Literature DB >> 25070055

Influence of colonoscopy quality measures on patients' colonoscopist selection.

Yauheni Solad1, Charles Wang2, Loren Laine3, Yanhong Deng4, Harold Schwartz5, Maria M Ciarleglio4, Harry R Aslanian2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Affordable Care Act emphasizes the use of quality metrics and greater patient understanding of health-care options and access to physician performance data. The objectives of this study were to determine patients' familiarity with colonoscopy quality measures (CQMs) and their influence on patient selection of a colonoscopist.
METHODS: A prospective survey of patients before screening or surveillance colonoscopy at university hospital, community hospital, and ambulatory procedure center endoscopy units was performed from 2011 to 2012.
RESULTS: Among the 417 participants, 20% (85/417) researched their physician's rating. The rates of familiarity with CQM were 88 % (353/402) for adequate bowel preparation, 30% (118/398) for adenoma detection rate (ADR), 26% (102/397) for cecal intubation rate, and 21% (82/394) for greater-than-6-min withdrawal time. Ninety-six percent (366/386) believed that colonoscopists' reporting of ADR to other physicians was important or very important. In selecting a colonoscopist, primary care provider referral was ranked as the first or second-most important of four factors in 87% (339/391). Even among patients who responded "it is very important" to report CQM to other doctors and patients, none ranked CQM as the most important factor in selecting a colonoscopist.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient awareness of CQM, other than adequate bowel preparation, was low. Quality measure reporting is important to patients, but primary care provider referral was the most important factor in colonoscopist selection. This suggests that primary care providers, as well as patients, are important to include in educational strategies regarding quality metrics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25070055      PMCID: PMC4413895          DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2014.201

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  11 in total

1.  Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Surviving the waning days of fee-for-service payments.

Authors:  Spencer D Dorn
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  Quality of care for gastrointestinal conditions: a primer for gastroenterologists.

Authors:  Michael D Kappelman; Spencer D Dorn; Erica Peterson; Thomas Runge; John I Allen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 10.864

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

Authors:  Jennifer S Thompson; Benjamin Lebwohl; Sapna Syngal; Fay Kastrinos
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Health care reform and the road ahead for gastroenterology.

Authors:  Edward Sheen; Spencer D Dorn; Joel V Brill; John I Allen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 6.  Screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer: state of the art.

Authors:  Charles J Kahi; Joseph C Anderson; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Jaroslaw Regula; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Maria Zwierko; Maciej Rupinski; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Patrick Connor; Daniel McGee; Paul Jowell; Nick Nickl; Steve Schutz; Joseph Leung; John Lee; Eric Libby
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  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

10.  Projections of demand and capacity for colonoscopy related to increasing rates of colorectal cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  S Vijan; J Inadomi; R A Hayward; T P Hofer; A M Fendrick
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 8.171

View more
  8 in total

1.  Primary Care Physicians Could Play a Role in Improving Colonoscopy Quality Measures.

Authors:  Karl M Langberg; Yauheni Solad; Maria Ciarleglio; Nitin Sukumar; Pavel Teslya; Mohommed M Chowdhury; Harry R Aslanian
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Adenoma Detection Rate: Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Teresa Pinto-Pais
Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-02-18

3.  Provider-specific quality measurement for ERCP using natural language processing.

Authors:  Timothy D Imler; Stuart Sherman; Thomas F Imperiale; Huiping Xu; Fangqian Ouyang; Christopher Beesley; Charity Hilton; Gregory A Coté
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Heitham Abdul-Baki; Robert E Schoen; Katie Dean; Sherri Rose; Daniel A Leffler; Eliathamby Kuganeswaran; Michele Morris; David Carrell; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Colonoscopy: quality indicators.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.488

6.  Factors for cecal intubation time during colonoscopy in women: Impact of surgical history.

Authors:  Ji Hyung Nam; Jung Hyeon Lee; Jae Hak Kim; Hyoun Woo Kang; Dong Kee Jang; Yun Jeong Lim; Moon-Soo Koh; Hyun Soo Park; Eun-Cheol Park; Jun Kyu Lee; Jin Ho Lee
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.485

7.  Long-term patient satisfaction of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

Authors:  Konstantinos Triantafyllou; Paraskevas Gkolfakis; Maria Triantafyllou; Xhoela Ndini; Anastasia Melissaratou; Giannis-Aimant Moustafa; Eleni Xanthopoulou; Georgios Tziatzios; Georgia Vlachonikolou; Vasilios Papadopoulos; Evdoxos Pantelakis; Chrysoula Malli; George D Dimitriadis
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

8.  Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation.

Authors:  Ji Hyung Nam; Seok Bo Hong; Yun Jeong Lim; Seongju Lee; Hyoun Woo Kang; Jae Hak Kim; Jin Ho Lee
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2020-04-24
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.