Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program - Endoscopy

被引:16
作者
Armstrong, David [1 ]
Hollingworth, Roger [2 ]
MacIntosh, Donald [3 ]
Chen, Ying
Daniels, Sandra [4 ]
Gittens, Stuart [5 ]
Bridges, Ron [6 ]
Sinclair, Paul [4 ]
Dube, Catherine [6 ]
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Med Ctr, Div Gastroenterol, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[2] Credit Valley Hosp, Div Gastroenterol, Mississauga, ON, Canada
[3] Dalhousie Univ, Div Gastroenterol, Halifax, NS, Canada
[4] Canadian Assoc Gastroenterol, Oakville, ON, Canada
[5] ECD Solut, Atlanta, GA USA
[6] Univ Calgary, Div Gastroenterol, Calgary, AB, Canada
关键词
Colonoscopy; Health care; Practice audit; Quality assurance; Quality indicators; CREDENTIALING GUIDELINES; ADENOMA DETECTION; WAIT TIMES; INDICATORS; ACCESS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1155/2011/320904
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a colonoscopists' practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback. METHODS: A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smartphones with automated dam upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates. RESULTS: Over a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference -11.3% [95% CI -2.8% to -19.9%]; P=0.01). DISCUSSION: Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations. CONCLUSION: Real-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.
引用
收藏
页码:13 / 20
页数:8
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   Practice Audit in Gastroenterology (PAGE) program: A novel approach to continuing professional development [J].
Armstrong, D ;
Hollingworth, R ;
Gardiner, T ;
Klassen, M ;
Smith, W ;
Hunt, RH ;
Barkun, A ;
Gould, M ;
Leddin, D .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 20 (06) :405-410
[2]   Access to specialist gastroenterology care in Canada: The practice audit in gastroenterology (PAGE) wait times program [J].
Armstrong, David ;
Barkun, Alan N. G. ;
Chen, Ying ;
Daniels, Sandra ;
Hollingworth, Roger ;
Hunt, Richard H. ;
Leddin, Desmond .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2008, 22 (02) :155-160
[3]   Canadian credentialing guidelines for endoscopic privileges: An overview [J].
Armstrong, David ;
Enns, Robert ;
Ponich, Terry ;
Romagnuolo, Joseph ;
Springer, Jonathon ;
Barkun, Alan N. .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2007, 21 (12) :797-801
[4]   Effect of a Time-Dependent Colonoscopic Withdrawal Protocol on Adenoma Detection During Screening Colonoscopy [J].
Barclay, Robert L. ;
Vicari, Joseph J. ;
Greenlaw, Roger L. .
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2008, 6 (10) :1091-1098
[5]   Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy [J].
Barclay, Robert L. ;
Vicari, Joseph J. ;
Doughty, Andrea S. ;
Johanson, John F. ;
Greenlaw, Roger L. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2006, 355 (24) :2533-2541
[6]  
*CAG, CAG PRACT AUD
[7]   The London OMED position statement for credentialing and quality assurance in digestive endoscopy [J].
Faigel, D. O. ;
Cotton, P. B. .
ENDOSCOPY, 2009, 41 (12) :1069-1074
[8]   Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study [J].
Froehlich, F ;
Wietlisbach, V ;
Gonvers, JJ ;
Burnand, B ;
Vader, JP .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 61 (03) :378-384
[9]   Variation in practice of ileal intubation among diverse endoscopy settings: results from a national endoscopic database [J].
Harewood, GC ;
Mattek, NC ;
Holub, JL ;
Peters, D ;
Lieberman, DA .
ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2005, 22 (06) :571-578
[10]   Colonic biopsy practice for evaluation of diarrhea in patients with normal endoscopic findings: results from a national endoscopic database [J].
Harewood, GC ;
Olson, JS ;
Mattek, NC ;
Holub, JL ;
Lieberman, DA .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 61 (03) :371-375