The Impact of Exclusion Criteria on a Physician's Adenoma Detection Rate

Overview

Journal Gastrointest Endosc

Specialties Gastroenterology
Pharmacology
Radiology

Date 2015 Sep 20

PMID 26385275

Citations 12

Authors

Felippe O Marcondes

Katie M Dean

Robert E Schoen

Daniel A Leffler

Sherri Rose

Michele Morris

Ateev Mehrotra

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated and widely used measure of colonoscopy quality. There is uncertainty in the published literature as to which colonoscopy examinations should be excluded when measuring a physician's ADR.

Objective: To examine the impact of varying the colonoscopy exclusion criteria on physician ADR.

Design: We applied different exclusion criteria used in 30 previous studies to a dataset of endoscopy and pathology reports. Under each exclusion criterion, we calculated physician ADR.

Setting: A private practice colonoscopy center affiliated with the University of Illinois College of Medicine.

Patients: Data on 20,040 colonoscopy examinations performed by 11 gastroenterologists from July 2009 to May 2013 and associated pathology notes.

Main Outcome Measurements: ADRs across all colonoscopy examinations, each physician's ADR, and ADR ranking.

Results: There were 28 different exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Each study used a different combination of these exclusion criteria. The proportion of all colonoscopy examinations in the dataset excluded under these combinations of exclusion criteria ranged from 0% to 92.2%. The mean ADR across all colonoscopy examinations was 39.1%. The change in mean ADR after applying the 28 exclusion criteria ranged from -5.5 to +3.0 percentage points. However, the exclusion criteria affected each physician's ADR relatively equally, and therefore physicians' rankings via the ADR were stable.

Limitations: ADR assessment was limited to a single private endoscopy center.

Conclusion: There is wide variation in the exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Although these exclusion criteria can affect overall ADRs, the relative rankings of physicians by ADR were stable. A consensus definition of which exclusion criteria are applied when measuring ADR is needed.

Citing Articles

Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

McKechnie T, Heimann L, Kazi T, Jessani G, Lee Y, Sne N Tech Coloproctol. 2024; 28(1):39.

PMID: 38507105 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-024-02912-8.

Trend of the polyp and adenoma detection rate by sex and age in asymptomatic average-risk and high-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, 2012-2019.

Valian H, Emami M, Heidari A, Amjadi E, Fahim A, Lalezarian A Prev Med Rep. 2023; 36:102468.

PMID: 37869540 PMC: 10587514. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102468.

Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.

Rex D Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2023; 11:goad009.

PMID: 36911141 PMC: 10005623. DOI: 10.1093/gastro/goad009.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Almario C, Shergill J, Oh J Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2023; 24(3):269-283.

PMID: 36778081 PMC: 9910391. DOI: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.11.002.

ADR evaluation of screening colonoscopies during 2016 - 2017 in a private health clinic in Peru.

Leon Moreno J Endosc Int Open. 2018; 6(11):E1304-E1309.

PMID: 30410949 PMC: 6221814. DOI: 10.1055/a-0672-1045.

References

Ellis R, Pope G, Iezzoni L, Ayanian J, Bates D, Burstin H . Diagnosis-based risk adjustment for Medicare capitation payments. Health Care Financ Rev. 1997; 17(3):101-28. PMC: 4193604. View

Lee T, Rutter M, Blanks R, Moss S, Goddard A, Chilton A . Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2011; 61(7):1050-7. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300651. View

Gerard D, Foster D, Raiser M, Holden J, Karrison T . Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the chicago bowel preparation scale. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2013; 4:e43. PMC: 3865439. DOI: 10.1038/ctg.2013.16. View

Goldfield N, Averill R, Eisenhandler J . Payment and provider profiling of episodes of illness of clinical illnesses involving rehabilitation. J Outcome Meas. 2001; 4(3):706-20. View

Harkema H, Chapman W, Saul M, Dellon E, Schoen R, Mehrotra A . Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18 Suppl 1:i150-6. PMC: 3241178. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000431. View

Rex D, Petrini J, Baron T, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal S . Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(4):873-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x. View

Mehrotra A, Dellon E, Schoen R, Saul M, Bishehsari F, Farmer C . Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75(6):1233-9.e14. PMC: 3852911. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.045. View

Rosen A, Reid R, Broemeling A, Rakovski C . Applying a risk-adjustment framework to primary care: can we improve on existing measures?. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 1(1):44-51. PMC: 1466561. DOI: 10.1370/afm.6. View

Denny J, Choma N, Peterson J, Miller R, Bastarache L, Li M . Natural language processing improves identification of colorectal cancer testing in the electronic medical record. Med Decis Making. 2011; 32(1):188-97. PMC: 9616628. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11400418. View

10.

Gohel T, Burke C, Lankaala P, Podugu A, Kiran R, Thota P . Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 12(7):1137-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.11.023. View

11.

Imler T, Morea J, Kahi C, Imperiale T . Natural language processing accurately categorizes findings from colonoscopy and pathology reports. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 11(6):689-94. PMC: 4026927. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.035. View

12.

Levin B, Lieberman D, McFarland B, Andrews K, Brooks D, Bond J . Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008; 134(5):1570-95. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002. View

13.

Nelson D, McQuaid K, Bond J, Lieberman D, Weiss D, Johnston T . Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55(3):307-14. DOI: 10.1067/mge.2002.121883. View

14.

Lieberman D . A call to action--measuring the quality of colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(24):2588-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe068254. View

15.

Kaminski M, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J . Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(19):1795-803. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667. View

16.

Woodhead C, Ashworth M, Schofield P, Henderson M . Patterns of physical co-/multi-morbidity among patients with serious mental illness: a London borough-based cross-sectional study. BMC Fam Pract. 2014; 15:117. PMC: 4062514. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-15-117. View

17.

Kahi C, Ballard D, Shah A, Mears R, Johnson C . Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013; 77(6):925-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.012. View

18.

Shahian D, Edwards F, Jacobs J, Prager R, Normand S, Shewan C . Public reporting of cardiac surgery performance: Part 1--history, rationale, consequences. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92(3 Suppl):S2-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.06.100. View

19.

Chassin M, Hannan E, Debuono B . Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(6):394-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199602083340611. View

20.

Raju G, Vadyala V, Slack R, Krishna S, Ross W, Lynch P . Adenoma detection in patients undergoing a comprehensive colonoscopy screening. Cancer Med. 2013; 2(3):391-402. PMC: 3699850. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.73. View