Brent Murchie1, Kanwarpreet Tandon2, Shamiq Zackria3, Steven D Wexner1, Colin O'Rourke4, Fernando J Castro5. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Digestive Diseases Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Blake Medical Center, Bradenton, FL, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Aultman Hospital, Canton, OH, USA. 4. Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Digestive Diseases Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA. castrof@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR. METHODS: In March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period. RESULTS: 2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77-1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Monthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.
BACKGROUND:Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR. METHODS: In March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period. RESULTS: 2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77-1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: Monthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Aasma Shaukat; Cristina Oancea; John H Bond; Timothy R Church; John I Allen Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 11.382
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
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
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
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
Authors: Douglas K Rex; David A Johnson; Joseph C Anderson; Phillip S Schoenfeld; Carol A Burke; John M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Cristiano Spada; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Cesare Hassan; Pedro Amaro; Anurag Agrawal; Lene Brink; Wolfgang Fischbach; Matthias Hünger; Rodrigo Jover; Urpo Kinnunen; Akiko Ono; Árpád Patai; Silvia Pecere; Lucio Petruzziello; Jürgen Ferdinand Riemann; Harry Staines; Ann L Stringer; Ervin Toth; Giulio Antonelli; Lorenzo Fuccio Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-13 Impact factor: 3.390