonoscopy in Italy is still far below quality standards and that a significant improvement of practice did not occur over the last five years. Strategies to enhance colonoscopy quality should be pursued by professional societies.

Sedation in screening colonoscopy: impact on quality indicators and complications

OBJECTIVES

Quality indicators including cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) are established. Sex differences of quality indicators are observed, but the influence of sedation has not been investigated so far. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of sedation on quality indicators, including CIR and ADR, according to sex.

METHODS

We analyzed data of 52,506 screening colonoscopies performed by 196 endoscopists between November 2007 and April 2011 according to the Austrian "quality management for colon cancer prevention" program.

RESULTS

Sedation did not affect polyp detection rate (women P=0.7972, men P=0.3711) or ADR for both sexes (women P=0.2773, men P=0.8676). ADR was not significantly influenced by sedation (P=0.1272), but by age and sex (both P<0.0001), when the executing endoscopist was considered. Although women were more often sedated than men (90.70 vs. 81.83%; P<0.0001), CIR was slightly lower in women than in men (94.69 vs. 96.58%; P<0.0001). Sedation improved the CIR in women by 2.95% (94.96 vs. 92.01%; P<0.0001), whereas in men it was just by 1.28% (96.81 vs. 95.53%; P<0.0001). Sedated women only reached the CIR of unsedated men (94.96 vs. 95.53%; P=0.1005). Accounting for the intra-observer influence of the endoscopist, the overall CIR was influenced by the interaction of sex and age (P=0.0049), but not by sedation (P=0.1435).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation does not increase adenoma or polyp detection, although it leads to an increase in CIR in men and women. This effect is more pronounced in women, yet CIR of men remains higher compared with women. Quality indicators are mainly influenced by the patient's age, sex, and the endoscopists' individual performance, rather than the endoscopists' subspeciality or procedural experience.

Segmental increases in force application during colonoscope insertion: quantitative analysis using force monitoring technology

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is a frequently performed procedure that requires extensive training and a high skill level.

OBJECTIVE

Quantification of forces applied to the external portion of the colonoscope insertion tube during the insertion phase of colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study of 7 expert and 9 trainee endoscopists for analysis of colonic segment force application in 49 patients. Forces were measured by using the colonoscopy force monitor, which is a wireless, handheld device that attaches to the insertion tube of the colonoscope.

SETTING

Academic gastroenterology training programs.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing routine screening or diagnostic colonoscopy with complete segment force recordings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Axial and radial force and examination time.

RESULTS

Both axial and radial force increased significantly as the colonoscope was advanced from the rectum to the cecum. Analysis of variance demonstrated highly significant operator-independent differences between segments of the colon (zones) in all axial and radial forces except average torque. Expert and trainee endoscopists differed only in the magnitude of counterclockwise force, average push/pull force rate used, and examination time.

LIMITATIONS

Small study, observational design, effect of prototype device on insertion tube manipulation.

CONCLUSION

Axial and radial forces used to advance the colonoscope increase through the segments of the colon and are operator independent.

[Introduction of a quality index in a Hungarian endoscopy unit]

The quality of endoscopic examinations substantially determines their value. In developed countries, Continuous Quality Management is used to improve it permanently. In Hungary there is no example for measuring quality in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

AIM

The measurement and improvement of quality of endoscopy applying completeness index (cecum intubation rate) during colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The authors defined base values retrospectively from 841 colonoscopy reports, performed in the last quarter of the year, before starting the project. The next two years (3160 colonoscopy in 2009 and 3167 in 2010) every three months they calculated the cecum intubation rate for each endoscopist.

RESULTS

The cecum intubation rate was 81.6% in the base period. When the authors excluded examinations with poor preparations and those with a previously unknown stenosis that prevented the total colonoscopy, the adjusted cecal intubation rate was 90.9%. In the next 2 years, the cecum intubation rate was 84.2% and 85.7% (p = 0.0394), while adjusted cecum intubation rate proved to be 92.3% and 92.6% (p = 0.381 NS) for the whole endoscopy unit. Of the 14 endoscopists only 6 reached an adjusted cecum intubation rate of 90%, but in the second year of the project 10 of them reached this rate and only one endoscopist remained below 87%. The endoscopists performing more than 100 colonoscopies per year had better adjusted cecum intubation rate (base 91.2%; 92.7% and 93.1% during the 2 project years) compared to those with less than 100 colonoscopies per year (base, 86.7%; project period, 85.5 and 89%).

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation and publicity of the cecal intubation rate resulted in an improvement of the quality of colonoscopy. The authors also presented that endoscopists performing more than 100 colonoscopies per year have better endoscopic quality.

Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive monitoring of colonoscopy quality requires complete and accurate colonoscopy reporting.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the compliance with colonoscopy reporting and to assess the quality of colonoscopy performance.

DESIGN

Consecutive colonoscopy reports were reviewed by hand. Four hundred reports were included from each department.

SETTING

Daily clinical practice in 12 Dutch endoscopy departments.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients undergoing scheduled colonoscopy procedures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Quality of reporting was assessed by using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria for colonoscopy reporting. Quality of colonoscopy performance was evaluated by using the cecal intubation rate and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

A total of 4800 colonoscopies were performed by 116 endoscopists: 70% by gastroenterologists, 16% by gastroenterology fellows, 10% by internists, 3% by nurse-endoscopists, and 1% by surgeons. The mean age of the patients was 59 years (standard deviation 16), and 47% were male. Reports contained information on indication, sedation practice, and extent of the procedure in more than 90%. Only 62% of the reports mentioned the quality of bowel preparation (range between departments 7%-100%); photographic documentation of the cecal landmarks was present in 71% (range 22%-97%). The adjusted cecal intubation rate was 92% (range 84%-97%). The ADR was 24% (range 13%-32%).

LIMITATIONS

Dependent on reports, no intervention in endoscopic practice. No analysis for performance per endoscopist.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy reporting varied significantly in clinical practice. Colonoscopy performance met the suggested standards; however, considerable variability between endoscopy departments was found. The results of this study underline the importance of the implementation of quality indicators and guidelines. Moreover, by continuous monitoring of quality parameters, the quality of both colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance can easily be improved.

Colonoscopy: new approaches to better outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prevention of colorectal cancer relies on the detection and removal of colorectal neoplasia. Recent advances in mucosal imaging and inspection techniques have increased the detection of small and diminutive colorectal polyps with unknown clinical impact. The ability to accurately predict whether a polyp is neoplastic may allow for an optical triage approach to polyp management, improving efficiency while reducing the cost and risk of polypectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-definition white light colonoscopy, cap-fitted colonoscopy, and dye-based pan-chromoendoscopy have each shown to increase polyp detection. Virtual chromoendoscopy, although not beneficial for polyp detection, allows for accurate in-vivo prediction of polyp pathology. Endoscopists' behaviors, independent of patient factors, strongly influence adenoma detection. Training methods focused on the techniques of high adenoma detectors also increase adenoma and polyp detection.

SUMMARY

Advances in mucosal imaging and improvements in inspection technique have allowed us to detect more polyps and to predict their pathology with greater accuracy. An optical triage approach to either 'diagnose and discard' or 'diagnose and leave behind' has the potential to reduce the risk and cost of polypectomy.

How do you measure performance as a colonoscopist?

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe an easy and reproducible method of measuring clinical performance in colonoscopy.

METHOD

Data from all endoscopy procedures performed within the main endoscopy unit at Derriford Hospital between January and December 2007 were analysed. Points were allocated for given procedures. A local health economic analysis revealed that at least 8 points (or four colonoscopies) must be performed to meet list costs. The clinical performance was described as a capability index of crude Caecal Intubation Rate (CIR) vs the mean Points Performed/Endoscopy List (points/list).

RESULTS

Overall, 3884 colonoscopies were performed, with a mean crude CIR of 89.6% and 8.3 points/List. Only 7/23 endoscopists consistently met the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) standard in a cost-effective way. An annual colonoscopy rate of ≥ 150 cases was associated with higher points per list (points/list) (P = 0.003). Endoscopists offering ≥ 15% of cases as training cases had significantly higher crude CIRs and points/list (P = 0.051; P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical performance is a function of quality provided in a cost-effective way. Our capability index is an effective and reproducible way of measuring clinical performance. Training was not associated with reduced volume.

Improving the Yield of Histological Sampling in Patients With Suspected Colorectal Cancer During Colonoscopy by Introducing a Colonoscopy Quality Assurance Program

Background

Masses discovered by clinical examination, imaging or endoscopic studies that are suspicious for malignancy typically require biopsy confirmation before treatment is initiated. Biopsy specimens may fail to yield a definitive diagnosis if the lesion is extensively ulcerated or otherwise necrotic and viable tumor tissue is not obtained on sampling. The diagnostic yield is improved when multiple biopsy samples (BSs) are taken. A colonoscopy quality-assurance program (CQAP) was instituted in 2003 in our institution. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of instituting a CQAP on the yield of histological sampling in patients with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) during colonoscopy.

Method

Initial assessment of colonoscopy practice was performed in 2003. A total of five patients with suspected CRC during colonoscopy were documented in 2003. BSs confirmed CRC in three (60%) patients and were nondiagnostic in two (40%). A quality-improvement process was instituted which required a minimum six BSs with adequate size of the samples from any suspected CRC during colonoscopy. A total of 37 patients for the period 2004-2010 were prospectively assessed.

Results

The diagnosis of CRC was confirmed with histological examination of BSs obtained during colonoscopy in 63% of patients in 2004, 60% in 2005, 50% in 2006, 67% in 2007, 100% in 2008, 67% in 2009 and 100% in 2010. The yield of histological sampling increased significantly (p<0.02) from 61% in 2004-2007 to 92% in 2008-2010.

Conclusion

The implementation of a quality assurance and improvement program increased the yield of histological sampling in patients with suspected CRC during colonoscopy.

Deep sedation compared with moderate sedation in polyp detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The detection rate of adenomas is one of the current quality indicators in high-quality colonoscopy. We compared the performance of colonoscopy for the detection of polyps in patients sedated with deep and moderate sedation. Secondary objectives included the patient's and the endoscopist's satisfaction, recovery time and the adverse events related to sedation between the two groups.

METHOD

Five hundred and twenty patients submitted for colonoscopy were prospectively randomized into a deep sedation group (DS group, n = 258) and a moderate sedation (MS group, n = 262) group. In both, sedation and analgesia were performed using midazolam with pethidine.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the two groups in the following three areas: (1) The overall detection of polyps (DS, 1 [0-20]; MS, 1 [0-15]; P = 0.67), (2): polyp size ≥ 10 mm (DS, 0.00 [0-7]; MS, 0.00 [0-6]; P = 0.30), and (3) polyp size < 10 mm (DS, 0.00 [0-20]; MS, 0.00 [0-13]; P = 0.83). There was no significant difference in the rate of adenoma detection (DS, 1 [0-10]; MS, 1 [0-9]; P = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated no difference in the detection of polyps by colonoscopy using deep or moderate sedation.

Opinion of gastroenterologists towards quality assurance in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Quality assurance has become an important issue. Many societies are adopting quality assurance programs in order to monitor and improve quality of care.

AIM

To assess the opinion of gastroenterologists towards quality assurance on the endoscopy department.

METHODS

A survey was sent to all gastroenterologists (n=319) in the Netherlands. It assessed their opinion on a quality assurance program for endoscopy units, including its design, logistics, and content.

RESULTS

200 gastroenterologists (63%) completed the questionnaire. 95% had a positive opinion towards quality assurance and 67% supposed an increase in quality. 28% assumed a negative impact on the time available for patient contact by introducing a quality assurance program and 35% that the capacity would decrease. A negative attitude towards disclosure of results to insurance companies (23%) and media (53%) was reported. Female gastroenterologists were less positive to share the results with other stakeholders (p<0.05). Most important quality measurements were assessment of complications (97%), standardised reporting (96%), and adequate patient information (95%).

CONCLUSION

Gastroenterologists have a positive attitude towards quality assurance. However, concerns do exist about time investment and disclosure of results to others. Information provision and procedure characteristics were considered the most important aspects of quality assurance.

Colonoscopy reports and current state of performance measures

Quality improvement of colonoscopy continues to be an important topic. This effort begins with creating detailed and accurate colonoscopy reports. Quality indicators are measurable endpoints that may be used in quality assurance and improvement plans. Key quality measures include cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection, withdrawal time, preparation quality, follow-up recommendations, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Unresolved issues include establishing proper benchmarks, documenting the correlation between process measures and outcomes, aligning incentives to improved quality outcomes, and issues regarding access to quality data.

Understanding the variation in treatment intensity among patients with early stage bladder cancer

BACKGROUND

Given the uncertainty surrounding the optimal management for early stage bladder cancer, physicians vary in how they approach the disease. The authors of this report linked cancer registry data with medical claims to identify the sources of variation and opportunities for improving the value of cancer care.

METHODS

By using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (1992-2005), patients with early stage bladder cancer were abstracted (n=18,276). The primary outcome was the intensity of initial treatment that patients received, as measured by all Medicare payments for bladder cancer incurred in the 2 years after diagnosis. Multilevel models were fitted to partition the variation in treatment intensity attributable to patient versus provider factors, and the potential savings to Medicare from reducing the physician contribution were estimated.

RESULTS

Provider factors accounted for 9.2% of the variation in treatment intensity. Increasing provider treatment intensity did not correlate with improved cancer-specific survival (P=.07), but it was associated with the subsequent receipt of major interventions, including radical cystectomy (P<.001). If provider-level variation was reduced and clinical practice was aligned with that of physicians who performed in the 25th percentile of treatment intensity, then total payments made for the average patient could be lowered by 18.6%, saving Medicare $18.7 million annually.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results indicated that a substantial amount of the variation in initial treatment intensity for early stage bladder cancer is driven by the physician. Furthermore, a more intensive practice style was not associated with improved cancer-specific survival or the avoidance of major interventions. Therefore, interventions aimed at reducing between-provider differences may improve the value of cancer care.

A clinical nurse specialist-led intervention to enhance medication adherence using the plan-do-check-act cycle for continuous self-improvement

PURPOSE

A clinical nurse specialist-led intervention to improve medication adherence in chronically ill adults using renal transplant recipients as an exemplar population is proposed.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews of chronically ill and transplant patients indicate that patient-specific characteristics not only are poor and inconsistent predictors for medication nonadherence but also are not amenable to intervention. Adherence has not meaningfully improved, despite meta-analyses and systematic narrative reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with medication nonadherence in acutely and chronically ill persons and RCTs dealing with transplant patients. Interventions with a superior potential to enhance medication adherence must be developed.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION

Use of a clinical nurse specialist-led continuous self-improvement intervention with adult renal transplant recipients is proposed. Continuous self-improvement focuses on improving personal systems thinking and behavior using the plan-do-check-act process. Electronic medication monitoring reports, one of several objective measures of medication adherence, are used by the clinician to provide patient feedback during the check process on medication-taking patterns.

CONCLUSION

Continuous self-improvement as an intervention holds promise in supporting patient self-management and diminishing the blame that clinicians place on patients for medication nonadherence. Using an objective measure of medication adherence such as an electronic monitoring report fosters collaborative patient-clinician discussions of daily medication-taking patterns. Through collaboration, ideas for improving medication taking can be explored. Changes can be followed and evaluated for effectiveness through the continuous self-improvement process.

IMPLICATIONS

Future studies should include RCTs comparing educational and/or behavioral interventions to improve medication adherence.

Computer simulator among experts involved in screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

In the era of screening colonoscopy, assessment of operator competence is warranted.

AIM

To evaluate feasibility of a computer simulator (CS) use for assessment of competence in colonoscopy by investigating performance of expert endoscopists at CS.

SUBJECTS

Twenty expert endoscopists involved in screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

Experts returned a questionnaire regarding personal practice (duration of activity, number of colonoscopies in the last year and assistance by a nurse) and performances (percentage of caecal intubation and polyp detection rate). One easy and one difficult colonoscopy were proposed at CS in randomized order.

RESULTS

Participation rate was 75%. Caecal intubation rate in clinical practice was more than 90% for all experts. At CS, time to caecal intubation and number of attempts for ileal intubation were significantly lower during easy versus difficult colonoscopy (P<0.01 for both items); interestingly, percentage of mucosa explored was higher (P<0.05) during the difficult simulation. Withdrawal time >/=6 min was achieved by 40 and 33% of experts during the easy and difficult simulation, respectively. Independent of simulation difficulty, time with loop was lower (P<0.05) for experts using hands-free insertion (n = 8) compared with those using nurse assistance in their clinical practice (n = 7). No correlation was found between scores at CS and performance in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Scores at CS are sensitive to the rate of technical difficulty and nurse assistance during daily practice. Withdrawal time is often shorter than required for high accuracy in polyp detection. CS could be a well-accepted tool for assessment of competence.