Quality indicators in pediatric colonoscopy in a low-volume center: Implications for training

AIM To study implications of measuring quality indicators on training and trainees' performance in pediatric colonoscopy in a low-volume training center.METHODS We reviewed retrospectively the performance of pediatric colonoscopies in a training center in Malaysia over 5 years(January 2010-December 2015), benchmarked against five quality indicators: appropriateness of indications, bowel preparations, cecum and ileal examination rates, and complications. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline for pediatric endoscopy and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition training guidelines were used as benchmarks.RESULTS Median(± SD) age of 121 children [males = 74(61.2%)] who had 177 colonoscopies was 7.0(± 4.6) years. On average, 30 colonoscopies were performed each year(range: 19-58). Except for investigations of abdominal pain(21/177, 17%), indications for colonoscopies were appropriate in the remaining 83%. Bowel preparation was good in 87%. One patient(0.6%) with severe Crohn's disease had bowel perforation. Cecum examination and ileal intubation rate was 95% and 68.1%. Ileal intubation rate was significantly higher in diagnosing or assessing inflammatory bowel disease(IBD) than non-IBD(72.9% vs 50.0%; P = 0.016). Performance of four trainees was consistent throughout the study period. Average cecum and ileal examination rate among trainees were 97% and 77%.CONCLUSION Benchmarking against established guidelines helps units with a low-volume of colonoscopies to identify area for further improvement.     

Quality of colonoscopy performed by medical or surgical specialists and trainees in five Australian hospitals

BACKGROUNDEnsuring colonoscopy procedure quality is vital to the success of screening and surveillance programmes for bowel cancer in Australia. However, the data on the performance of quality metrics, through adequate adenoma detection, bowel preparation, and procedure completion rates, in the Australian public sector is limited. Understanding these can inform quality improvement to further strengthen our capacity for prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer.AIMTo determine the quality of colonoscopy in Australian teaching hospitals and their association with proceduralist specialty, trainee involvement, and location.METHODSWe retrospectively evaluated 2443 consecutive colonoscopy procedure reports from 1 January to 1 April, 2018 from five public teaching tertiary hospitals in Australia (median 60 years old, 49% male). Data for bowel preparation quality, procedure completion rates, and detection rates of clinically significant adenomas, conventional adenomas, and serrated lesions was collected and compared to national criteria for quality in colonoscopy. Participating hospital, proceduralist specialty, and trainee involvement indicators were used for stratification. Data was analysed using Chi-squared tests of independence, Mann-Whitney U, One-way ANOVA, and multivariate binary logistic regression.RESULTSFifty-two point two percent (n = 1276) and 43.3% (n = 1057) were performed by medical and surgical proceduralists respectively, whilst 29.8% (n = 728) involved a trainee. Inadequate bowel preparation affected 7.3% of all procedures. The procedure completion rate was 95.1%, which increased to 97.5% after adjustment for bowel preparation quality. The pooled cancer, adenoma, and serrated lesion detection rates for all five hospitals were 3.5%, 40%, and 5.9% respectively. Assessed hospitals varied significantly by patient age (P < 0.001), work-force composition (P < 0.001), adequacy of bowel preparation (P < 0.001), and adenoma detection rate (P < 0.001). Two hospitals (40%) did not meet all national criteria for quality, due to a procedure completion rate of 94.5% or serrated lesion detection rate of 2.6%. Although lower than the other hospitals, the difference was not significant. Compared with surgical specialists, procedures performed by medical specialists involved older patients [65 years (inter-quartile range, IQR 58-73) vs 64 years (IQR 56-71); P = 0.04] and were associated with a higher adenoma detection rate [odds ratio (OR) 1.53; confidence interval: 1.21-1.94; P < 0.001]. Procedures involving trainee proceduralists were not associated with differences in the detection of cancer, adenoma, or serrated lesions, compared with specialists, or according to their medical or surgical background. On multivariate analysis, cancer detection was positively associated with patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001) and negatively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 0.54; P = 0.04). Conventional adenoma detection rates were independently associated with increasing patient age (OR 1.04; P < 0.001), positively associated with medical compared to surgical proceduralists (OR 1.41; P = 0.002) and negatively associated with male gender (OR 0.53; P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSignificant differences in the quality of colonoscopy in Australia exist, even when national benchmarks are achieved. The role of possible contributing factors, like procedural specialty and patient gender need further evaluation.     

Quality indicators for colonoscopy: Current insights and caveats

Colonoscopy is the diagnostic modality of choice for investigation of symptoms suspected to be related to the colon and for the detection of polyps and colorectal cancer(CRC). Colonoscopy with removal of detected polyps has been shown to reduce the incidence and mortality of subsequent CRC. In many countries, population screening programs for CRC have been initiated, either by selection of patients for colonoscopy with fecal occult blood testing or by offering colonoscopy directly to average-risk individuals. Several endoscopy societies have formulated quality indicators for colonoscopy. These quality indicators are almost always incorporated as process indicators, rather than outcome measures. This review focuses on the quality indicators bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate, patient comfort, sedation and complication rate, and discusses the scientific evidence supporting them,as well as their potential shortcomings and issues that need to be addressed. For instance, there is still no clear and generally accepted definition of adequatebowel preparation, no robust scientific evidence is available supporting a cecal intubation rate ≥ 90% and the association between withdrawal time and occurrence of interval cancers has not been clarified. Adenoma detection rate is currently the only quality indicator that has been shown to be associated with interval colorectal cancer, but as an indicator it does not differentiate between subjects with one or more adenoma detected.     

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

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 smart-phones with automated data 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.     

Identification of factors associated with sedation tolerance in 5000 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy:Canadian tertiary center experience

AIM To develop a prediction model aimed at identifying patients that may require higher than usual sedation doses during colonoscopy.METHODS A retrospective chart review on 5000 patients who underwent an outpatient colonoscopy at St.Paul's Hospital from 2009 to 2010 was conducted in order to develop a model for identifying patients who will require increased doses of sedatives.Potential predictor variables including age,gender,endoscopy indication,high sedation requirements during previous endoscopies,difficulty of the procedure,bowel preparation quality,interventions,findings as well as current use of benzodiazepines,opioids and alcohol were analyzed.The outcome of study was the use ofhigh dose of sedation agents for the procedure.In particular,the high dose of sedation was defined as fentanyl greater than 50 mcg and midazolam greater than 3 mg.RESULTS Analysis of 5282 patients(mean age 57 ± 12,49% female) was performed.Most common indication for the procedure was screening colonoscopy(57%).Almost half of our patients received doses exceeding Fentanyl 50 mcg and Midazolam 3 mg.Logistic regression models identified the following variables associated with high sedation:Younger age(OR=0.95 95%CI:0.94-0.95;P 0.0001);abdominal pain(OR=1.45,95%CI:1.08-1.96);P=0.01) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease(OR=1.45,95%CI:1.04-2.03;P=0.02) as indications for the procedure;difficult procedure as defined by gastroenterologist(OR=1.73,95%CI:1.48-2.03;P 0.0001);past history of abdominal surgery(OR=1.33,95%CI:1.17-1.52;P 0.0001) and previous colonoscopy(OR=1.39,95%CI:1.21-1.60;P=0.0001) and alcohol use(OR=1.26,95%CI:1.03-1.54;P=0.02).Age and gender adjusted analysis yielded inflammatory bowel disease as an indication(OR=3.17,95%CI:1.58-6.37;P=0.002);difficult procedure as defined by an endoscopist(OR=5.13 95%CI:2.97-8.85;P=0.0001) and current use of opioids,benzodiazepines or antidepressants(OR=2.88,95%CI:1.74-4.77;P=0.001) having the highest predictive value of high sedation requirements.Our prediction model using the following pre-procedural variables including age,indication for the procedure,medication/substance use,previous surgeries yielded an area under the curve of 0.76 for Fentanyl ≥ 100 mcg and Midazolam ≥ 3 mg.CONCLUSION Pre-procedural planning is the key in conducting successful,efficient colonoscopy.Logistic regression analysis of 5000 patients who underwent out-patient colonoscopy revealed the following factors associated with increased sedation requirement:Younger age,female gender,difficult endoscopy,specific indications as well as cardiopulmonary complications and current use of opioids/benzodiazepines.Age and gender adjusted analysis yielded similar results.These patients are more likely to need a longer recovery periods post-endoscopy,which could result in additional time and personnel requirements.The final predictive model has good predictive ability for Fentanyl ≥ 100 mcg and Midazolam ≥ 3 mg and fair predictive ability for Fentanyl ≥ 50 mcg and Midazolam ≥ 2 mg.The external validity of this model is planned to be tested in another center.     

Quality of care indicators in inflammatory bowel disease in a tertiary referral center with open access and objective assessment policies

BackgroundIn the management of inflammatory bowel diseases, there is considerable variation in quality of care.AimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate structural, access/process components and outcome quality indicators in our tertiary referral IBD center.MethodsIn the first phase, structural/process components were assessed, followed by the second phase of formal evaluation of access and management on a set of consecutive IBD patients with and without active disease (248CD/125UC patients, median age 35/39 years).ResultsStructural/process components of our IBD center met the international recommendations. At or around the time of diagnosis usual procedures were full colonoscopy in all patients, with ileocolonoscopy/gastroscopy/CT/MRI in 81.8/45.5/66.1/49.6% of CD patients. A total of 86.7% of CD patients had any follow-up imaging evaluation or endoscopy. The median waiting time for non-emergency endoscopy/CT/MRI was 16/14/22 days. During the observational period patients with flares (CD/UC:50.6/54.6%) were seen by specialist at the IBD clinic within a median of 1 day with same day laboratory assessment, abdominal US, CT scan/surgical consult and change in therapy if needed. Surgery and hospitalization rates were 20.1/1.4% and 17.3/3.2% of CD/UC patients.ConclusionOur results highlight that structural components and processes applied in our center are in line with international recommendations, including an open clinic concept and fast track access to specialist consultation, endoscopy and imaging.     

Quality indicators for colonoscopy in Egypt: A prospective multicenter study

Background and Study AimsDespite its wide availability, we do not have sufficient data about the quality of colonoscopy in Egypt. In this study, we proposed 13 indicators to assess the quality of colonoscopy procedures in the included study centers aiming to attain a representative image of the quality of CS in Egypt.Patients and MethodsA multicenter prospective study was conducted between July and December 2020, which included all patients who underwent colonoscopy in the participating centers. The following were the proposed quality indicators: indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure clinical assessment, obtaining written informed consent, adequate colon preparation, sedation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complication rate, photographic documentation, automated sterilization, regular infection control check, and well-equipped postprocedure recovery room.ResultA total of 1,006 colonoscopy procedures were performed during the study duration in the included centers. Our analysis showed the following four indicators that were fulfilled in all centers: appropriate indications for colonoscopy, preprocedure assessment, written informed consent, and automated sterilization. However, photographic documentation and postprocedure follow-up room were fulfilled only in 57 %. Furthermore, 71 % of the centers performed regular infection control checks. Adequate colon preparation was achieved in 61 % of the procedures, 81 % of the procedures were performed under sedation, 95.4 % CIR, 11-min mean withdrawal time, 15 % ADR, and 0.1 % overall complication rate. Statistically significant factors affecting CIR were age > 40 years, high-definition endoscope, previous colon intervention, and rectal bleeding, whereas those affecting ADR were age > 40 years, the use of image enhancement, previous colon intervention, rectal bleeding, the use of water pump, and a withdrawal time of > 9 min.ConclusionOur study revealed the bright aspects of colonoscopy practice in Egypt, including high CIRs and low complication rates; conversely, ADR, bowel cleansing quality, and infection control measures should be improved.     

Measuring the quality of hospital care: an inventory of indicators

Background: Development of indicators to measure health-care quality has progressed rapidly. This development has, however, rarely occurred in a systematic fashion, and some aspects of care have received more attention than others. The aim of this study is to identify and classify indicators currently in use to measure the quality of care provided by hospitals, and to identify gaps in current measurement.
Methods: A literature search was undertaken to identify indicator sets. Indicators were included if they related to hospital care and were clearly being collected and reported to an external body. A two-person independent review was undertaken to classify indicators according to aspects of care provision (structure, process or outcome), dimensions of quality (safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient-centredness and equity), and domain of application (hospital-wide, surgical and non-surgical clinical specialities).
Results: 383 discrete indicators were identified from 22 source organizations or projects. Of these, 27.2% were relevant hospital-wide, 26.1% to surgical patients and 46.7% to non-surgical specialities, departments or diseases. Cardiothoracic surgery, cardiology and mental health were the specialities with greatest coverage, while nine clinical specialities had fewer than three specific indicators. Processes of care were measured by 54.0% of indicators and outcomes by 38.9%. Safety and effectiveness were the domains most frequently represented, with relatively few indicators measuring the other dimensions.
Conclusion: Despite the large number of available indicators, significant gaps in measurement still exist. Development of indicators to address these gaps should be a priority. Work is also required to evaluate whether existing indicators measure what they purport to measure.     

Performance indicators to measure dementia risk reduction activities in primary care

The increasing burden of chronic diseases including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes and dementia has led to greater emphasis on health promotion, prevention and early intervention (PPEI) activities within primary care. At the same time, there is growing recognition of the importance of measuring and benchmarking health‐care system performance. This includes the measurement of PPEI activities. This paper considers the issue of measuring PPEI activities that are relevant to reducing the risk of dementia within the Australian primary care system. Although Australia does not currently have a comprehensive data collection regarding primary health‐care services, there are a number of national, state and other data sources. These sources could be utilised, either in their current format or modified to provide data regarding PPEI activities in primary care that may reduce the risk of dementia and we have made recommendations regarding the development of such indicators.     

A comparison of hospital and nonhospital colonoscopy: wait times, fees and guideline adherence to follow-up interval

BACKGROUND:

Although colonoscopy is increasingly performed in nonhospital facilities, studies to date examining differences between colonoscopy services in hospital and nonhospital settings have been limited, in large part, to administrative databases.

OBJECTIVES:

To describe the experiences of patients receiving colonoscopy in hospital and nonhospital settings, and to compare these settings with respect to wait times and recommended follow-up interval to the next colonoscopy.

METHODS:

A postal survey of 2000 patients, 50 to 70 years of age, from an urban academic family practice was conducted. Most recent colonoscopy was classified as either occurring in a hospital or nonhospital setting. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association among wait times, follow-up intervals and patient factors with respect to colonoscopy setting.

RESULTS:

Patients who underwent their most recent colonoscopy outside of a hospital were more likely to be men (P=0.01) and to have undergone more than one previous colonoscopy (P=0.02). For patients with a normal screening colonoscopy and no family history of colorectal cancer or polyps, nonhospital clinics less often recommended a 10-year follow-up interval (OR 0.13 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.47]). Reported wait times at nonhospital clinics were shorter for patients receiving screening colonoscopy (OR 2.11 [95% CI 1.28 to 3.47]), but not for symptomatic patients (OR 1.74 [95% CI 0.88 to 3.43]). For individuals attending nonhospital clinics, 10% were referred from a hospital by the same specialist performing the procedure; 31.7% reported paying a fee.

CONCLUSION:

Nonhospital clinics were far less likely to adhere to guidelines regarding follow-up intervals for low-risk patients. Given the implications for both health care costs and patient safety, further study is needed to determine the cause of this disparity.     

Integrated quality assessment for diabetes care in Portuguese primary health care using prevention quality indicators

AimsThis study evaluates the prevention quality indicators (PQI) for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) in Portugal using contemporary data and explores their variability according to Primary Health Care (PHC) quality indicators.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational analysis of secondary data comprising Portuguese PHC indicators by health centres group (ACES) and the National Hospital Morbidity Database. We calculated and analysed age-sex-adjusted rates for each PQI. Worse-performing ACES were identified using the 2017 median PQI values as an assessment cut-off. A multivariate logistic analysis was carried to find variables associated with the likelihood of being a worse-performing ACES for the biennium.ResultsThe median values of the indicator PQI93 - Prevention Quality Diabetes Composite were 79 and 65.2 hospitalizations per 100 000 pop, in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Diabetes long term complications (PQI 03) accounted for most of the hospitalizations. The quality indicator in PHC with greater influence on PQI93 was the proportion of DM patients with <65 years with test results for HbA1c < = 6.5%.ConclusionsThis study shows that some PHC quality indicators are closely related to DM care, and so their monitoring is of high importance. Diabetes long term complications (PQI 03) demand greater attention from PHC professionals.     

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.     

Quality and safety in residential aged care: an evaluation of a national quality indicator programme

Background

In Australia, 243 000 individuals live in approximately 2700 residential aged care facilities yearly. In 2019, a National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator programme (QI programme) was implemented to monitor the quality and safety of care in facilities.

Aim

To examine the validity of the QI programme indicators using explicit measure review criteria.

Methods

The QI programme manual and reports were reviewed. A modified American College of Physicians Measure Review Criteria was employed to examine the QI programme's eight indicators. Five authors rated each indicator on importance, appropriateness, clinical evidence, specifications and feasibility using a nine-point scale. A median score of 1–3 was considered to not meet criteria, 4–6 to meet some criteria and 7–9 to meet criteria.

Results

All indicators, except polypharmacy, met criteria (median scores = 7–9) for importance, appropriateness and clinical evidence. Polypharmacy met some criteria for importance (median = 6, range 2–8), appropriateness (median = 5, range 2–8) and clinical evidence (median = 6, range 3–8). Pressure injury, physical restraints, significant unplanned weight loss, consecutive unplanned weight loss, falls and polypharmacy indicators met some criteria for specifications validity (all median scores = 5) and feasibility and applicability (median scores = 4 to 6). Antipsychotic use and falls resulting in major injury met some criteria for specifications (median = 6–7, range 4–8) and met criteria for feasibility and applicability (median = 7, range 4–8).

Conclusions

Australia's National QI programme is a major stride towards a culture of quality promotion, improvement and transparency. Measures' specifications, feasibility and applicability could be improved to ensure the programme delivers on its intended purposes.