Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium

David Lieberman, Douglas O. Faigel, Judith (Judy) Logan, Nora Mattek, Jennifer Holub, Glenn Eisen, Cynthia Morris, Robert Smith, Marion Nadel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

74 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. Objective: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. Setting: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. Design: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. Main Outcomes Measurements: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) >9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. Results: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9% did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1% did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3%, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14% of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9%) and morphology (14.7%). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0% to 6.5%. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps >9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4% and 10% in 81% of practices. Limitation: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)645-653
Number of pages9
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume69
Issue number3 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2009

Fingerprint

Colonoscopy
Polyps
Intubation
Gastroenterology
Quality Improvement
Endoscopy
Comorbidity
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports : results from a multicenter consortium. / Lieberman, David; Faigel, Douglas O.; Logan, Judith (Judy); Mattek, Nora; Holub, Jennifer; Eisen, Glenn; Morris, Cynthia; Smith, Robert; Nadel, Marion.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 69, No. 3 SUPPL., 03.2009, p. 645-653.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lieberman, David ; Faigel, Douglas O. ; Logan, Judith (Judy) ; Mattek, Nora ; Holub, Jennifer ; Eisen, Glenn ; Morris, Cynthia ; Smith, Robert ; Nadel, Marion. / Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports : results from a multicenter consortium. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2009 ; Vol. 69, No. 3 SUPPL. pp. 645-653.
@article{cb8ace1911404d13a66cba20d535e9dc,
title = "Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium",
abstract = "Background: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. Objective: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. Setting: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. Design: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. Main Outcomes Measurements: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) >9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. Results: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9{\%} did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1{\%} did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3{\%}, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14{\%} of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9{\%}) and morphology (14.7{\%}). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0{\%} to 6.5{\%}. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps >9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4{\%} and 10{\%} in 81{\%} of practices. Limitation: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.",
author = "David Lieberman and Faigel, {Douglas O.} and Logan, {Judith (Judy)} and Nora Mattek and Jennifer Holub and Glenn Eisen and Cynthia Morris and Robert Smith and Marion Nadel",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.034",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "645--653",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3 SUPPL.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports

T2 - results from a multicenter consortium

AU - Lieberman, David

AU - Faigel, Douglas O.

AU - Logan, Judith (Judy)

AU - Mattek, Nora

AU - Holub, Jennifer

AU - Eisen, Glenn

AU - Morris, Cynthia

AU - Smith, Robert

AU - Nadel, Marion

PY - 2009/3

Y1 - 2009/3

N2 - Background: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. Objective: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. Setting: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. Design: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. Main Outcomes Measurements: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) >9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. Results: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9% did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1% did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3%, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14% of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9%) and morphology (14.7%). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0% to 6.5%. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps >9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4% and 10% in 81% of practices. Limitation: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.

AB - Background: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. Objective: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. Setting: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. Design: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. Main Outcomes Measurements: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) >9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. Results: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9% did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1% did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3%, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14% of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9%) and morphology (14.7%). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0% to 6.5%. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps >9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4% and 10% in 81% of practices. Limitation: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=61549137140&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=61549137140&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.034

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.034

M3 - Article

C2 - 19251005

AN - SCOPUS:61549137140

VL - 69

SP - 645

EP - 653

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 3 SUPPL.

ER -