Key performance measures for colonoscopy in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program

Abstract

Background The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has published guidelines on key performance measures for colonoscopy. We analyzed whether those standards were met in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program (PCSP) and whether the monitoring was feasible.

Methods We analyzed database records for 43 277 PCSP participants (25 PCSP centers) for the years 2014 – 2015. We used the guideline definitions to calculate values for all key performance measures and compared these with the proposed standards at individual, center, and program level. All data were acquired from the PCSP database, apart from complication data which was assessed from external registries.

Results At the program level, four of five minimum standards and one of two target standards (no set minimum standard) were met. Adequate bowel preparation rate was 91.3 % for the whole program (range among individual centers 79.2 % – 99.2 %). Cecal intubation rate was 97.4 % (93.4 % – 99.4 %). Adenoma detection rate was 29.8 % (19.1 % – 39.1 %). An appropriate polypectomy technique was applied in 62.7 % of cases (0.4 % – 97.8 %). Regarding complications, 7-day hospitalization rate after screening colonoscopy was 0.3 % (n = 127), and 30-day all-cause mortality was 0.02 % (n = 9). Patient feedback was assessed in 66.2 % of colonoscopies (7.6 % – 81.8 %). Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance was proposed in 95.4 % of cases (range 84.9 % – -99.7 %). It was easy to monitor 6 of 7 key performance measures within the PCSP database, but monitoring complications required the additional effort of data extraction from external registries.

Conclusions The PCSP meets most proposed minimum standards at program level. Some centers need additional interventions to meet the complete set of quality standards. Use of ESGE performance measures for monitoring colonoscopy is generally feasible in the setting of the colonoscopy screening program.

^* These authors contributed equally to this project.

• References

• 1 Minoli G, Meucci G, Prada A. et al. Quality assurance and colonoscopy. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 522-527
• 2 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 3 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
• 4 Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R. et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 81-89
• 5 Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E. et al. Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1863-1872
• 6 Belderbos TD, Grobbee EJ, van Oijen MG. et al. Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 703-709
• 7 Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut 2015; 64: 1637-1649
• 8 Rees CJ, Thomas-Gibson S, Bourke MJ. et al. Managing underperformance in endoscopy: a pragmatic approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 737-744.e731
• 9 Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R. et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut 2016; 65: 616-624
• 10 Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams OD. et al. Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285: 2871-2879
• 11 Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E. et al. Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement for reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 291-294
• 12 Bugajski M, Wieszczy P, Hoff G. et al. Modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after screening colonoscopy. Gut 2018; 67: 1958-1964
• 13 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G. et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
• 14 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
• 15 Kaminski MF, Kraszewska E, Rupinski M. et al. Design of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program: a randomized health services study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1144-1150
• 16 Hewett DG, Kahi CJ, Rex DK. Efficacy and effectiveness of colonoscopy: how do we bridge the gap?. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2010; 20: 673-684
• 17 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
• 18 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ. et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
• 19 Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775-794
• 20 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 21 Britto-Arias M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P. et al. Forceps versus snare polypectomies in colorectal cancer screening: are we adhering to the guidelines?. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 898-902
• 22 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80 e71
• 23 Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H. et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 741-747
• 24 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925 e903
• 25 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE151-163
• 26 Jover R, Bretthauer M, Dekker E. et al. Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 571-578
• 27 van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW. et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584-1592
• 28 Radaelli F, Paggi S, Bortoli A. et al. Overutilization of post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in clinical practice: a prospective, multicentre study. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 748-753
• 29 Johnson MR, Grubber J, Grambow SC. et al. Physician non-adherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 938-951
• 30 Bugajski MR, Wieszczy P, Pisera M. et al. Effectiveness of digital feedback on patient experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy: a randomized health services study. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E537-E544
• 31 Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C. et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 880-886
• 32 Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ. et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1899-1906, 1906 e1891
• 33 Saraste D, Martling A, Nilsson PJ. et al. Complications after colonoscopy and surgery in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. J Med Screen 2016; 23: 135-140