Article

The effect of nonmedical factors on variations in the performance of colonoscopy among different health care settings.

ESSEC Business School, Paris, France.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 02/2010; 48(2):101-9. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c160ee
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous published studies have shown significant variations in colonoscopy performance, even when medical factors are taken into account. This study aimed to examine the role of nonmedical factors (ie, embodied in health care system design) as possible contributors to variations in colonoscopy performance.
Patient data from a multicenter observational study conducted between 2000 and 2002 in 21 centers in 11 western countries were used. Variability was captured through 2 performance outcomes (diagnostic yield and colonoscopy withdrawal time), jointly studied as dependent variables, using a multilevel 2-equation system.
Results showed that open-access systems and high-volume colonoscopy centers were independently associated with a higher likelihood of detecting significant lesions and longer withdrawal durations. Fee for service (FFS) payment was associated with shorter withdrawal durations, and so had an indirect negative impact on the diagnostic yield. Teaching centers exhibited lower detection rates and longer withdrawal times.
Our results suggest that gatekeeping colonoscopy is likely to miss patients with significant lesions and that developing specialized colonoscopy units is important to improve performance. Results also suggest that FFS may result in a lower quality of care in colonoscopy practice and highlight the fact that longer withdrawal times do not necessarily indicate higher quality in teaching centers.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Alberto Holly, Sep 02, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
100 Views
 · 
33 Downloads
  • Source
    Endoscopy 11/1999; 31(8):572-8. DOI:10.1055/s-1999-71 · 5.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2002, a U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer recommended that the withdrawal phase for colonoscopy should average at least 6-10 min. This was based on 10 consecutive colonoscopies by two endoscopists with different adenoma miss rates. To characterize the relationship between endoscopist withdrawal time and polyp detection at colonoscopy, and to determine the withdrawal time that corresponds to the median polyp detection rate. Procedural data from out-patient colonoscopies performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester during 2003 were reviewed. Endoscopists were characterized by their mean withdrawal time for a negative procedure and individual polyp detection rate. A total of 10 955 colonoscopies performed by 43 endoscopists were analysed. Median withdrawal time was 6.3 min (range: 4.2-11.9); polyp detection rate was 44.0% (all polyps), 29.8% (< or = 5 mm), 5.9% (6-9 mm), 6.7% (10-19 mm), 2.1% (> or = 20 mm). Longer withdrawal time was associated with higher polyp detection rate (r = 0.76; P < 0.0001); this relationship weakened for larger polyps (r = 0.19 for polyps 6-9 mm, r = 0.28 for polyps 10-19 mm, r = 0.02 for polyps > or = 20 mm). Overall median polyp detection rate corresponded to a withdrawal time of 6.7 min. Our findings support a colonoscopy withdrawal time of at least 7 min, which correlates with higher colon polyp detection rates.
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 09/2006; 24(6):965-71. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03080.x · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the impact of payment systems on the behaviour of primary care physicians. All randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series studies that compared capitation, salary, fee-for-service or target payments (mixed or separately) that were identified by computerised searches of the literature. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken independently by two reviewers using a data checklist. Study results were qualitatively analysed. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. There was considerable variation in the quality of reporting, study setting and the range of outcomes measured. Fee-for-service resulted in a higher quantity of primary care services provided compared with capitation but the evidence of the impact on the quantity of secondary care services was mixed. Fee-for-service resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but lower patient satisfaction with access to a physician compared with salary payment. The evidence of the impact of target payment on immunisation rates was inconclusive. There is some evidence to suggest that how a primary care physician is paid does affect his/her behaviour but the generalisability of these studies is unknown. Most policy changes in the area of payment systems are inadequately informed by research. Future changes to doctor payment systems need to be rigorously evaluated.
    Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 02/2001; 6(1):44-55. DOI:10.1258/1355819011927198 · 1.73 Impact Factor
Show more