A new composite measure of colonoscopy: the Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI)

Abstract

Background and study aim Cecal intubation rate (CIR) is an established performance indicator of colonoscopy. In some patients, cecal intubation with acceptable tolerance is only achieved with additional sedation. This study proposes a composite Performance Indicator of Colonic Intubation (PICI), which combines CIR, comfort, and sedation.

Methods Data from 20 085 colonoscopies reported in the 2011 UK national audit were analyzed. PICI was defined as the percentage of procedures achieving cecal intubation with median dose (2 mg) of midazolam or less, and nurse-assessed comfort score of 1 – 3/5. Multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated possible associations between PICI and patient, unit, colonoscopist, and diagnostic factors.

Results PICI was achieved in 54.1 % of procedures. PICI identified factors affecting performance more frequently than single measures such as CIR and polyp detection, or CIR + comfort alone. Older age, male sex, adequate bowel preparation, and a positive fecal occult blood test as indication were associated with a higher PICI. Unit accreditation, the presence of magnetic imagers in the unit, greater annual volume, fewer years’ experience, and higher training/trainer status were associated with higher PICI rates. Procedures in which PICI was achieved were associated with significantly higher polyp detection rates than when PICI was not achieved.

Conclusions PICI provides a simpler picture of performance of colonoscopic intubation than separate measures of CIR, comfort, and sedation. It is associated with more factors that are amenable to change that might improve performance and with higher likelihood of polyp detection. It is proposed that PICI becomes the key performance indicator for intubation of the colon in colonoscopy quality improvement initiatives.

• References

• 1 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
• 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 Liu H, Waxman DA, Main R. et al. Utilization of anesthesia services during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated spending in 2003–2009. JAMA 2012; 307: 1178-1184
• 4 BSG quality and safety indicators for colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Available from: http://www.thejag.org.uk/downloads/Unit%20Resources/JAG%20Summary%20guide%20to%20quality%20and%20safety%20indicators%20April%202016.pdf (Accessed 14 January 2017)
• 5 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
• 6 Guide to the JAG accreditation scheme. Available from: http://www.thejag.org.uk/downloads/Accreditation/170131%20-%20guidance%20-%20guide%20to%20the%20JAG%20accreditation%20scheme%20v3.0.pdf (Accessed 14 January 2017)
• 7 Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM. et al. Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19: 2355-2361
• 8 Valori RM, Rey J-F, Atkins WA. 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: 1-18
• 9 Rathgaber SW, Wick TM. Colonoscopy completion and complication rates in a community gastroenterology practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 556-562
• 10 Enns R. Quality indicators in colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2007; 21: 277-279
• 11 JAG trainee certification process – colonoscopy. Available from: http://www.thejag.org.uk/downloads/JAG%20Certification%20for%20trainees/Colonoscopy%20application%20criteria%20and%20process.pdf (Accessed 14 January 2017)
• 12 Valori R. Quality improvements in endoscopy in England. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 14: 63-72
• 13 JAG endoscopy training courses. Available from http://www.thejag.org.uk/downloads/JAG%20approved%20training%20courses/JETS%20course%20overview%20v3.0.pdf Accessed 14 January 2017
• 14 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
• 15 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
• 16 East JE, Bassett P, Arebi N. et al. Dynamic patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increase adenoma detection: a randomized, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 456-463
• 17 Korman LY, Haddad NG, Metz DC. et al. Effect of propofol anesthesia on force application during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 657-662
• 18 Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM. et al. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 888-894
• 19 The JAG National Endoscopy Database (NED). Available from: http://www.thejag.org.uk/downloads/National%20Endoscopy%20Database%20(NED)/NED%20key%20facts%20v1.2_April2017.pdf (Accessed 14 January 2017)