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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States (1). Colonoscopy can prevent CRC by the detection and removal of precancerous lesions. In addition to CRC screening and surveillance, colonoscopy is used widely for the diagnostic evaluation of symptoms and other positive CRC screening tests. Regardless of indication, the success of colonoscopy is linked closely to the adequacy of preprocedure bowel cleansing. Unfortunately, up to 20-25% of all colonoscopies are reported to have an inadequate bowel preparation (2,3). The reasons for this range from patient-related variables such as compliance with preparation instructions and a variety of medical conditions that make bowel cleansing more difficult to unit-specific factors (eg, extended wait times aft er scheduling of colonoscopy) (4). Adverse consequences of ineffective bowel preparation include lower adenoma detection rates, longer procedural time, lower cecal intubation rates, increased electrocautery risk, and shorter intervals between examinations (3,5-7). Bowel preparation formulations intended for precolonoscopy cleansing are assessed based on their efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Lack of specific organ toxicity is considered to be a prerequisite for bowel preparations. Between cleansing efficacy and tolerability, however, the consequences of inadequate cleansing suggest that efficacy should be a higher priority than tolerability. Consequently, the choice of a bowel cleansing regimen should be based on cleansing efficacy first and patient tolerability second. However, efficacy and tolerability are closely interrelated. For example, a cleansing agent that is poorly tolerated and thus not fully ingested may not achieve an adequate cleansing. The goals of this consensus document are to provide expert, evidence-based recommendations for clinicians to optimize colonoscopy preparation quality and patient safety. Recommendations are provided using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) scoring system, which weighs the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence (8).
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/2014; 80(4):543-62. DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.002 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Current guidelines recommend early repeat colonoscopy when bowel preparation quality is inadequate, defined as inability to detect polyps >5 mm, but no data link specific bowel preparation categories or scores to this definition. Nevertheless, most physicians use a shortened screening/surveillance interval in patients with intermediate-quality preparation. We determined whether different levels of bowel preparation quality are associated with differences in adenoma detection rates (ADRs: proportion of colonoscopies with ≥1 adenoma) to help guide decisions regarding early repeat colonoscopy-with primary focus on intermediate-quality preparation.METHODS:MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies with adenoma or polyp detection rate stratified by bowel preparation quality. Preparation quality definitions were standardized on the basis of Aronchick definitions (excellent/good/fair/poor/insufficient), and primary analyses of ADR trichotomized bowel preparation quality: high quality (excellent/good), intermediate quality (fair), and low quality (poor/insufficient). Dichotomized analyses of adequate (excellent/good/fair) vs. inadequate (poor/insufficient) were also performed.RESULTS:Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The primary analysis, ADR with intermediate- vs. high-quality preparation, showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.94 (0.80-1.10) and absolute risk difference of -1% (-3%, 2%). ADRs were significantly higher with both intermediate-quality and high-quality preparation vs. low-quality preparation: OR=1.39 (1.08-1.79) and 1.41 (1.21-1.64), with absolute risk increases of 5% for both. ADR and advanced ADR were significantly higher with adequate vs. inadequate preparation: OR=1.30 (1.19-1.42) and 1.30 (1.02-1.67). Studies did not report other relevant outcomes such as total adenomas per colonoscopy.CONCLUSIONS:ADR is not significantly different with intermediate-quality vs. high-quality bowel preparation. Our results confirm the need for early repeat colonoscopy with low-quality bowel preparation, but suggest that patients with intermediate/fair preparation quality may be followed up at standard guideline-recommended surveillance intervals without significantly affecting quality as measured by ADR.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 19 August 2014; doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.232.
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 08/2014; 109(11). DOI:10.1038/ajg.2014.232 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions.1 In the low risk group (patients with 1 - 2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm with low grade dysplasia), the ESGE recommends participation in existing national screening programmes 10 years after the index colonoscopy. If no screening programme is available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In the high risk group (patients with adenomas with villous histology or high grade dysplasia or ≥10 mm in size, or ≥ 3 adenomas), the ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after the index colonoscopy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Patients with 10 or more adenomas should be referred for genetic counselling (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 In the high risk group, if no high risk adenomas are detected at the first surveillance examination, the ESGE suggests a 5-year interval before a second surveillance colonoscopy (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). If high risk adenomas are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, a 3-year repetition of surveillance colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).4 The ESGE recommends that patients with serrated polyps < 10 mm in size with no dysplasia should be classified as low risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). The ESGE suggests that patients with large serrated polyps (≥ 10 mm) or those with dysplasia should be classified as high risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).5 The ESGE recommends that the endoscopist is responsible for providing a written recommendation for the post-polypectomy surveillance schedule (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
    Endoscopy 10/2013; 45(10):842-51. DOI:10.1055/s-0033-1344548 · 5.20 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014