English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

 Quality metrics of colonoscopy should be routinely monitored with a focus on optimizing the patient’s subsequent risk of colorectal cancer development. Documentation of bowel preparation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and post-colonoscopy follow-up recommendations are three of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy, but significant improvement has been challenging to achieve. The goal of this study is to determine whether the publication of colonoscopy quality indicator guidelines in 2015 resulted in an improvement in quality measures of physicians in our endoscopy suite as compared to before.  Methods   We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent a screening or surveillance colonoscopy in 2014 and 2017. Colonoscopies were performed in an open-access medical center endoscopy suite, staffed by three groups of physicians (academic gastroenterologists (AGs), non-academic gastroenterologists (non-AGs), and surgeons). We gathered demographic data, bowel preparation reports, follow-up recommendations, and notice to patient’s primary care physician, and calculated ADR for patients. Age- and gender-matched patients in both years were analyzed for ADR. These data were further subcategorized for each group of physicians.  Results   There were 553 patients in 2014 and 1,095 in 2017. Overall, male gender and African American race constituted the majority of patients in both years. Among age- and gender-matched patients in 2014 and 2017 (412 and 243 patients, respectively), ADR within each group of endoscopists was not significantly different between these two years (AGs 44% vs. 50%; non-AGs 32% vs. 27%; surgeons 25% vs. 21%; p>0.05 for all). However, in 2014 and 2017, ADR was significantly higher in the AG group as compared to the non-AG group and surgeons (p<0.006 and p<0.0004, respectively). Reporting of bowel preparation quality (82% vs. 87%) and documenting the recommended period for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy in the report (68% vs. 78%) improved between 2014 and 2017 (p=0.002 and p=0.0001, respectively). Correct recommendations for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy only improved significantly in the AG group (74% in 2014 as compared with 82% in 2017, p=0.003).  Conclusion   Based on the current guidelines, AG physicians are far exceeding the target ADR goals, and are superior compared to other groups of endoscopists. Although improvements were noted after guideline publications, areas of needed improvement with respect to meeting gastroenterology society guidelines for quality remained. The fact that individual physicians are performing and billing in an endoscopy suite staffed and equipped by a medical center creates an environment where responsibility for improvement in quality cannot be readily assigned.

Evaluating the Improvement in Colonoscopy Quality Indicators Subsequent to Publication of Professional Society Guidelines