Article

Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable

Section of Gastroenterology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 4.9). 06/2007; 65(6):757-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.055
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Standardized reporting systems for diagnostic and screening tests facilitate quality improvement programs and clear communication among health care providers. Although colonoscopy is commonly used for screening, diagnosis, and therapy, no standardized reporting system for this procedure currently exists. The Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable developed a reporting and data system for colonoscopy based on continuous quality improvement indicators.
The Task Group systematically reviewed quality indicators recommended by the Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and developed consensus-based terminology for reporting and data systems to capture these data elements. The Task Group included experts in several disciplines: gastroenterology, primary care, diagnostic imaging, and health care delivery.
The standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system provides a tool that can be used for efforts in continuous quality improvement within and across practices that use colonoscopy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Robert A Smith, Aug 28, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
126 Views
  • Source
    • "The key indicators proposed were: preprocedure (appropriate indication and use of surveillance intervals, informed consent); intraprocedure (documentation of quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rates with photodocumentation of cecal landmarks, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time >6 minutes, adequate resection of polyps); postprocedure (measurement of incidence of perforation, post-polypectomy bleeding and nonoperative management of post-polypectomy bleeding). Lieberman was the lead author of the report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable that developed a reporting and data system for colonoscopy to assist endoscopists in monitoring quality indicators in their practice.10 European guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have recently been published.11 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in decreasing the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely dependent on the detection of polyps and the quality of the procedure. Several key quality measures have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of screening colonoscopies. To evaluate quality indicators of screening colonoscopy in a tertiary hospital. All CRC screening colonoscopies performed between 2005 and 2009 in a single tertiary center were reviewed for internationally accepted quality measures. Of the 1545 individuals who underwent first-time screening colonoscopy 38% were male and 62% were female. The mean age of the patients was 60.4 years and the mean difference in ages was ± 10.3 years. Cecal intubation rate was 91% (1336), however ileocecal valve photo documentation was performed in only 81% (1248) colonoscopies. The quality of bowel preparation was classified as: good 76% (1171), reasonable 11% (174), and poor 13% (200). Polyp detection rate (PDR) was 33% (503). The prevalence of polyps ≥1 cm in size was 5% (82). PDR was significantly higher in men than in women (44% [260] vs 25% [243], P = 0.0001). Other factors significantly influencing PDR were quality of bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR]: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-1.6) and age over 50 (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-2.9). Left colonic polyps were associated with a risk ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 1.8-2.9) of lesions in the other colonic segments compared to no polyps in the left colon. None of the colonoscopists reported withdrawal time. Cecal intubation rate and quality of bowel preparation were suboptimal. The polyp detection rate compares favorably to accepted standards and its main determinants are male sex, age >50 years, quality of bowel preparation, and the presence of left colonic polyps.
    Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology 12/2011; 4:277-81. DOI:10.2147/CEG.S25596
  • Source
    • "We have heard anecdotally from some programs that some endoscopists " chart by exception " , meaning they only mention the quality of the bowel preparation when it is inadequate. However, CO-RADS recommends that endoscopists explicitly document whether they believe bowel preparation was adequate to allow the detection of lesions larger than 5 mm [20]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper aimed to assess quality of colonoscopy reports and determine if physicians in practice were already documenting recommended quality indicators, prior to the publication of a standardized Colonoscopy Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) in 2007. We examined 110 colonoscopy reports from 2005-2006 through Maryland Colorectal Cancer Screening Program. We evaluated 25 key data elements recommended by CO-RADS, including procedure indications, risk/comorbidity assessments, procedure technical descriptions, colonoscopy findings, specimen retrieval/pathology. Among 110 reports, 73% documented the bowel preparation quality and 82% documented specific cecal landmarks. For the 177 individual polyps identified, information on size and morphology was documented for 87% and 53%, respectively. Colonoscopy reporting varied considerately in the pre-CO-RADS period. The absence of key data elements may impact the ability to make recommendations for recall intervals. This paper provides baseline data to assess if CO-RADS has an impact on reporting and how best to improve the quality of reporting.
    Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy 09/2010; 2010(1070-3608). DOI:10.1155/2010/419796
  • Source
    • "A common reason found for lack of follow-up is that the patient had undergone colonoscopy within the previous few years.37,38 Indeed, the use of FOBT within 5 years of a negative colonoscopy is discouraged39,40 because of the low yield of significant lesions after recent screening colonoscopy in average-risk patients. However, a recent survey of gastroenterologists in New Haven County, Connecticut found that the majority recommend annual FOBT beginning 1 to 5 years after a normal screening colonoscopy.41 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is an important option for colorectal cancer screening that should be available in order to achieve high population screening coverage. However, results from a national survey of clinical practice in 1999-2000 indicated that many primary care physicians used inadequate methods to implement FOBT screening and follow-up. To determine whether methods to screen for fecal occult blood have improved, including the use of newer more sensitive stool tests. Cross-sectional national survey of primary care physicians. Participants consisted of 1,134 primary care physicians who reported ordering or performing FOBT in the 2006-2007 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Recommendations and Practices for Cancer Screening. Self-reported data on details of FOBT implementation and follow-up of positive results. Most physicians report using standard guaiac tests; higher sensitivity guaiac tests and immunochemical tests were reported by only 22.0% and 8.9%, respectively. In-office testing, that is, testing of a single specimen collected during a digital rectal examination in the office, is still widely used although inappropriate for screening: 24.9% of physicians report using only in-office tests and another 52.9% report using both in-office and home tests. Recommendations improved for follow-up after a positive test: fewer physicians recommend repeating the FOBT (17.8%) or using tests other than colonoscopy for the diagnostic work-up (6.6%). Only 44.3% of physicians who use home tests have reminder systems to ensure test completion and return. Many physicians continue to use inappropriate methods to screen for fecal occult blood. Intensified efforts to inform physicians of recommended technique and promote the use of tracking systems are needed.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 04/2010; 25(8):833-9. DOI:10.1007/s11606-010-1328-7 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more