Literature DB >> 36250166

Regular feedback to individual endoscopists is associated with improved adenoma detection rate and other key performance indicators for colonoscopy.

Samuel Lim1, Giovanni Tritto1, Sebastian Zeki1, Sabina DeMartino1.   

Abstract

Objective: Monitoring of key performance indicators (KPIs) is a vital element of endoscopy quality improvement. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is considered the best marker for colonoscopic quality as it inversely correlates with subsequent colonic cancer incidence and mortality, while polyp detection rate (PDR) is an easier-to-calculate surrogate for ADR. This study assessed whether regular feedback to individual endoscopists about their KPIs improved departmental performance.
Methods: Individual KPIs were calculated for a period of 8 years (January 2012-December 2019) and fed back to all endoscopists at 6 monthly intervals, alongside anonymised indicators for other endoscopists, aggregate departmental performance data and benchmarks. An automated natural language processing software (EndoMineR) was used to identify adenomas in pathology reports and calculate ADR. Linear regressions were calculated for departmental ADR, PDR and other KPIs at 6 monthly intervals.
Results: 39 359 colonoscopies (average 2460 in every 6-month period, range 1799-3059) were performed by an average of 42 (range 34-50) endoscopists. A continuous improvement in collective performance including ADR (12.7%-21.0%, R2 0.92, p<0.001) and PDR (19.0%-29.6%, R2 0.77, p<0.001) was observed throughout the study. Other KPIs showed similar improvement. The detection of non-neoplastic polyps did not increase. When analysed separately, ADR and PDR appeared to improve for gastroenterologists and nurse endoscopists but not for surgeons.
Conclusion: Regular feedback with individual and departmental KPIs was associated with improved ADR and overall performance throughout the 8-year study period. Concomitant monitoring of ADR and PDR may prevent 'gaming' behaviour and ensure that genuine improvement is achieved. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colonic adenomas; colonic polyps; colorectal cancer; endoscopy

Year:  2022        PMID: 36250166      PMCID: PMC9555132          DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2022-102091

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol        ISSN: 2041-4137


  32 in total

1.  Adenoma detection rate: in search of quality improvement, not just measurement.

Authors:  David Lieberman; Ranjan Mascarenhas
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Prospective assessment of the impact of feedback on colonoscopy performance.

Authors:  G C Harewood; B T Petersen; B J Ott
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2006-07-15       Impact factor: 8.171

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

Authors:  Rajesh N Keswani; Rena Yadlapati; Kristine M Gleason; Jody D Ciolino; Michael Manka; Kevin J O'Leary; Cynthia Barnard; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 4.  Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kirles Bishay; Natalia Causada-Calo; Michael A Scaffidi; Catharine M Walsh; John T Anderson; Alaa Rostom; Catherine Dube; Rajesh N Keswani; Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden; Risa Shorr; Samir C Grover; Nauzer Forbes
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Susan G Coe; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 10.864

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

7.  Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Heitham Abdul-Baki; Robert E Schoen; Katie Dean; Sherri Rose; Daniel A Leffler; Eliathamby Kuganeswaran; Michele Morris; David Carrell; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Siwan Thomas Gibson; Matt D Rutter; Phil Baragwanath; Rupert Pullan; Mark Feeney; Neil Haslam
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  Performance report cards increase adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Michael Sai Lai Sey; Andy Liu; Samuel Asfaha; Victoria Siebring; Vipul Jairath; Brian Yan
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2017-07-06

10.  Impact of feedback and monitoring on colonoscopy withdrawal times and polyp detection rates.

Authors:  Amalie Bach Nielsen; Ole Haagen Nielsen; Jakob Hendel
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-06-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.