Assessment of Suboptimal Bowel Preparation is Highly Variable among Physicians in The Same Practice and Not Associated with Their Adenoma Detection Rates

Susan M. Lou, Allison J. Levy, A. Shaukat, M. Kuskowski, S. Sultan, M. Levitt, A. Malhotra
{"title":"Assessment of Suboptimal Bowel Preparation is Highly Variable among Physicians in The Same Practice and Not Associated with Their Adenoma Detection Rates","authors":"Susan M. Lou, Allison J. Levy, A. Shaukat, M. Kuskowski, S. Sultan, M. Levitt, A. Malhotra","doi":"10.33425/2639-9334.1049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Suboptimal colonic preparation adversely impacts the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and increases healthcare costs. Though a low threshold for categorizing the preparation as inadequate increases repeat colonoscopies, such fastidiousness could result in a higher quality colonoscopy. Our objectives were: 1) To examine the variability among colonoscopists in their bowel prep ratings and 2) To assess the correlation between suboptimal prep rate (SPR) and ADR. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all outpatient colonoscopies performed from 2013-2015 at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Data were coded by indication for colonoscopy and bowel prep grading (Aronchick Scale). Suboptimal bowel prep was defined as the sum of fair and poor prep grades. Suboptimal prep rates (SPR) per year were calculated for each endoscopist. A random sample of 50 screening colonoscopies/year with adequate prep was used to calculate each endoscopist’s ADR Results: There were 7125 colonoscopies performed by 10 endoscopists during the study period. Results showed large variability of SPR amongst endoscopists, ranging from 5% to 38% (p<0.001, chi-square). Logistic mixed model regression revealed that SPR (for each provider) was not a significant predictor of adenoma detection (OR=1.012 [95% CI: 0. 99-1. 03]; p=0.29). Discussion: The study demonstrates consistent major differences between individual endoscopists regarding the frequency of grading colonic preps as suboptimal. Based on ADR, strict interpretation of the adequacy of the prep did not translate into a more effective colonoscopy. Thus, training about what constitutes an adequate prep could reduce unnecessary repeat colonoscopies.","PeriodicalId":211573,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Digestive Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Digestive Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-9334.1049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Suboptimal colonic preparation adversely impacts the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and increases healthcare costs. Though a low threshold for categorizing the preparation as inadequate increases repeat colonoscopies, such fastidiousness could result in a higher quality colonoscopy. Our objectives were: 1) To examine the variability among colonoscopists in their bowel prep ratings and 2) To assess the correlation between suboptimal prep rate (SPR) and ADR. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all outpatient colonoscopies performed from 2013-2015 at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Data were coded by indication for colonoscopy and bowel prep grading (Aronchick Scale). Suboptimal bowel prep was defined as the sum of fair and poor prep grades. Suboptimal prep rates (SPR) per year were calculated for each endoscopist. A random sample of 50 screening colonoscopies/year with adequate prep was used to calculate each endoscopist’s ADR Results: There were 7125 colonoscopies performed by 10 endoscopists during the study period. Results showed large variability of SPR amongst endoscopists, ranging from 5% to 38% (p<0.001, chi-square). Logistic mixed model regression revealed that SPR (for each provider) was not a significant predictor of adenoma detection (OR=1.012 [95% CI: 0. 99-1. 03]; p=0.29). Discussion: The study demonstrates consistent major differences between individual endoscopists regarding the frequency of grading colonic preps as suboptimal. Based on ADR, strict interpretation of the adequacy of the prep did not translate into a more effective colonoscopy. Thus, training about what constitutes an adequate prep could reduce unnecessary repeat colonoscopies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在同一执业医师中,对肠准备不佳的评估差异很大,与腺瘤检出率无关
引言:不理想的结肠准备对腺瘤检出率(ADR)产生不利影响,并增加医疗保健费用。虽然将准备分类为不充分的低门槛增加了重复结肠镜检查,但这种一丝不苟可能导致更高质量的结肠镜检查。我们的目标是:1)检查结肠镜医师肠准备等级的可变性;2)评估次优准备率(SPR)与不良反应之间的相关性。方法:我们对2013-2015年在明尼阿波利斯退伍军人事务医疗中心进行的所有门诊结肠镜检查进行回顾性分析。数据按结肠镜检查指征和肠道准备分级(Aronchick评分)进行编码。次优肠道准备被定义为一般和较差准备等级的总和。计算每位内镜医师每年的次优准备率(SPR)。随机抽取50例筛查性结肠镜检查/年,并做好充分的准备,计算每位内镜医师的不良反应结果:在研究期间,10名内镜医师共进行了7125次结肠镜检查。结果显示内镜医师的SPR差异很大,范围从5%到38% (p<0.001,卡方)。Logistic混合模型回归显示SPR(每个提供者)不是腺瘤检测的显著预测因子(OR=1.012 [95% CI: 0。99 - 1。03];p = 0.29)。讨论:该研究表明,在结肠准备分级为次优的频率方面,个体内窥镜医师之间存在一致的主要差异。基于不良反应,严格解释准备的充分性并没有转化为更有效的结肠镜检查。因此,关于什么是充分准备的培训可以减少不必要的重复结肠镜检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Black Esophagus (Acute Esophageal Necrosis) Caused by Liver Cirrhosis Management of Hepatitis C in Psychiatric Settings: Review of The Literature and Review of Experiences Over 4 Years in A Psychiatric Hospital. Gastrointestinal Bleeding Secondary to Jejunum GIST, Report Case Endoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation of Fistula in Ano (E-RaFisTura) in the Era of Surgical Innovation. A Serial Prospective Evaluation of 10 Patients Evaluation of Weight Loss and Quality of Life in Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Y De Roux Gastric Bypass Surgery with Reduction Ring and Without Ring, After The First Year of Follow-Up
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1