Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists.

BACKGROUND The medical profession, payers, and patients are interested increasingly in the quality of endoscopic procedures, including colonoscopy. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has recommended "report cards" by which endoscopists may keep track of certain key elements of their practice including indications, findings, duration, technical end points, complications, and patient satisfaction. METHODS The GI-Trac endoscopy reporting database includes many of the data points recommended by ASGE for report cards. Seven hospital centers in North America have been collecting data prospectively for varying periods since 1994. These data were aggregated and analyzed by individual endoscopist. A total of 69 endoscopists performed 17,868 colonoscopies. RESULTS Twelve percent of the endoscopists reported that more than 20% of procedures they performed were completely normal. The average time taken by 27% of endoscopists was more than 40 minutes (without trainees involved), and only 55% achieved a cecal intubation rate of over 90%; for 9% the rate was less than 80%. Complication rates were too low for individual comparisons. CONCLUSION These data provide an idea of colonoscopy performance by individual endoscopists in mainly academic centers. Incorporating all recommended data elements in future reporting databases will contribute to meaningful bench marking and to quality improvement efforts.

[1]  Wexler Rm Quality assurance: an overview and outline for gastrointestinal endoscopy. , 1989 .

[2]  D. Lieberman,et al.  Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Randall E. Brand,et al.  The time and financial impact of training fellows in endoscopy , 2000 .

[4]  R. Grol Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. , 2001, JAMA.

[5]  P. Cotton Income and outcome metrics for the objective evaluation of ERCP and alternative methods. , 2002, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[6]  J. Glassman,et al.  Impact of a quality assurance program on gastrointestinal endoscopy. , 1992, Gastroenterology.

[7]  S. Raptis,et al.  Acquisition of Competence in Colonoscopy: The Learning Curve of Trainees , 1999, Endoscopy.

[8]  I. Guggenmoos‐Holzmann,et al.  Follow-up of Patients with Colorectal Adenomas , 1985, Endoscopy.

[9]  G. Teasdale Learning from Bristol: report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995 , 2002, British journal of neurosurgery.

[10]  K. Kahn,et al.  The use and misuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. , 1988, Annals of internal medicine.

[11]  D. Rex Speeding up cecal intubation: its role in the efficiency of colonoscopy delivery. , 2002 .

[12]  A. Sonnenberg,et al.  New occurrence and recurrence of neoplasms within 5 years of a screening colonoscopy , 2002, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[13]  Douglas K. Rex,et al.  Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: Recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer , 2002 .

[14]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United States , 2002 .

[15]  P. Cotton How many times have you done this procedure, doctor? , 2002, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[16]  Elizabeth Lyden,et al.  The time and financial impact of training fellows in endoscopy , 2000, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[17]  A. Axon,et al.  Quality Assurance in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy , 2000, Endoscopy.

[18]  L. Friedman,et al.  How long does it take to learn endoscopy? , 1995, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[19]  M. Freeman,et al.  Training and competence in gastrointestinal endoscopy. , 2001, Reviews in gastroenterological disorders.

[20]  W. Dickey,et al.  Colonoscope length and procedure efficiency , 2002, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[21]  R. Abbott,et al.  Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: a new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data. , 2000, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[22]  D. Lieberman,et al.  Feasibility of colonoscopy screening: discussion of issues and recommendations regarding implementation. , 2001, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[23]  D. Lieberman,et al.  Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. , 2002, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[24]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Evaluation of a consumer-oriented internet health care report card: the risk of quality ratings based on mortality data. , 2002, JAMA.

[25]  A. Epstein Public release of performance data: a progress report from the front. , 2000, JAMA.

[26]  F. Rocca,et al.  Quality assurance and colonoscopy. , 1999, Endoscopy.

[27]  J. Waye,et al.  Surveillance Intervals after Colonoscopic Polypectomy , 1982, Endoscopy.

[28]  J. Marshall,et al.  Technical proficiency of trainees performing colonoscopy: a learning curve. , 1995, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[29]  Dennis M. Jensen,et al.  Principles of training in gastrointestinal endoscopy , 1999 .

[30]  C. Aprahamian,et al.  Risk of Recurrence of Colon Polyps , 1975, Annals of surgery.

[31]  J. Cameron,et al.  Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. , 1998, Annals of surgery.

[32]  C. Naylor Public profiling of clinical performance. , 2002, JAMA.

[33]  O W Cass,et al.  Training to Competence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Plea for Continuous Measuring of Objective End Points , 1999, Endoscopy.

[34]  N. Wintfeld,et al.  Report cards on cardiac surgeons. Assessing New York State's approach. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  C. Schmitt,et al.  Quality and outcomes assessment in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. , 2000, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.