Literature DB >> 22421498

Knowledge of quality performance measures associated with endoscopy among gastroenterology trainees and the impact of a web-based intervention.

Jennifer S Thompson1, Benjamin Lebwohl, Sapna Syngal, Fay Kastrinos.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of quality measures in endoscopy among trainees is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge of endoscopy-related quality indicators among U.S. trainees and determine whether it improves with a Web-based intervention.
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled study.
SETTING: Multicenter. PARTICIPANTS: This study involved trainees identified from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy membership database. INTERVENTION: Participants were invited to complete an 18-question online test. Respondents were randomized to receive a Web-based tutorial (intervention) or not. The test was readministered 6 weeks after randomization to determine the intervention's impact. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Baseline knowledge of endoscopy-related quality indicators and impact of the tutorial.
RESULTS: A total of 347 of 1220 trainees (28%) completed the test; the mean percentage of correct responses was 55%. For screening colonoscopy, 44% knew the adenoma detection rate benchmark, 42% identified the cecal intubation rate goal, and 74% knew the recommended minimum withdrawal time. A total of 208 of 347 trainees (59%) completed the second test; baseline scores were similar for the tutorial (n = 106) and no tutorial (n = 102) groups (56.4% vs 56.9%, respectively). Scores improved after intervention for the tutorial group (65%, P = .003) but remained unchanged in the no tutorial group. On multivariate analysis, each additional year in training (odds ratio [OR] 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.4), training at an academic institution (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3), and receiving the tutorial (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-5.9) were associated with scores in the upper tertile. LIMITATIONS: Low response rate.
CONCLUSION: Knowledge of endoscopy-related quality performance measures is low among trainees but can improve with a Web-based tutorial. Gastroenterology training programs may need to incorporate a formal didactic curriculum to supplement practice-based learning of quality standards in endoscopy.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22421498      PMCID: PMC3739290          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  28 in total

1.  AGA Task Force on Quality in Practice: a national overview and implications for GI practice.

Authors:  Martin Brotman; John Irvin Allen; Stephen J Bickston; Donald R Campbell; Jeanne M Huddleston; Laura E Peterson; Phil S Schoenfeld; Cary S Sennett; Jeff R Willis
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Authors:  Jonathan Cohen; Michael A Safdi; Stephen E Deal; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Douglas K Rex; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  A call to action--measuring the quality of colonoscopy.

Authors:  David Lieberman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Excellence in endoscopy: toward practical metrics.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Robert H Hawes; Alan Barkun; Gregory G Ginsberg; Stephan Amman; Jonathan Cohen; Jeffrey Ponsky; Douglas K Rex; Drew Schembre; C Mel Wilcox
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  "Demand the data! Your patients will ask and your practice will need it".

Authors:  Bret T Petersen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies.

Authors:  D K Rex; C S Cutler; G T Lemmel; E Y Rahmani; D W Clark; D J Helper; G A Lehman; D G Mark
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice.

Authors:  D K Rex; E Y Rahmani; J H Haseman; G T Lemmel; S Kaster; J S Buckley
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Robert L Barclay; Joseph J Vicari; Andrea S Doughty; John F Johanson; Roger L Greenlaw
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-12-14       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Achieving competence in colonoscopy: Milestones and the need for a new endoscopic curriculum in gastroenterology training.

Authors:  Sara B Stanford; Stephanie Lee; Candace Masaquel; Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-12-10

2.  The increasing importance of quality measures for trainees.

Authors:  Sameer D Saini; Akbar K Waljee; Philip Schoenfeld; Eve A Kerr; Sandeep Vijan
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Validity of a Web-based educational program to disseminate a standardized bowel preparation rating scale.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Judith R Logan; Michael Zurfluh; David A Lieberman; Brian C Jacobson; Timothy C Heeren; Paul C Schroy
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.062

4.  Influence of colonoscopy quality measures on patients' colonoscopist selection.

Authors:  Yauheni Solad; Charles Wang; Loren Laine; Yanhong Deng; Harold Schwartz; Maria M Ciarleglio; Harry R Aslanian
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Colonoscopy procedural volume increases adenoma and polyp detection rates in gastroenterologytrainees.

Authors:  Emad Qayed; Ravi Vora; Sara Levy; Roberd M Bostick
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-11-16

Review 6.  A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.

Authors:  Robyn S Sharma; Peter G Rossos
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-26
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.