Michael B Wallace1, Julia E Crook2, Colleen S Thomas2, Estella Staggs3, Laurie Parker4, Douglas K Rex5. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. Electronic address: Wallace.michael@mayo.edu. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 4. American College of Gastroenterology, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 5. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Colonoscopy is protective against colorectal cancer, but its quality and protective benefits can vary. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is associated with quality and the degree of protection against colorectal cancer and death. In a previous, single academic center, randomized, controlled trial, we demonstrated that an endoscopic quality improvement program increased ADR (EQUIP-1) and that those increases were durable (EQUIP-2). We hypothesized that EQUIP training would increase ADR in a multicenter clinical practice setting. METHODS: Nine large clinical practice sites were recruited. After a baseline period (phase I), 5 sites were randomized to receive supplemental in-person EQUIP training with active feedback. After follow-up (phase II), the changes in ADRs at these sites were compared with the changes at 4 control sites that did not receive training or feedback until after study completion. RESULTS:Twenty-two thousand three hundred sixteen colonoscopies were included. There was a statistically significant increase in ADR at the training sites (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; P = .004) with a raw ADR of 31% in phase I and 42% in phase II after the intervention. However, raw ADRs also increased at the control sites (from 36% to 39%). As a result, there was limited evidence of a training effect (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.25; P = .78). CONCLUSIONS:ADRs increased at the sites participating in the endoscopic quality improvement program. However it is not clear to what extent the training program is responsible for the changes, because raw ADRs also increased at the control sites but to a lesser extent. (Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT02325635.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is protective against colorectal cancer, but its quality and protective benefits can vary. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is associated with quality and the degree of protection against colorectal cancer and death. In a previous, single academic center, randomized, controlled trial, we demonstrated that an endoscopic quality improvement program increased ADR (EQUIP-1) and that those increases were durable (EQUIP-2). We hypothesized that EQUIP training would increase ADR in a multicenter clinical practice setting. METHODS: Nine large clinical practice sites were recruited. After a baseline period (phase I), 5 sites were randomized to receive supplemental in-person EQUIP training with active feedback. After follow-up (phase II), the changes in ADRs at these sites were compared with the changes at 4 control sites that did not receive training or feedback until after study completion. RESULTS: Twenty-two thousand three hundred sixteen colonoscopies were included. There was a statistically significant increase in ADR at the training sites (odds ratio [OR], 1.28; P = .004) with a raw ADR of 31% in phase I and 42% in phase II after the intervention. However, raw ADRs also increased at the control sites (from 36% to 39%). As a result, there was limited evidence of a training effect (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.25; P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: ADRs increased at the sites participating in the endoscopic quality improvement program. However it is not clear to what extent the training program is responsible for the changes, because raw ADRs also increased at the control sites but to a lesser extent. (Clinical Trials Registration number: NCT02325635.).
Authors: Anne F Peery; Katherine S Cools; Paula D Strassle; Sarah K McGill; Seth D Crockett; Aubrey Barker; Mark Koruda; Ian S Grimm Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Eelco C Brand; Julia E Crook; Colleen S Thomas; Peter D Siersema; Douglas K Rex; Michael B Wallace Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maxime E S Bronzwaer; Marjolein J E Greuter; Arne G C Bleijenberg; Joep E G IJspeert; Evelien Dekker; Veerle M H Coupé Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 4.430