Evaluating quality in endoscopy

Abstract

Despite an increasing number of publications and suggested quality measures, evaluating quality in endoscopy remains a challenge. Most quality measures are process measures and lack evidence for an association with clinically important outcomes. Furthermore, most measure focus on procedural aspects. Patients’ expectations, cultural values, and work setting also affect quality, but are less often considered. The aim of this article is to broaden the view on quality assessment. Here, quality is viewed from four perspectives: an individual patient perspective, which considers expectations and personal values; a cultural perspective, which encompasses cultural values and norms; an individual care perspective, which includes how an individual patient is being treated; and a societal perspective, which sets the stage for provided care. The article concludes with a proposal to consider bundled composite measures as a path to a simple yet comprehensive approach to assessing and measuring quality in endoscopy.

• References

• 1 Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF. et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8
• 2 Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1095-1105
• 3 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA. et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
• 4 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
• 5 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
• 6 Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 48-59
• 7 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
• 8 Park WG, Shaheen NJ, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for EGD. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 60-71
• 9 Adler DG, Lieb 2nd JG, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for ERCP. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 91-101
• 10 Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for EUS. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 102-113
• 11 von Karsa L, Patnick J. European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 51-59
• 12 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
• 13 Wilber K. A theory of everything: an integral vision for business, politics, science and spirituality. Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston: 2000
• 14 Childers RE, Williams JL, Sonnenberg A. Practice patterns of sedation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 503-511
• 15 Garborg K, Kaminski MF, Lindenburger W. et al. Water exchange versus carbon dioxide insufflation in unsedated colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 192-199
• 16 Rosenbaum L. Invisible risks, emotional choices – mammography and medical decision making. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1549-1552
• 17 Valori R, Rey JF, Atkin WS. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) E88-105
• 18 Hutchings HA, Cheung WY, Alrubaiy L. et al. Development and validation of the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ). Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1137-1143
• 19 Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, Korfage IJ. et al. Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 462-472
• 20 Cram P, Fendrick AM, Inadomi J. et al. The impact of a celebrity promotional campaign on the use of colon cancer screening: the Katie Couric effect. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1601-1605
• 21 Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK. et al. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 2001; 127: 267-286
• 22 Kahi CJ, Hewett DG, Norton DL. et al. Prevalence and variable detection of proximal colon serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 42-46
• 23 Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
• 24 Pohl H, Robertson D, Welch HG. Repeated upper endoscopy in the Medicare population: a retrospective analysis. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160: 154
• 25 Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL. et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 73-81
• 26 Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC. et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 417-426
• 27 Korenstein D, Falk R, Howell EA. et al. Overuse of health care services in the United States: an understudied problem. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172: 171-178
• 28 Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM. et al. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1134-1139
• 29 Ussui V, Coe S, Rizk C. et al. Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 489-496
• 30 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT. et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
• 31 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
• 32 Logan RF, Patnick J, Nickerson C. et al. Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 2012; 61: 1439-1446
• 33 Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy. JAG Accreditation System incorporating the Endoscopy Global Rating Scale. 2017 Available from https://www.jagaccreditation.org/ Accessed January 2017
• 34 Morris EJ, Rutter MD, Finan PJ. et al. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut 2015; 64: 1248-1256
• 35 Conjoint Committee for the Recognition of Training in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2017 Available from http://www.conjoint.org.au Accessed January 2017
• 36 Altobelli E, D’Aloisio F, Angeletti PM. Colorectal cancer screening in countries of European Council outside of the EU-28. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 4946-4957
• 37 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. GI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd. 2010 Available from http://giquic.gi.org/ Accessed January 2017
• 38 National Quality Forum. Measure evaluation criteria and guidance for evaluating measures for endorsement. 2015 Available from http://www.qualityforum.org/Measuring_Performance/Endorsed_Performance_Measures_Maintenance.aspx Accessed September 2016
• 39 Rajasekhar PT, Rees CJ, Bramble MG. et al. A multicenter pragmatic study of an evidence-based intervention to improve adenoma detection: the Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 217-224
• 40 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