Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills improves group colonoscopy quality in providers with lower adenoma detection rates

被引:2
|
作者
Keswani, Rajesh N. [1 ]
Wood, Mariah [1 ]
Benson, Mark [2 ]
Gawron, Andrew J. [3 ,4 ]
Kahi, Charles [5 ]
Kaltenbach, Tonya [6 ]
Yadlapati, Rena [7 ]
Gregory, Dyanna [1 ]
Duloy, Anna [8 ]
机构
[1] Northwestern Univ, Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Madison, WI USA
[3] Univ Utah, Gastroenterol, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[4] Salt Lake City VA Med Ctr, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[5] Indiana Univ, Med Ctr, Gastroenterol, Indianapolis, IN USA
[6] Univ Calif San Francisco, Gastroenterol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[7] Univ Calif San Diego, Gastroenterol, San Diego, CA 92103 USA
[8] Univ Colorado, Gastroenterol, Denver, CO USA
关键词
WITHDRAWAL TECHNIQUE; INDICATORS; RISK;
D O I
10.1055/a-1529-5574
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and study aims Colonoscopy inspection quality (CIQ) assesses skills (fold examination, cleaning, and luminal distension) during inspection for polyps and correlates with adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated detection rate (SDR). We aimed to determine whether providing individualized CIQ feedback with instructional videos improves quality metrics performance. Methods We prospectively studied 16 colonoscopists who already received semiannual benchmarked reports of quality metrics (ADR, SDR, and withdrawal time [WT]). We randomly selected seven colonoscopies/colonoscopist for evaluation. Six gastroenterologists graded CIQ using an established scale. We created instructional videos demonstrating optimal and poor inspection techniques. Colonoscopists received the instructional videos and benchmarked CIQ performance. We compared ADR, SDR, and WT in the 12 months preceding ("baseline") and following CIQ feedback. Colonoscopists were stratified by baseline ADR into lower (<= 34 %) and higher-performing (> 34 %) groups. Results Baseline ADR was 38.5 % (range 26.8 %-53.8 %) and SDR was 11.2 % (2.8 %-24.3 %). The proportion of colonoscopies performed by lower-performing colonoscopists was unchanged from baseline to post-CIQ feedback. All colonoscopists reviewed their CIQ report cards. Post-feedback, ADR (40.1 % vs 38.5 %, P = 0.1) and SDR (12.2 % vs. 11.2 %, P = 0.1) did not significantly improve; WT significantly increased (11.4 vs 12.4 min, P < 0.01). Among the eight lower-performing colonoscopists, group ADR (31.1 % vs 34.3 %, P = 0.02) and SDR (7.2 % vs 9.1 %, P = 0.02) significantly increased post-feedback. In higher-performing colonoscopists, ADR and SDR did not change. Conclusions CIQ feedback modestly improves ADR and SDR among colonoscopists with lower baseline ADR but has no effect on higher-performing colonoscopists. Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills could be used to improve polyp detection by lower-performing colonoscopists.
引用
收藏
页码:E232 / E237
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Adenoma detection rate: The real indicator of quality in colonoscopy
    Millan, M
    Gross, P
    Manilich, E
    Church, J
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2006, 49 (05) : 725 - 725
  • [32] Adenoma detection rate: The real indicator of quality in colonoscopy
    Millan, Monica S.
    Gross, Perita
    Manilich, Elena
    Church, James M.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2008, 51 (08) : 1217 - 1220
  • [33] Impact of Fellow Participation During Colonoscopy on Adenoma Detection Rates
    Araujo, James L.
    Jaiswal, Palashkumar
    Ragunathan, Karthik
    Arroyo-Mercado, Fray M.
    Chawla, Gurasees S.
    Li, Canny
    Kazmi, Wajiha
    Le, Alexander
    Gupta, Nikita
    Chokshi, Tanuj
    Klinger, Christopher A.
    Salim, Sabrin
    Mirza, Raza M.
    Grossman, Evan
    Vignesh, Shivakumar
    DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 2022, 67 (01) : 85 - 92
  • [34] ADENOMA DETECTION RATES DURING COLONOSCOPY: A REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE
    Cheung, C.
    Ahmed, W.
    McHugh, A.
    Hassan, M.
    Foley, N. M.
    Oaikhinen, K.
    Cooke, F.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2018, 105 : 13 - 13
  • [35] Colonoscopy adenoma detection rates: Room for cognitive load theory?
    Sharma, Neel
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2016, 84 (03) : 547 - 548
  • [36] Endocuff™-Assisted Colonoscopy Increases Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp Detection and Adenoma Detection Rates: A Quality Improvement Study
    Shah-Ghassemzadeh, Nicole
    Baek, Michael
    Jackson, Christian
    Lunn, John
    Nguyen, Christopher
    Serrao, Steve
    Juma, David
    Strong, Richard
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2015, 110 : S666 - S666
  • [37] Impact of Fellow Participation During Colonoscopy on Adenoma Detection Rates
    James L. Araujo
    Palashkumar Jaiswal
    Karthik Ragunathan
    Fray M. Arroyo-Mercado
    Gurasees S. Chawla
    Canny Li
    Wajiha Kazmi
    Alexander Le
    Nikita Gupta
    Tanuj Chokshi
    Christopher A. Klinger
    Sabrin Salim
    Raza M. Mirza
    Evan Grossman
    Shivakumar Vignesh
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2022, 67 : 85 - 92
  • [38] Effect of Fellow Participation in Screening Colonoscopy on Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates
    Shah, Anand S.
    Kelli, Heval Mohamed
    Shea, Lauren M.
    Goebel, Stephan U.
    Qayed, Emad S.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 146 (05) : S410 - S410
  • [39] ABIM Recertification Status and Colonoscopy Adenoma Detection Rates: A Retrospective Study of 2011 Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy
    Buchner, Anna M.
    Wolfsen, Herbert C.
    Shahid, Muhammad W.
    Gill, Kanwar R.
    Schore, Anthony
    Ghabril, Marwan
    Gross, Seth A.
    Achem, Sami R.
    Raimondo, Massimo
    Loeb, David S.
    Picco, Michael F.
    DeVault, Kenneth R.
    Wallace, Michael B.
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2009, 136 (05) : A339 - A339
  • [40] Factors Influencing the Adenoma Detection Rates for Surveillance Colonoscopy. Is It the Next Quality Assurance Measure? - Results From a Retrospective Colonoscopy Database
    Duvvuri, Abhiram
    Vennelaganti, Sreekar
    Vennalaganti, Prashanth
    Parasa, Sravanthi
    Gachpaz, Babak
    Kohli, Kapil
    Vittal, Anusha
    Alsop, Benjamin
    Bansal, Ajay
    Choudhary, Abhishek
    Kennedy, Kevin
    Titi, Mohammad A.
    Gupta, Neil
    Sharma, Prateek
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2016, 83 (05) : AB528 - AB528