Literature DB >> 22178958

Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'?

Lucio Petruzziello1, Cesare Hassan, Domenico Alvaro, Anna Kohn, Zaccaria Rossi, Angelo Zullo, Paola Cesaro, Bruno Annibale, Alessandra Barca, Emilio Di Giulio, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Enrico Grasso, Lorenzo Ridola, Cristiano Spada, Guido Costamagna.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The appropriate selection of patients for colonoscopy is crucial for an efficient use of endoscopy. The role of endoscopist in filtering out inappropriate referrals is largely unknown.
METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study was performed in which consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before colonoscopy, the endoscopist assessed appropriateness of the endoscopic referral without directly consulting official guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Appropriateness of the indication was eventually assessed by a group of experts based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, representing the gold standard. Outcomes of the study were the inappropriateness rate and the main related causes, as well as the concordance rate between the endoscopists and the experts. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of inappropriateness.
RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled in 20 centres, of which 1489 outpatients were included in the final analysis. According to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, 432 referrals were inappropriate, corresponding to an inappropriateness rate of 29%. At multivariate analysis, prescription of a repeated colonoscopy (≥2 colonoscopies in the same patient) was strongly associated with the inappropriateness of the indication (odds ratio: 8.8; 95% confidence interval: 6.2, 12.7). Postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 77% of the inappropriate control procedures. A 79% concordance rate between endoscopist and expert assessment was found. Among the 317 discordant cases, postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 51% of the cases, the endoscopists mistakenly classifying it as appropriate in 55% to 61% of the inappropriate cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriateness in outpatient colonoscopy referrals remains high, surveillance procedures representing the most frequent source of inappropriateness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22178958     DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182370b7b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0192-0790            Impact factor:   3.062


  8 in total

Review 1.  Surveillance of colonic polyps: Are we getting it right?

Authors:  Stewart N Bonnington; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-14       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  The Conversion of Planned Colonoscopy to Sigmoidoscopy and the Effect of this Practice on the Measurement of Quality Indicators.

Authors:  Sabina Beg; Stefano Sansone; Francesco Manguso; John Schembri; Jay Patel; Mo Thoufeeq; Gareth Corbett; Krish Ragunath
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Magical thinking.

Authors:  Charles R Boardman; Amnon Sonnenberg
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 4.488

4.  Using text analysis software to identify determinants of inappropriate clinical question reporting and diagnostic procedure referrals in Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Authors:  Francesco Venturelli; Marta Ottone; Fabio Pignatti; Eletta Bellocchio; Mirco Pinotti; Giulia Besutti; Olivera Djuric; Paolo Giorgi Rossi
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  A cross-sectional study of the appropriateness of colonoscopy requests in the Spanish region of Catalonia.

Authors:  Diana Puente; Francesc Xavier Cantero; Maria Llagostera; Pilar Piñeiro; Raquel Nieto; Rosa Saladich; Juanjo Mascort; Mercè Marzo; Jesús Almeda; Manel Segarra
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Who Needs Follow-Up after Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Adenomas?

Authors:  Sebastian Belle
Journal:  Viszeralmedizin       Date:  2014-02

7.  Conversion of colonoscopy to flexible sigmoidoscopy: an unintended consequence of quality measurement in endoscopy.

Authors:  Chris Thompson; Tariq Ismail; Simon Radley; Robert Walt; Stephen Thomas Ward
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-12-11

8.  Overuse of diagnostic testing in healthcare: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joris L J M Müskens; Rudolf Bertijn Kool; Simone A van Dulmen; Gert P Westert
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 7.035

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.