Literature DB >> 29908363

Video-Based Assessments of Colonoscopy Inspection Quality Correlate With Quality Metrics and Highlight Areas for Improvement.

Anna Duloy1, Rena H Yadlapati2, Mark Benson3, Andrew J Gawron4, Charles J Kahi5, Tonya R Kaltenbach6, Jessica McClure7, Dyanna L Gregory8, Rajesh N Keswani8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) vary significantly among colonoscopists. Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) is the quality with which a colonoscopist inspects for polyps and may explain some of this variation. We aimed to determine the relationship between CIQ and historical ADRs and SDRs in a cohort of colonoscopists and assess whether there is variation in CIQ components (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) among colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study to assess CIQ among 17 high-volume colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we video-recorded >28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 7 colonoscopies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Six raters graded CIQ using an established scale, with a maximum whole colon score of 75.
RESULTS: We evaluated 119 colonoscopies. The median whole-colon CIQ score was 50.1/75. Whole-colon CIQ score (r=0.71; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.74; cleaning r=0.67; distension r=0.77; all P<.01) correlated with ADR. Proximal colon CIQ score (r=0.67; P<.01) and component scores (fold examination r=0.71; cleaning r=0.62; distension r=0.65; all P<.05) correlated with SDR. CIQ component scores differed significantly between colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs for most of the CIQ skills.
CONCLUSION: In a prospective observational study, we found CIQ and CIQ components to correlate with ADR and SDR. Colonoscopists with similar ADRs and SDRs differ in their performance of the 3 CIQ components-specific, actionable feedback might improve colonoscopy technique.
Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colon Cancer Prevention; Early Detection; Endoscopy; Quality Improvement

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29908363     DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.05.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  3 in total

1.  Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills improves group colonoscopy quality in providers with lower adenoma detection rates.

Authors:  Rajesh N Keswani; Mariah Wood; Mark Benson; Andrew J Gawron; Charles Kahi; Tonya Kaltenbach; Rena Yadlapati; Dyanna Gregory; Anna Duloy
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2022-03-14

2.  Artificial intelligence-based assessments of colonoscopic withdrawal technique: a new method for measuring and enhancing the quality of fold examination.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Yu Wu; Xianglei Yuan; Jingyu Zhang; Yao Zhou; Wanhong Zhang; Peipei Zhu; Zhang Tao; Long He; Bing Hu; Zhang Yi
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 9.776

3.  Cecal retroflexion is infrequently performed in routine practice and the retroflexed view is of poor quality.

Authors:  Rajesh N Keswani; Charles J Kahi; Mark Benson; Andrew J Gawron; Tonya R Kaltenbach; Rena H Yadlapati; Dyanna L Gregory; Anna Duloy
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 3.067

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.