Variations in the reporting of endoscopies by different endoscopists

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.

Quality audit of colonoscopy reports amongst patients screened or surveilled for colorectal neoplasia

AIM: To complete a quality audit using recently published criteria from the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy reports of patients at average/high risk screening, or with a prior colorectal neoplasia (CRN) by endoscopists who perform 11 000 procedures yearly, using a commercial computerized endoscopic report generator. A separate institutional database providing pathological results. Required documentation included patient demographics, history, procedure indications, technical descriptions, colonoscopy findings, interventions, unplanned events, follow-up plans, and pathology results. Reports abstraction employed a standardized glossary with 10% independent data validation. Sample size calculations determined the number of reports needed.

RESULTS: Two hundreds and fifty patients (63.2 ± 10.5 years, female: 42.8%, average risk: 38.5%, personal/family history of CRN: 43.3%/20.2%) were scoped in June 2009 by 8 gastroenterologists and 3 surgeons (mean practice: 17.1 ± 8.5 years). Procedural indication and informed consent were always documented. 14% provided a previous colonoscopy date (past polyp removal information in 25%, but insufficient in most to determine surveillance intervals appropriateness). Most procedural indicators were recorded (exam date: 98.4%, medications: 99.2%, difficulty level: 98.8%, prep quality: 99.6%). All reports noted extent of visualization (cecum: 94.4%, with landmarks noted in 78.8% - photodocumentation: 67.2%). No procedural times were recorded. One hundred and eleven had polyps (44.4%) with anatomic location noted in 99.1%, size in 65.8%, morphology in 62.2%; removal was by cold biopsy in 25.2% (cold snare: 18%, snare cautery: 31.5%, unrecorded: 20.7%), 84.7% were retrieved. Adenomas were noted in 24.8% (advanced adenomas: 7.6%, cancer: 0.4%) in this population with varying previous colonic investigations.

CONCLUSION: This audit reveals lacking reported items, justifying additional research to optimize quality of reporting.