BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy quality is a hot topic in gastroenterological communities, with several actual guidelines focusing on this aspect. Although the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important indicator, several other metrics are described and need reporting. Electronic medical reports are essential for the audit of quality indicators; nevertheless, they have proved not to be faultless. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyse and audit quality indicators (apart from ADR) using only our internal electronic endoscopy records as a starting point for improvement. METHODS: An analysis of electronically recorded information of 8,851 total colonoscopies from a single tertiary centre from 2010 to 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 63.4 ± 8.5 years; 45.5% of them were female, and in 14.6% sedation was used. Photographic documentation was done in 98.4% with 10.7 photographs on average, and 37.4% reports had <8 pictures per exam. Bowel preparation was rated as adequate in 67%, fair in 27% and inadequate in 4.9% of cases. The adjusted caecal intubation rate (CIR) was 92%, while negative predictors were inadequate preparation (OR 119, 95% CI 84-170), no sedation (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.81-3.15), female gender (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38-1.88) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.34-1.82). In 28% of patients, a snare polypectomy was performed, correlating with adequate preparation (OR 5.75, 95% CI 3.90-8.48), male gender (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.64-2.01) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.37; p < 0.01) as positive predictors. An annual evolution was observed with improvements in photographic documentation (10.7 vs. 12.9; p < 0.001), CIR (91 vs. 94%; p = 0.002) and "adequate" bowel preparation (p = 0.004). Conclusions: There is much more to report than the ADR to ensure quality in colonoscopy practice. Better registry systematization and integrated software should be goals to achieve in the short term.
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy quality is a hot topic in gastroenterological communities, with several actual guidelines focusing on this aspect. Although the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important indicator, several other metrics are described and need reporting. Electronic medical reports are essential for the audit of quality indicators; nevertheless, they have proved not to be faultless. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyse and audit quality indicators (apart from ADR) using only our internal electronic endoscopy records as a starting point for improvement. METHODS: An analysis of electronically recorded information of 8,851 total colonoscopies from a single tertiary centre from 2010 to 2015 was performed. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 63.4 ± 8.5 years; 45.5% of them were female, and in 14.6% sedation was used. Photographic documentation was done in 98.4% with 10.7 photographs on average, and 37.4% reports had <8 pictures per exam. Bowel preparation was rated as adequate in 67%, fair in 27% and inadequate in 4.9% of cases. The adjusted caecal intubation rate (CIR) was 92%, while negative predictors were inadequate preparation (OR 119, 95% CI 84-170), no sedation (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.81-3.15), female gender (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38-1.88) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.34-1.82). In 28% of patients, a snare polypectomy was performed, correlating with adequate preparation (OR 5.75, 95% CI 3.90-8.48), male gender (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.64-2.01) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.37; p < 0.01) as positive predictors. An annual evolution was observed with improvements in photographic documentation (10.7 vs. 12.9; p < 0.001), CIR (91 vs. 94%; p = 0.002) and "adequate" bowel preparation (p = 0.004). Conclusions: There is much more to report than the ADR to ensure quality in colonoscopy practice. Better registry systematization and integrated software should be goals to achieve in the short term.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colonoscopy; Electronic health records; Gastroenterology standards; Quality improvement; Quality of health care
Authors: David Lieberman; Marion Nadel; Robert A Smith; Wendy Atkin; Subash B Duggirala; Robert Fletcher; Seth N Glick; C Daniel Johnson; Theodore R Levin; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; David Ransohoff; Douglas Rex; Robert Schoen; Paul Schroy; Sidney Winawer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Timothy D Imler; Justin Morea; Charles Kahi; Eric A Sherer; Jon Cardwell; Cynthia S Johnson; Huiping Xu; Dennis Ahnen; Fadi Antaki; Christopher Ashley; Gyorgy Baffy; Ilseung Cho; Jason Dominitz; Jason Hou; Mark Korsten; Anil Nagar; Kittichai Promrat; Douglas Robertson; Sameer Saini; Amandeep Shergill; Walter Smalley; Thomas F Imperiale Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Luís Elvas; Daniel Brito; Miguel Areia; Rita Carvalho; Susana Alves; Sandra Saraiva; Ana T Cadime Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-11-01
Authors: Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves; Diogo Libânio; Joana Marques-Antunes; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Pedro Pimentel-Nunes Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-04-03