Literature DB >> 25869388

Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality.

Rajesh N Keswani1, Rena Yadlapati1, Kristine M Gleason2, Jody D Ciolino3, Michael Manka1, Kevin J O'Leary4, Cynthia Barnard5, John E Pandolfino1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Adenoma-detection rates (ADRs) are associated with decreased interval colorectal cancer (CRC) rates and CRC mortality; quality improvement strategies focus on improving physician ADRs. The objective of this study was to examine the sequential effect of physician report cards and implementing institutional standards of practice (SOP) on ADRs.
METHODS: Colonoscopy metrics were prospectively evaluated at a single academic medical center over a 23-month period (November 2012 to October 2014). ADRs were evaluated over three time periods-Period 1: Before initial report card distribution or SOP (November 2012 to March 2013); Period 2: After individualized report card distribution detailing physician and institutional ADRs (April 2013 to March 2014); Period 3: After second report card and SOP implementation (April 2014 to October 2014). The SOP required physicians to have a minimum 5-min withdrawal time in normal colonoscopies (WT) and an ADR minimum of 20%; those who did not meet benchmarks would require further training or endoscopy block time alterations. Only endoscopists averaging >15 colonoscopies/month were included in this analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty endoscopists met the inclusion criteria, performing 12,894 screening colonoscopies over the 23-month period. Following report card distribution, physician ADRs increased by 3% (P<0.001). SOP implementation resulted in a further significant increase in mean physician ADR of 8% (P<0.0001). Overall, mean ADR increased by 11% from Period 1 to Period 3 (P<0.0001). All physicians met the minimum 20% ADR benchmark during Period 3. Although ADRs significantly correlated with WT overall (r=0.45; 95% CI 0.01, 0.75; P=0.04), mean WT did not significantly increase from Period 1 to Period 3.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that distributing colonoscopy quality report cards resulted in a significant ADR improvement. Further, we report evidence that implementing SOP significantly improved ADRs beyond report card distribution and resulted in all endoscopists meeting minimum benchmarks. This suggests that report cards and SOPs may have an additive effect in improving colonoscopy quality, and their implementation in endoscopy labs should be encouraged.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25869388     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.103

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Improving colonoscopy quality through health-care payment reform.

Authors:  David G Hewett; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Measuring the quality of endoscopy.

Authors:  David J Bjorkman; John W Popp
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals.

Authors:  Bruce L Hall; Barton H Hamilton; Karen Richards; Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Y Ko
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  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

5.  Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Aasma Shaukat; Steven J Mongin; Mindy S Geisser; Frank A Lederle; John H Bond; Jack S Mandel; Timothy R Church
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Anatomic and advanced adenoma detection rates as quality metrics determined via natural language processing.

Authors:  Andrew J Gawron; William K Thompson; Rajesh N Keswani; Luke V Rasmussen; Abel N Kho
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures.

Authors:  Charles J Kahi; Darren Ballard; Anand S Shah; Raenita Mears; Cynthia S Johnson
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection.

Authors:  Mandeep S Sawhney; Marcelo S Cury; Naama Neeman; Long H Ngo; Janet M Lewis; Ram Chuttani; Douglas K Pleskow; Mark D Aronson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 9.  Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Brian C Jacobson
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.806

Review 10.  Prevention of interval colorectal cancers: what every clinician needs to know.

Authors:  Swati G Patel; Dennis J Ahnen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 11.382

View more
  23 in total

1.  Adequacy of EGD Reporting: a Review of 100 Reports from 100 Endoscopists.

Authors:  Joshua A Boys; Beina Azadgoli; Mathew Martinez; Daniel S Oh; Jeffrey A Hagen; Steven R DeMeester
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy: Can We Get Our Recommendations to Stick?

Authors:  Melinda C Rogers; Rajesh N Keswani
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Adenoma Detection Rate: I Will Show You Mine if You Show Me Yours.

Authors:  Alexandre Oliveira Ferreira; Catarina Fidalgo; Carolina Palmela; Maria Pia Costa Santos; Joana Torres; Joana Nunes; Rui Loureiro; Rosa Ferreira; Elídio Barjas; Luísa Glória; António Alberto Santos; Marília Cravo
Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-11-23

4.  Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?

Authors:  Brent Murchie; Kanwarpreet Tandon; Shamiq Zackria; Steven D Wexner; Colin O'Rourke; Fernando J Castro
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Same-Day vs Different-Day Elective Upper and Lower Endoscopic Procedures by Setting.

Authors:  Peiqi Wang; Susan M Hutfless; Eun J Shin; Christian Hartman; Sarah Disney; Christopher C Fain; Kathy P Bull-Henry; Daniel K Daniels; Tsion Abdi; Vikesh K Singh; Anthony N Kalloo; Martin A Makary
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  Comparison of Colonoscopy Quality Measures Across Various Practice Settings and the Impact of Performance Scorecards.

Authors:  Jennifer A Inra; Jennifer Nayor; Margery Rosenblatt; Muthoka Mutinga; Sarathchandra I Reddy; Sapna Syngal; Fay Kastrinos
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

Authors:  Kelli S Hancock; Ranjan Mascarenhas; David Lieberman
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-06

8.  Polyp Resection and Removal Procedures: Insights From the 2017 Digestive Disease Week.

Authors:  Carol Burke; Vivek Kaul; Heiko Pohl
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2017-09

9.  Optimizing Colonoscopy Quality: From Bowel Preparation to Surveillance.

Authors:  Carla G Abou Fadel; Rani H Shayto; Ala I Sharara
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03

10.  Development of an automated ERCP Quality Report Card using structured data fields.

Authors:  Gregory A Coté; B Joseph Elmunzer; Erin Forster; Robert A Moran; John G Quiles; Daniel S Strand; Dushant S Uppal; Andrew Y Wang; Peter B Cotton; Michael G McMurtry; James M Scheiman
Journal:  Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2021-01-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.