BACKGROUND: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. SETTING: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. DESIGN: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) >9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. RESULTS: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9% did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1% did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3%, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14% of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9%) and morphology (14.7%). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0% to 6.5%. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps >9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4% and 10% in 81% of practices. LIMITATION: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. SETTING: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. DESIGN: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) >9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. RESULTS: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9% did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1% did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3%, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14% of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9%) and morphology (14.7%). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0% to 6.5%. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps >9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4% and 10% in 81% of practices. LIMITATION: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas B Nelson; Kenneth R McQuaid; John H Bond; David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; Tiina K Johnston Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Valerie L Durkalski; Benoit C Pineau; Yuko Y Palesch; Patrick D Mauldin; Brenda Hoffman; David J Vining; William C Small; John Affronti; Douglas Rex; Kenyon K Kopecky; Susan Ackerman; J Steven Burdick; Cecelia Brewington; Mary A Turner; Alvin Zfass; Andrew R Wright; Revathy B Iyer; Patrick Lynch; Michael V Sivak; Harold Butler Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Henk Harkema; Wendy W Chapman; Melissa Saul; Evan S Dellon; Robert E Schoen; Ateev Mehrotra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sang Man Park; Soon Hak Lee; Keun Young Shin; Jun Heo; Sang Hun Sung; Soon Hong Park; So Young Choi; Dong Wook Lee; Hyun Gu Park; Hyun Seok Lee; Seong Woo Jeon; Sung Kook Kim; Min Kyu Jung Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jae Il Chung; Nayoung Kim; Min Sik Um; Kyung Phil Kang; Donghun Lee; Jong Chun Na; Eun Sil Lee; Yeon Mu Chung; Ji Yeon Won; Kwang Ho Lee; Tek Man Nam; Jung Hun Lee; Hyun Chul Choi; Sang Hyub Lee; Young Soo Park; Jin Hyuk Hwang; Jin-Wook Kim; Sook-Hyang Jeong; Dong Ho Lee Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 4.519