Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality in Colonoscopy

  • Large Intestine (B Cash, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality metrics in colonoscopy are a growing area of focus given the development of and need for associated reporting and potential financial penalties. Three areas specifically have been identified as important by a multi-society task force, and the evidence behind each has been presented here. These metrics are adenoma detection rate, appropriate screening interval, and cecal intubation rate. Additional factors of interest include bowel preparation cleanliness and endoscope withdrawal time. Multifaceted interventions have been implemented to improve outcomes in colonoscopy with mixed success. Given that there are some quality metrics that have been shown to impact colorectal cancer outcomes, additional research should focus on disseminating these methods in a consistent and effective way across a myriad of practice models and patient populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Kerr E, McGlynn E, Adams J, et al. Profiling the Quality of Care in Twelve Communities: Results from the CQI Study. Health Aff. 2004;23:247–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2011–2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Edwards B, Ward E, Kohler B, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer. 2010;116:544–73.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peery A, Dellon E, Lund J, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:1179–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sonnenberg A, Amorosi S, Lacey M, Lieberman D. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rex D, Schoenfeld P, Cohen J, et al. Quality Indicators for GI Endoscopic Procedures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:72–90. This article by the ASGE and ACG task force identifies important quality indicators for colonoscopy and discusses the evidence behind such measures.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Corley D, Jensen C, Marks A, et al. Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–306. In this study, ADR is shown to inversely correlate with the development of colorectal cancer.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A, Jacobson B. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:376–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Williams J, Holub J, Faigel D. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:576–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang H, Pisegna J, Modi R, et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:71–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kahi C, Vemulapalli K, Johnson C, Rex D. Improving measurement of the adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy quality metric: the Indiana University experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:448–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Goodwin J, Singh A, Reddy N, et al. Overuse of Screening Colonoscopy in the Medicare Population. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(15):1335–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Rijn J, Reitsma J, Stoker J, et al. Polyp Miss Rate Determined by Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sammader N, Curtin K, Tuohy T, et al. Characteristics of Missed or Interval Colorectal Cancer and Patient Survival: A Population-Based Study. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:950–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Iskandar H, Yan Y, Elwing J, et al. Predictors of Poor Adherence of US Gastroenterologists with Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:971–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonta, C. Summit Health Care Consulting. ASGE Presentation. “2015 PQRS Requirements: What Eligible Professionals Need to Know to Avoid the PQRS Penalty in 2017.” Available at http://www.asge.org/uploadedFiles/Members/Advocacy/Regulations/ASGE%20PQRS%20Presentation_Final_12-8-2014.pdf

  17. Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes S. Analysis of Administrative Data Finds Endoscopist Quality Measures Associated With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Calderwood A, Jacobson B. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:620–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menees S. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:510–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chokshi R, Hovis C, Hollander T, et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1197–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harewood G, Sharma V, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:76–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gurudu S, Ramirez F, Harrison M, et al. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:603–608.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bucci C, Rotondano G, Rea M, et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:566–576.e2. This review of 29 studies spanning over 50 years shows that a higher percentage of patients achieve adequate bowel preparation with split-dose than with non-split-dose preparations.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Martel M, Barkun A, Menard C, et al. Split-Dose Preparations are Superior to Day-before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. Available Online April 8, 2015. In Press, Accepted Manuscript.

  25. Lee T, Blanks R, Rees C. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy. 2013;45:20–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Corley D, Jensen C, Marks A. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:656–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bechtold M, Perez R, Puli S, Marshall J. Effect of music on patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:7309–12.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lin O, Kozarek R, Arai A, et al. The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1253–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Centers for Disease Control. CDC Statement: Los Angeles Country/UCLA Investigation of CRE transmission of duodenoscopes. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hai/outbreaks/cdcstatement-LA-CRE.html. Page last updated: February 20, 2015.

  30. Fisher D, Maple J, Ben-Menachem T, et al. Guideline: Complications of Colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:745–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Calderwood A, Chapman F, Cohen J, et al. Guidelines for Safety in the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:363–72.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Petersen B. Quality Improvement for the Ambulatory Surgery Center. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:911–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Logan J, Lieberman D. The Use of Databases and Registries to Enhance Colonoscopy Quality. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2010;20:717–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaminski M, Anderson J, Valori R, et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut gutjnl-2014-307503 Published Online First: 10 February 2015 doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307503.

  35. Kahi C, Ballard D, Shah A, et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:925–30. A quality report card was shown to improve adjusted adenoma detection and cecal intubation rates.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond J, et al. Variation in Detection of Adenomas and Polyps by Colonoscopy and Change Over Time With a Performance Improvement Program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:1335–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Calderwood A, Lai E, Fix O, Jacobson B. An endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of a simple visual aid to improve bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:307–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tae J, Lee J, Hong S, et al. Impact of patient education with cartoon visual aids on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:804–11. The use of a cartoon to guide patients in bowel preparation resulted in improved Boston Bowel Preparation Scores.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Spiegel B, Talley J, Shekelle P, et al. Development and Validation of a Novel Patient Educational Booklet to Enhance Colonoscopy Preparation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:875–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee A, Vu M, Fisher D, et al. Further validation of a novel patient educational booklet to enhance colonoscopy preparation: benefits in single-dose, but not split-dose preparations. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:S191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Thirumurthi S, Ross W, Lum P, et al. When patients watch a video, physicians see more adenomas: An educational bowel preparation video improves adenomas detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:AB228–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Colonoscopy Prep Assistant. Medivo, Inc. Available at: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/colonoscopy-prep-assistant/id413055762?mtZ8. Accessed May 23, 2015.

  43. Sawhney R, Cury M, Neeman N, et al. Effect of Institution-Wide Policy of Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time ≥7 Minutes on Polyp Detection. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1892–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Taber A, Romagnuolo J. Effect of simply recording colonoscopy withdrawal time on polyp and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:782–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hewett D, Rex D. Improving Colonoscopy Quality Through Health-Care Payment Reform. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1925–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gimeno-García A, Quintero E. Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time? World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7:94–101.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hassan C, Gralnek I. Cost-effectiveness of “full spectrum endoscopy” colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Digestive and Liver Disease. Available online 2 February 2015.

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Katherine T. Brunner and Audrey H. Calderwood declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, One Boston Medical Center Place, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Katherine T. Brunner

  2. Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, 85 East Concord Street, Room 7724, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Audrey H. Calderwood

Authors
  1. Katherine T. Brunner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Audrey H. Calderwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Audrey H. Calderwood.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Large Intestine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brunner, K.T., Calderwood, A.H. Quality in Colonoscopy. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 17, 38 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-015-0461-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-015-0461-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation