Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Measures for Colonoscopy: Where Should We Be in 2015?

  • GI Oncology (R Bresalier, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Colonoscopy is an effective colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prevention modality as evidenced by a 30-year decline in both incident colon cancers and CRC mortality in the USA. The USA is unique among the developed countries in its use of colonoscopy as the most common method to screen for CRC. Individual patients gain maximum value from their colonoscopy experience when they undergo a comfortable exam that is of highest quality, during which all polyps are found and removed safely and completely, where their physicians adhere to all appropriate guidelines and when they (or their insurance) pay a reasonable amount for their care. Colonoscopy “quality” publications to date have been focused on how to improve the individual physician’s procedural results and this narrow focus has birthed an entire industry (usually based on entering data into a national registry) that is focused on demonstrating a physician’s success in achieving a certain threshold performance metric that is usually (a) marginally related to true health outcomes, (b) can be captured from the myriad electronic medical records (EMR) in existence today, and (c) is attainable by most practicing gastroenterologists. Medical societies have worked diligently to link these registries and recognition programs to commercial or federal payer-based incentive funds. As health care reform drives massive consolidation of delivery systems and reimbursement moves toward population-level two-sided financial risk models, our current measurement infrastructure will become irrelevant. The focus on “value” and the Triple Aim will drive development of a radically different approach. The process by which individual gastroenterologists (or practices) demonstrate the value of colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention tool will change dramatically. Essentially, six measures will be reported by a health system: (1) percent of eligible population screened, (2) access to colonoscopy services, (3) complication rates, (4) patient experience scores, (5) episode (bundle) cost, and (6) frequency with which interval cancers occur after a colonoscopy exam (likely using a 3-year interval). Each gastroenterologist within a health system will be evaluated using familiar metrics (cecal intubation, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate) but these results will likely be used internally to determine whether they are included in a provider network. If they continue to be used in commercial or government incentive programs, then the enterprise electronic medical record will be constructed to populate external programs directly. Population-level metrics (listed above) will determine whether higher cost provider networks (including academic health centers) who might deliver better health outcomes can compete successfully for regional market share with lower cost providers. This article will outline a plan for a health system initiative focused on provision of colonoscopy for CRC prevention; a plan that will help a group of gastroenterologists (whether employed within a health system or independent) demonstrate why they should be a preferred provider and whether they will survive and thrive in the coming world of accountable care.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Siegel R, DeSantis C, Ahmedin J. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:104–17. Yearly colon cancer statistics, a foundation for all projections.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. New Eng J Med. 2013;369:1095–105. Excellent article demonstrating effectiveness of colonoscopy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lieberman DA. Screening for colorectal cancer. New Eng J Med. 2009;361:1179–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ, et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:687–96. Long term results of the National Polyp Study first published in 1993.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lieberman DA. Progress and challenges in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2115–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening test use—United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62:881–8. Rates of different CRC screening tests.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:1179–87. Excellent article compiling the burden of GI disease based on ambulatory visits.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rex DK, Eid E. Considerations regarding the present and future roles of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer prevention. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:506–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Allen JI. The value of colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:573–5. Outlines the specific components of a colonoscopy bundle.

  10. Allen JI. Community colonoscopy: a Gordian knot? Gastroenterology. 2010;138:27–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Allen JI. Quality assurance for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Curr Opinion Gastroent. 2012;28:442–50. Then current review of quality measurement in endoscopy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27:759–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Allen JI. Roadmap to the future of practice. Clin Gastroent Hepatol. 2012;10:692–6. Initial article in the series entitled “The Roadmap”—a series that discusses health care reform as it pertains to gastroenterology.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Allen JI. Health Care Reform 3.0: the road gets bumpy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1527–8. Update on health care reform as of 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining competition in health care. Harvard Bus Rev. 2004; 1–13.

  16. Sheen E, Dorn SD, Brill JV, Allen JI. Health care reform and the road ahead for gastroenterology. Clin Gastro Hepatol. 2012;10:1062–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson JC, MacPherson K. Payers test reference pricing and centers of excellence to steer patients to low-price and high-quality providers. Health Aff. 2014;31:2028–36. Key paper explaining reference pricing.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Reinhardt UE. The many different prices paid to providers and the flawed theory of cost shifting: is it time for a more rational all-payer system? Health Aff. 2011;30:2125–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brill JV, Jain R, Margolis PS, et al. A bundled payment framework for colonoscopy performed for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance. Gastroenterol. 2014;146:849–53. Infrastructure of the colonoscopy bundle—an official document from the AGA.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ketover SR. Bundled payment for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:454–7. A large GI practice’s experience with bundled payments.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McClellan M, Patel K, O’Shea J, et al. Specialty payment model opportunities and design, Environmental scan for gastroenterology (Task 2). Washington DC: The Brookings Institution; 2014. A foreshadowing of what to expect as CMS moves to value-based reimbursement in GI.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Weinberg D. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. 2014. In press. Updated quality indicators for colonoscopy endorsed by all 3 luminal GI societies

  23. Fayad NF, Kahi CJ. Quality measures for colonoscopy: a critical evaluation. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2014. In press. Published online October 2013. Current review of quality indicators for colonoscopy

  24. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterol. 2012;143:844–57. Most current multi-society guidelines for post polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–803.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ananthakrishnan AN, Cagan A, Cai T et al. Colonoscopy is associated with a reduced risk for colon cancer and mortality in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; in press. Published online July 2014. Effectiveness of colonoscopy in IBD surveillance

  27. Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Prevention, early detection, and overdiagnosis of colorectal cancer within 10 years of a screening colonoscopy in Germany. Clin Gastroenter Hepatol 2014; in press. Published online September 2014. 10 year results of colonoscopy as a screening tool

  28. Pohl H, Robertson DJ. Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:858–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. New Eng J Med. 2006;355:2533–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. New Eng J Med. 2014;370:1298–306. The most powerful evidence to date concerning ADR and interval cancer.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leberg M, Kalager M, Holme O, et al. Long-term colorectal cancer mortality after adenoma removal. New Eng J Med. 2014;371:799–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al. Does a negative screening colonoscopy ever need to be repeated? Gut. 2006;55:1145–50.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lakoff J, Paszat LF, Saskin R, et al. Risk of developing proximal versus distal colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:1117–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Singh H, Nugent Z, Mahmud SM, et al. Predictors of colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:663–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;139:1128–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case–control study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:22–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Baxter N, Sutradhar R, Forbes DD, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Rabeneck L. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with post colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Saskin R. Endoscopist specialty is associated with incident colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:275–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ, et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2664–9. Another study demonstrating the importance of proper training for colonoscopy when used as a CDC prevention modality.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ko CW, Dominitz JA, Green P, et al. Specialty differences in 1140 polyp detection, removal, and biopsy during colonoscopy. Am J Med. 2010;123:528–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Petersen BT. Quality improvement for the ambulatory surgery center. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:911–8. Excellent summary of quality improvement for ambulatory surgery centers.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, 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. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1296–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Faigel DO, Pike IM, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:866–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Allen JI. A performance improvement program for community-based gastroenterology. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2008;18:753–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Patel NC, Islam RS, Wu Q, et al. Measurement of polypectomy rate by using administrative claims data with validation against the adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:390–4. Validation of using polypectomy rates determined by coding data to assess ADR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. McLachlan SA, Clements A, Austoker J. Patients’ experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context–a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:137–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61:378–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1696–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Goodrich M, et al. Differences in detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps in screening versus surveillance colonoscopies, based on the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1308–12. The reason why we restrict ADR to screening populations.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lieberman DA. Colon polyp surveillance: clinical decision tool. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:305–6. Simple tool to assure compliance with surveillance guidelines. Part of the AGA portfolio of Clinical Service Line materials.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sing A, Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Many patients who undergo surgery for colorectal cancer receive surveillance colonoscopies earlier than recommended by guidelines. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:65–72. Another article by Goodwin and colleagues showing overuse of colonoscopy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Goodwin JS, Singh A, Reddy N, et al. Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1335–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee TJW, Rutter MD, Blank RG, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2012;61:1050–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013;62:242–9. Quality improvement in England.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D, et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 3, BECOP-3). Gut. 2013;62:236–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut. 2014;63:949–56. Large pooled patient population and their risk of post colonoscopy interval cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Liu H, Waxman DA, Main R, Mattke S. Utilization of anesthesia services during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated spending 2003–2009. JAMA. 2012;307:1178–84. The paper that created national headlines about use of anesthesia for routine endoscopy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Zauber AG. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2010;20:751–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Stock C, Ihle P, Sieg A, et al. Adverse events requiring hospitalization within 30 days after outpatient screening and nonscreening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:419–29. On of the few studies to examine post colonoscopy complications in a systematic manner.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Wang HS, 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. A slightly contrarian view about ADR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Allen reports personal fees from Pentax, Olympus, and gMed outside the submitted work.

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. Yale University School of Medicine, 40 Temple Street Suite 1 A, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    John I. Allen

Authors
  1. John I. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John I. Allen.

Additional information

“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

Percy Bysshe Shelley 1818

This article is part of the Topical Collection on GI Oncology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allen, J.I. Quality Measures for Colonoscopy: Where Should We Be in 2015?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 17, 10 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-015-0432-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-015-0432-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation