Literature DB >> 23248789

Qualitative study of physician perspectives on classifying screening and nonscreening colonoscopy using administrative health data: adding practice does not make perfect.

Maida J Sewitch1, Robert Hilsden, Lawrence Joseph, Linda Rabineck, Lawrence Paszat, Alain Bitton, Mary Anne Cooper.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previously developed screening colonoscopy algorithms based on diagnostic and endoscopy procedural variables have not been sufficiently accurate for use in epidemiological and health services research.
OBJECTIVE: To increase understanding of the administrative health database variables that could help to discern screening and nonscreening colonoscopy.
METHODS: A qualitative study using physician focus groups was conducted in Montreal (Quebec), Calgary (Alberta) and Toronto (Ontario). Specialty-specific focus group sessions were held among family physicians and gastroenterologists - the physicians responsible for referring patients to and performing screening colonoscopy, respectively. Interview guides were developed to better understand physician clinical and billing practices. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the constant comparative approach.
RESULTS: Forty family physicians and seven gastroenterologists participated in five focus group sessions. Patient variables included demographics (age) and medical history (colorectal cancer risk factors⁄symptoms, medication for colorectal cancer risk factors⁄symptoms, gastrointestinal disorders, severe disease). Clinical practice variables included timing of the colonoscopy (evenings, weekends, holidays, during hospitalization; same-day endoscopist consultation and colonoscopy), use of services (hospitalization, annual examination, transfer from other facility) and procedure use patterns (large bowel or other medical⁄surgical procedure before and subsequent to colonoscopy). However, wide variability in clinical and billing practices will likely preclude the development of a reasonably accurate screening colonoscopy algorithm. Physicians suggested adding a screening colonoscopy code to the administrative health data.
CONCLUSIONS: Failure to acknowledge the limitations of the provincial administrative health databases to identify screening colonoscopy may lead to incorrect conclusions and the establishment of inappropriate health care policies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23248789      PMCID: PMC3551563          DOI: 10.1155/2012/176714

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0835-7900            Impact factor:   3.522


  9 in total

1.  Ascertainment of colonoscopy indication using administrative data.

Authors:  Deborah A Fisher; Janet M Grubber; John M Castor; Cynthia J Coffman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  An automated data algorithm to distinguish screening and diagnostic colorectal cancer endoscopy exams.

Authors:  Reina Haque; Vicki Chiu; Kapil R Mehta; Ann M Geiger
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2005

3.  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

4.  Canadian guidelines for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Jennifer J Telford
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Canadian consensus on medically acceptable wait times for digestive health care.

Authors:  William G Paterson; William T Depew; Pierre Paré; Denis Petrunia; Connie Switzer; Sander J Veldhuyzen van Zanten; Sandra Daniels
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.522

6.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology position statement on screening individuals at average risk for developing colorectal cancer: 2010.

Authors:  Desmond J Leddin; Robert Enns; Robert Hilsden; Victor Plourde; Linda Rabeneck; Daniel C Sadowski; Harminder Signh
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Nancy N Baxter; Rinku Sutradhar; Shawn S Forbes; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2010-09-18       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  The use of screening colonoscopy for patients cared for by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Authors:  Hashem B El-Serag; Laura Petersen; Howard Hampel; Peter Richardson; Gregory Cooper
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-11-13

9.  Endoscopist specialty is associated with incident colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy.

Authors:  Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 11.382

  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  Changes in screening colonoscopy following Medicare reimbursement and cost-sharing changes.

Authors:  Lina D Song; Joseph P Newhouse; Xabier Garcia-De-Albeniz; John Hsu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Screening polypectomy rates below quality benchmarks: a prospective study.

Authors:  Maida J Sewitch; Mengzhu Jiang; Mélanie Fon Sing; Alan Barkun; Lawrence Joseph
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Developing model-based algorithms to identify screening colonoscopies using administrative health databases.

Authors:  Maida J Sewitch; Mengzhu Jiang; Lawrence Joseph; Robert J Hilsden; Alain Bitton
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 2.796

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.