Effect of quality metric monitoring and colonoscopy performance

Background and aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal withdrawal time (CWT) have been identified as measures of colonoscopy quality. This study evaluates the impact of monitoring these measures on provider performance.

Methods: Six blinded gastroenterologists practicing at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center were prospectively monitored over 9 months. Data for screening, adenoma surveillance, and fecal occult blood test positive (FOBT +) indicated colonoscopies were obtained, including exam preparation quality, cecal intubation rate, CWT, ADR, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), and adverse events. Metrics were continuously monitored after a period of informed CWT monitoring and informed CWT + ADR monitoring. The primary outcome was impact on ADR and APC.

Results: A total of 1671 colonoscopies were performed during the study period with 540 before informed monitoring, 528 during informed CWT monitoring, and 603 during informed CWT + ADR monitoring. No statistically significant impact on ADR was noted across each study phase. Multivariate regression revealed a trend towards fewer adenomas removed during the CWT monitoring phase (OR = 0.79; 95 %CI 0.62 – 1.02, P = 0.065) and a trend towards more adenomas removed during the CWT + ADR monitoring phase when compared to baseline (OR = 1.26; 95 %CI 0.99 – 1.61, P = 0.062). Indication for examination and provider were significant predictors for higher APC. Provider-specific data demonstrated a direct relationship between high ADR performers and increased CWT.

Conclusions: Monitoring quality metrics did not significantly alter colonoscopy performance across a small heterogeneous group of providers. Non-significant trends towards higher APC were noted with CWT + ADR monitoring. Providers with a longer CWT had a higher ADR. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of monitoring on colonoscopy performance.

• References

• 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. NEJM 2012; 366: 687-696
• 2 Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. NEJM 2013; 369: 1095-1105
• 3 Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2664-2669
• 4 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. NEJM 2006; 355: 2533-2541
• 5 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 656-665
• 6 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873-885
• 7 Lee TJW, Blanks RG, Rees CJ et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
• 8 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 9 Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 10 Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72
• 11 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091-1098
• 12 Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 246-252
• 13 Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC, Harrison ME et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 603-608
• 14 Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond JH et al. Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 1335-1340
• 15 Lin OS, Kozarek RA, Arai A et al. The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1253-1259
• 16 Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 925-931
• 17 Ussui V, Coe S, Rizk C et al. Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program – EQUIP-II. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 489-496
• 18 Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219-226
• 19 Menees SB, Elliott E, Govani S et al. The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 148-154