Download PDF
Endoscopy 2013; 45(10): 813-818
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1344583
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Data quality of the German Screening Colonoscopy Registry

Andreas Adler
1   Central Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Charité University Medical Hospitals, Berlin, Germany
,
David Lieberman
2   Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
,
Alireza Aminalai
3   Private gastroenterology offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Jens Aschenbeck
3   Private gastroenterology offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Rolf Drossel   1
3   Private gastroenterology offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Michael Mayr
3   Private gastroenterology offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Michael Mroß
3   Private gastroenterology offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Mathias Scheel
3   Private gastroenterology offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Andreas Schröder
3   Private gastroenterology offices, Berlin, Germany
,
Christoph Keining
1   Central Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Charité University Medical Hospitals, Berlin, Germany
,
Gabriela Stange
4   Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Bertram Wiedenmann
1   Central Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Charité University Medical Hospitals, Berlin, Germany
,
Ulrich Gauger
5   Private statistical office, Berlin, Germany
,
Lutz Altenhofen
6   Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care, Berlin, Germany
,
Thomas Rösch
4   Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 19 February 2013

accepted after revision 14 June 2013

Publication Date:
09 September 2013 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: The German screening colonoscopy program is accompanied by a central registry that records the main outcome quality indicators, namely colonoscopy completion rate, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and complication rate. The aim of the present study was to assess the quality of these registry data by comparing them with data from a prospective quality assurance study based on a self-reporting audit and patient feedback of screening colonoscopy.

Patients and methods: The completeness of registry information was analyzed by comparing it with prospective data gathered by audit and patient feedback in a previous quality assurance study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00860665) between October 2006 and March 2008. The main outcome parameters were colonoscopy completion rate, ADR, and complication rate. Complications were recorded in three steps in the audit study using case report forms (immediate and subsequent documentation by physicians [CRF-1 and CRF-2], and patient follow-up [CRF-3]), but were documented in the registry without differentiation.

Results: A total of 12 134 individuals (mean age 64.5 years; 47 % men) who underwent screening colonoscopy at 19 private practices in Berlin over the 18-month period were included in the audit study. Patient feedback was obtained for 90.1 %. A total of 12 150 cases had been recorded in the registry by the same private practices during the same period. Colonoscopy completion rate and ADR data were comparable in the audit study and registry (completion rate 98.2 % vs. 97.7 %; ADR 21.0 % vs. 20.5 %). However, compared with the registry data, the complication rate was 3.1-fold higher in the audit (0.46 % vs. 0.15 %; P < 0.001), and double (0.33 % vs. 0.15 %; P < 0.05) when patient feedback was not included.

Conclusions: Of the screening colonoscopy quality parameters, colonoscopy completion rate and ADR, but not complication rates, were reliably documented in the German national screening colonoscopy registry. Data on complications need to be appropriately standardized and audited in order to be used for credentialing and benchmarking purposes.

1 Deceased October 2011


 

  • References

  • 1 Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Lin-Cooper C et al. Five-year risk of colorectal neoplasia after negative screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1218-1224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. New Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Li J, Nadel MR, Poppell CF et al. Quality assessment of colonoscopy reporting: results from a statewide cancer screening program. Diagn Ther Endosc 2010; Epub 2010 Sep 28. DOI:
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Patel SG, Ahnen DJ. Isn’t it time to stop talking about colonoscopy quality and start doing something about it?. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2776-2779
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Lieberman DA, Faigel DO, Logan JR et al. Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 645-653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Logan JR, Lieberman DA. The use of databases and registries to enhance colonoscopy quality. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2010; 20: 717-734
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Armstrong D, Hollingworth R, Macintosh D et al. Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program – Endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2011; 25: 13-20
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 http://www.zi-berlin.de/cms/fileadmin/images/content/PDFs_alle/Darmkrebsfrueherk_Bericht.pdf
    PubMed
  • 9 www.healthgrades.com
    PubMed
  • 10 http://www.tagesspiegel.de/der-klinikfuehrer-berlin-2009/1829928.html
    PubMed
  • 11 http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/praktische-hilfe/1640568.html
    PubMed
  • 12 Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D et al. Factors determining screening colonoscopy quality. A prospective study on adenoma detection rates from 12134 examinations (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 3, BECOP-3). Gut 2013; 62: 236-241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bretagne JF, Ponchon T. Do we need to embrace adenoma detection rate as the main quality control parameter during colonoscopy?. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 523-528
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Williams JE, Le TD, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate as a quality measure for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 498-506
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kaminski MF, Regula M, Rupinski M et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Ko CW, Dominitz JA, Green P et al. Accuracy of Medicare claims for identifying findings and procedures performed during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 447-453
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy: Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873-885
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Segnan N, Patnick S, von Karsa L eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010. DOI: (printed version); DOI: 10.2772/15379 (electronic version)
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL for the SCoPE Consortium et al. Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 98-106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C et al. Prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?. Gut 2004; 53: 277-283
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kelly NM, Moorehead J, Tham T. Is the ‘driving test’ a robust quality indicator of colonoscopy performance?. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 2: 112-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R et al. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2007; 132: 2297-2303
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Wilkins T, LeClair B, Smolkin M et al. Screening colonoscopies by primary care physicians: a meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 2009; 7: 56-62 Erratum in: Ann Fam Med 2009; 7: 181
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Lieberman DA, Prindiville S, Weiss DG et al. Risk factors for advanced colonic neoplasia and hyperplastic polyps in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA 2003; 290: 2959-2967
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kanna B, Schori M, Azeez S et al. Colorectal tumors within an urban minority population in New York City. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22: 835-840
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Bretagne JF, Hamonic S, Piette C et al. Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening program based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 335-341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Aslinia F, Uradomo L, Steele A et al. Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 721-731
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Niv Y, Hazazi R, Levi Z et al. Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic people: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53: 3049-3054
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY et al. Results of screening colonoscopy among persons 40 to 49 years of age. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1781-1785
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Ibanez MB, Munoz-Navas MA, Dugue JM et al. Diagnostic value of distal colonic polyps for prediction of advanced proximal neoplasia in an average-risk population undergoing screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2004; 59: 634-641
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Chiu HM, Wang HP, Lee YC et al. A prospective study of the frequency and the topographical distribution of colon neoplasia in asymptomatic average-risk Chinese adults as determined by colonoscopic screening. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 547-553
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Schoenfeld P, Cash B, Flood A et al. Colonoscopic screening of average-risk women for colorectal neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2061-2068
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Strul H, Kariv R, Leshno M et al. The prevalence rate and anatomic location of colorectal adenoma and cancer detected by colonoscopy in average-risk individuals aged 40–80 years. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 255-262
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Rogge JD, Elmore MF, Mahoney SJ et al. Low-cost, office-based, screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 1775-1780
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Ching Y et al. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 169-174
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Soon MS, Kozarek RA, Ayub K et al. Screening colonoscopy in Chinese and Western patients: a comparative study. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 2749-2755
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Zubarik R, Fleischer DE, Mastropietro C et al. Prospective analysis of complications 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 322-328
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Bini EJ, Firoozi B, Choung RJ et al. Systematic evaluation of complications related to endoscopy in a training setting: a prospective 30-day outcomes study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 8-16
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Korman LY, Overholt BF, Box T et al. Perforation during colonoscopy in endoscopic ambulatory surgical centers. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 554-557
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Schembre DB et al. Screening colonoscopy in very elderly patients: prevalence of neoplasia and estimated impact on life expectancy. JAMA 2006; 24 295 2357-2365
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L et al. Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 166-173
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar