Developing and Deploying an Automated Quality Reporting System in Your Practice: Learning From the Stanford Colonoscopy Quality Assurance Program

Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices

INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting.

METHODS

We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022.

RESULTS

We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%.

CONCLUSION

The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.

Adherence to quality indicators and best practices in surveillance endoscopy of Barrett's esophagus: A video-based assessment

Background and study aims Adherence to quality indicators (QIs) and best practices (BPs) for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is low based on clinical documentation which is an inaccurate representation of events occurring during procedures. This study aimed to assess adherence to measurable QI and BP using video evaluation. Methods We performed a single center video-based retrospective review of surveillance endoscopies performed for BE ≥1 cm between March 1, 2018 and October 1, 2020. Adherence to QIs and BPs was assessed through video review and documentation. Videos were evaluated by five gastroenterologists. Interrater variability was determined using 10 videos before reviewing the remaining 128 videos. A generalized linear regression model was used to determine predictors of adherence to QIs and BPs. Results There were 138 endoscopies reviewed. Inspection with virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) occurred in 75 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 50 of these cases (67%). Adherence to the Seattle protocol (SP) occurred in 74 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 28 of these cases (38%). Use of VC or the SP was documented but not observed on video review in 16 (12%) and 30 (22%) cases, respectively. Length of BE was associated with increased use of the Prague classification (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.37) while years in practice was associated with a decreased likelihood of VC use (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). Conclusions This study validates prior data demonstrating poor adherence to QIs and BPs and highlights discrepancies between clinical documentation and events occurring during procedures.

Optimizing Endoscopy Procedure Documentation Improves Guideline-Adherent Care in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a common indication for inpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Guideline adherence improves post-EGD care, including appropriate medication dosing/duration and follow-up procedures that reduce UGIB-related morbidity. We aimed to optimize and standardize post-EGD documentation to improve process and clinical outcomes in UGIB-related care.

METHODS

We performed a prospective quality improvement study of inpatient UGIB endoscopies at an academic tertiary referral center during 6/2019-7/2021. Guidelines were used to develop etiology/severity-specific electronic health record note templates. Participants (39 faculty/15 trainees) completed 10-min training in template content/use. We collected pre/post-intervention process data on "Minimal Standard Report" (MSR) documentation including patient disposition, diet, and medications. We also recorded documentation of re-bleed precautions and follow-up procedures. Study outcomes included guideline-based medication prescriptions, ordering of follow-up EGD, and post-discharge re-bleeding. Pre/post-intervention analysis was performed using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

From a pre-intervention baseline of 199 patients to 459 patients post-intervention, compliance improved with inpatient PPI (53.4-77.9%, p < 0.001) and discharge PPI (31.3-61.0%, p < 0.001) prescriptions. There was improvement in MSR completion (28.6-42.5%, p < 0.001). Compliance improved with octreotide prescriptions (75.0-93.6%, p = 0.002) and follow-up EGD order (61.3-87.1%, p < 0.001). There was no change in post-discharge re-bleeding. 82.6% of cases used templates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our project leveraged endoscopy software to standardize documentation, resulting in improved clinical care behavior and efficiency. Our intervention required low burden of maintenance, and sustainability with high utilization over 9 months. Similar endoscopy templates can be applied to other health systems and procedures to improve care.

Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates at Screening Colonoscopy for Ages 45-49 Years vs Older Ages Since the Introduction of New Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

All major U.S. guidelines now endorse average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at 45-49 years of age. Concerns exist that endoscopic capacity may be strained, that low-risk persons may self-select for screening, and that calculations of the adenoma detection rate may be diluted. We analyzed age-specific screening colonoscopy volumes and lesion detection rates before vs after the endorsement of CRC screening at 45-49 years of age.

METHODS

We compared colonoscopy volumes and lesion detection rates in our healthcare system during period 1 (October 2017 to December 2018), before the first change in guidelines, vs period 2 (January 2019 to August 2021), the era of new guidelines.

RESULTS

The proportion of first-time screening colonoscopies performed in 45- to 49-year-olds increased from 3.5% to 11.6% (relative risk, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.45-4.61). The period 2 detection rates for adenoma, advanced adenoma, sessile serrated lesion, advanced sessile serrated lesion, adenomas per colonoscopy, and lesions per colonoscopy were very similar for 45- to 49-year-olds (34.3%, 6.3%, 8.6%, 2.9%, 0.58, and 0.69, respectively) and 50- to 54-year-olds (38.2%, 5.8%, 9.4%, 3.0%, 0.63, and 0.76, respectively) at first-time screening, and for 60- to 64-year-olds at rescreening (33.4%, 6.1%, 7.2%, 2.3%, 0.61, and 0.70, respectively). All detection rates, adenomas per colonoscopy, and lesions per colonoscopy increased from period 1 to period 2 (eg, overall adenoma detection rate 35.1% vs 42.6%; P < .0001), without any decreases among 45- to 49-year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

In our healthcare system, a lower CRC screening initiation age has modestly affected colonoscopy volume by age without compromising screening yield. Lesion detection rates, including for advanced adenomas, in average-risk 45- to 49-year-olds approximate those in 50- to 54-year-olds at first-time screening and 60- to 64-year-olds at rescreening. National monitoring is needed to assess fully the impact of lowering the CRC screening initiation age.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.

Adenoma and Serrated Lesion Detection by Colonoscopy Indication: The ADR-ESS (ADR Extended to all Screening/Surveillance) Score

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate at screening (ADR) predicts interval colorectal cancer. Monitoring other lesion detection rates and colonoscopy indications has been proposed. We developed a comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit program based on standardized clinical documentation, explored detection rates across indications, and developed the Adenoma Detection Rate - Extended to all Screening / Surveillance (ADR-ESS) score.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, we calculated overall and advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rates among 15,253 colonoscopies by 35 endoscopists from 4 endoscopy units across all colonoscopy indications. We explored correlations between detection rates, and the precision and stability of ADR-ESS versus ADR.

RESULTS

The overall "screening, first" ADR was 36.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.5%-38.1%). The adenoma detection rate was lower for "screening, not first" (relative rate [RR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) and "family history" (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96), and higher for "surveillance" (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.31) and "follow-up, FIT" (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.07-1.37). For "screening, first," the detection rates for advanced adenoma, SSL, and advanced SSL were 6.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-7.7%), 7.2% (95% CI, 6.2%-8.2%), and 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.2%), respectively. Adenoma and SSL detection were correlated (r = 0.44; P = .008). ADR-ESS had substantially narrower confidence intervals and less period-to-period variability than ADR, and was not improved by weighting for indication volume and correction for detection by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive, automated colonoscopy audit based on standardized clinical documentation is feasible. Adenoma detection is a fair but imperfect proxy for SSL detection. ADR-ESS increases the precision of adenoma detection assessments and emphasizes quality across colonoscopy indications.