Literature DB >> 24818549

Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy quality indicators: a report from the Gastroenterology Practice Management Group.

Lyndon V Hernandez1, Thomas M Deas2, Marc F Catalano3, Nalini M Guda3, Lin Huang4, Scott R Ketover5, Kyle P Etzkorn6, Kumar G Gutta2, Steve J Morris7, Michael J Schmalz3, Dominic Klyve8, John I Allen9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for colonoscopy quality measures for procedures performed in ambulatory surgery centers. Benchmarks such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are traditionally reported as static, one-dimensional point estimates at a provider or practice level.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 6-year variability of ADRs for 370 gastroenterologists from across the nation.
DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional analysis.
SETTING: Collaborative quality metrics database from 2007 to 2012. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent colonoscopies in ambulatory surgery centers.
INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The number of colonoscopies with an adenomatous polyp divided by the total number of colonoscopies (ADR-T), inclusive of indication and patient's sex.
RESULTS: Data from 368,157 colonoscopies were included for analysis from 11 practices. Three practice sites (5, 8, and 10) were significantly above and 2 sites (3, 7) were significantly below mean ADR-T, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). High-performing sites had 9.0% higher ADR-T than sites belonging to the lowest quartile (P < .001). The mean ADR-T remained stable for 9 of 11 sites. Regression analysis showed that the 2 practice sites where ADR-T varied had significant improvements in ADR-T during the 6-year period. For each, mean ADR-T improved an average of 0.5% per quarter for site 2 (P = .001) and site 3 (P = .021), which were average and low performers, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Summary-level data, which does not allow cross-reference of variables at an individual level.
CONCLUSION: We found performance disparities among practice sites remaining relatively consistent over a 6-year period. The ability of certain sites to sustain their high-performance over 6 years suggests that further research is needed to identify key organizational processes and physician incentives that improve the quality of colonoscopy.
Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24818549     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.1043

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


  3 in total

1.  Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics.

Authors:  Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; Rebecca S Slack; Selvi Thirumurthi; Patrick M Lynch; Ethan Miller; Brian R Weston; Marta L Davila; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Robert S Bresalier; Alexander A Dekovich; Jeffrey H Lee; Sushovan Guha; Mala Pande; Boris Blechacz; Asif Rashid; Mark Routbort; Gladis Shuttlesworth; Lopa Mishra; John R Stroehlein; William A Ross
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group.

Authors:  Suqing Li; Marc Monachese; Misbah Salim; Naveen Arya; Anand V Sahai; Nauzer Forbes; Christopher Teshima; Mohammad Yaghoobi; Yen-I Chen; Eric Lam; Paul James
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.628

Review 3.  A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.