Implementation of colonoscopy quality monitoring in a Belgian university hospital with integrated computer-based extraction of adenoma detection rate

Abstract

Background and study aims Quality in colonoscopy has been promoted in last decade with definition of different quality indicators (QI) as benchmarks. Currently, automatized monitoring systems are lacking, especially for merging pathologic and endoscopic data, which limits quality monitoring implementation in daily practice. We describe an adapted endoscopy reporting system that allows continuous QI recording, with automatic pathological data inclusion.

Material and methods We locally adapted a reporting system for colonoscopy by adding and structuring in a dedicated tab selected key QI. Endoscopic data from a reporting system and pathological results were extracted and merged in a separate database. During the initial period of use, performing physicians were encouraged to complete the dedicated tab on a voluntary basis. In a second stage, completing of the tab was made mandatory. The completeness of QI recording was evaluated across both periods. Performance measures for all endoscopists were compared to global results for the department and published targets.

Results During the second semester of 2017, a total of 1827 colonoscopies were performed with a QI tab completed in 100 % of cases. Among key QI, the cecal intubation rate was 93.8 %, the rate of colonoscopies with adequate preparation was 90.7 %, and the adenoma detection rate was 29.8 % considering all colonoscopies, irrespective of indication; 28.8 % considering screening procedures; and 36.6 % in colonoscopies performed in people older than age 50 years.

Conclusion This study shows that quality monitoring for colonoscopy can be easily implemented with limited human resources by adapting a reporting system and linking it to a pathology database.

Publication History

Received: 12 September 2019

Accepted: 30 December 2019

Article published online:
03 February 2021

• References

• 1 Kahi CJ, Imperiale TF, Juliar BE. et al. Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc 2009; 7: 770-775
• 2 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 3 Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS. et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72
• 4 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
• 5 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 1: 31-53
• 6 Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD. et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016; 65: 1923-1929
• 7 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
• 8 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
• 9 Anderson JC, Butterly LF. Colonoscopy: quality indicators. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2015; 6: e77
• 10 Dekker E, Bronzwaer MES. Effective reporting of key performance indicators is essential for balancing the benefits and drawbacks of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 837-838
• 11 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
• 12 van Doorn SC, van Vliet J, Fockens P. et al. A novel colonoscopy reporting system enabling quality assurance. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 181-187
• 13 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
• 14 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 15 Kim JH, Choi YJ, Kwon HJ. et al. Simple colonoscopy reporting system checking the detection rate of colon polyps. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 9380-9386
• 16 Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A. et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 493-497
• 17 Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 576-582
• 18 Patel NC, Islam RS, Wu Q. et al. Measurement of polypectomy rate by using administrative claims data with validation against the adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 390-394
• 19 Boroff ES, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG. et al. Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 993-999
• 20 Gohel TD, Burke CA, Lankaala P. et al. Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc 2014; 12: 1137-1142
• 21 Leung FW. PDR or ADR as a quality indicator for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1000-1002