An explorative study from the Norwegian Quality Register Gastronet comparing self-estimated versus registered quality in colonoscopy performance

Background and study aims: The value of a colonoscopy quality assurance (QA) register may be questioned if it brings no new information on which to act for quality improvement, e. g. if self-assessed quality of colonoscopy performance correlates perfectly with registered performance.

Patients and methods: In this explorative study, 39 (33 Norwegian and 6 Swedish) out of 99 new endoscopists joining the Norwegian QA register Gastronet from 2008 to 2013 responded to an invitation to fill in a questionnaire for self-assessment of cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate for polyps ≥ 5 mm (PDR-5 mm), withdrawal time, total examination time, and rates for severely painful and pain-free colonoscopies before receiving their first-time feedback of actually registered results from Gastronet. A linear regression analysis was applied to explore the correlation between experience level and quality of estimation.

Results: We included 2654 colonoscopies in our study. Endoscopists underestimated their cecal intubation rate (estimated 88.8 %, registered 93.1 %, P < 0.001), total procedure time (estimated 31.7 minutes, registered 37.2 minutes, P = 0.014), withdrawal time (estimated 9.8 minutes, registered 14.4 minutes, P = 0.006) and the rate of pain-free procedures (estimated 18.3 %, registered 24.5 %, P = 0.001). Pre-study colonoscopy experience was not correlated with estimated quality for any of the indicators.

Conclusions: Apart from overestimation of severely painful examinations, endoscopists most often underestimated their colonoscopy performance. Self-assessed quality of colonoscopy performance may not be a satisfactory substitute for systematic registration of quality and not sufficiently valid to be acted upon.

• References

• 1 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
• 2 Segnan NPJvKL. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis – First Edition. 2010: 1-386
• 3 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
• 4 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
• 5 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S16-S28
• 6 Hoff G, Foerster A, Vatn MH et al. Epidemiology of polyps in the rectum and sigmoid colon. Histological examination of resected polyps. Scand J Gastroenterol 1985; 20: 677-683
• 7 Tsai FC, Strum WB. Prevalence of advanced adenomas in small and diminutive colon polyps using direct measurement of size. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2384-2388
• 8 Gordon MJ. A review of the validity and accuracy of self-assessments in health professions training. Acad Med 1991; 66: 762-769
• 9 Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M et al. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA 2006; 296: 1094-1102
• 10 Koch AD, Haringsma J, Schoon EJ et al. Competence measurement during colonoscopy training: the use of self-assessment of performance measures. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 971-975
• 11 Lee SH, Chung IK, Kim SJ et al. An adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter evaluation of the learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 683-689
• 12 Park HJ, Hong JH, Kim HS et al. Predictive factors affecting cecal intubation failure in colonoscopy trainees. BMC Med Educ 2013; 13: 5
• 13 Sedlack RE. Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 355-366
• 14 Ansell J, Hurley JJ, Horwood J et al. Can endoscopists accurately self-assess performance during simulated colonoscopic polypectomy? A prospective, cross-sectional study. Am J Surg 2014; 207: 32-38
• 15 Gupta S, Bassett P, Man R et al. Validation of a novel method for assessing competency in polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 568-575
• 16 Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 493-497
• 17 Heuss LT, Sughanda SP, Degen LP. Endoscopy teams' judgment of discomfort among patients undergoing colonoscopy: “How bad was it really?”. Swiss Med Wkly 2012; 142: w13726