Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1529-5574
Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills improves group colonoscopy quality in providers with lower adenoma detection rates
Abstract
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.
Publication History
Received: 25 January 2021
Accepted: 04 June 2021
Article published online:
14 March 2022
© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
- 2 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
- 3 Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM. et al. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1134-1139
- 4 Mehrotra A, Morris M, Gourevitch RA. et al. Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 778-786 e5
- 5 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
- 6 Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS. et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 925-931
- 7 Wallace MB, Crook JE, Thomas CS. et al. Effect of an endoscopic quality improvement program on adenoma detection rates: a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial in a clinical practice setting (EQUIP-3). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 538-545 e4
- 8 Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R. et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut 2016; 65: 616-624
- 9 Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O'Reilly A. et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1434-1442
- 10 Greenberg CC, Dombrowski J, Dimick JB. Video-based surgical coaching: an emerging approach to performance improvement. JAMA Surg 2016; 151: 282-283
- 11 Duloy A, Yadlapati RH, Benson M. et al. Video-based assessments of colonoscopy inspection quality correlate with quality metrics and highlight areas for improvement. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 691-700
- 12 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
- 13 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
- 14 Hu YY, Mazer LM, Yule SJ. et al. Complementing Operating Room Teaching With Video-Based Coaching. JAMA Surg 2017; 152: 318-325
- 15 Hu YY, Peyre SE, Arriaga AF. et al. Postgame analysis: using video-based coaching for continuous professional development. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 214: 115-124
- 16 Duloy AM, Kaltenbach TR, Wood M. et al. A colon polypectomy report card improves polypectomy competency: results of a prospective quality improvement study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: AB489
- 17 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
- 18 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
- 19 Keswani RN, Benson M, Beveridge C. et al. Colonoscopy-naive raters can be trained to assess colonoscopy quality. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 989-991.e1 [Epub 2019/06/23]