Emily Berry, Jeff Hostetter, Joseph Bachtold, Sarah Zamarripa, Keith E Argenbright
{"title":"Evaluating Colonoscopy Quality by Performing Provider Type","authors":"Emily Berry, Jeff Hostetter, Joseph Bachtold, Sarah Zamarripa, Keith E Argenbright","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used both as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based CRC screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with four key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI providers, comparing their outcomes to those of GI providers. Methods Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using p < 0.05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all p-values were two-sided. Results No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged form 98—100% for cecal intubation; 97.4—100% for bowel preparation; 57.4—88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7—62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10—0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (p < 0.001). In this analysis, non-GI providers can be expected to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI providers based on performance outcomes for the key quality metrics.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae080","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
Background Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used both as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based CRC screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with four key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI providers, comparing their outcomes to those of GI providers. Methods Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using p < 0.05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all p-values were two-sided. Results No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged form 98—100% for cecal intubation; 97.4—100% for bowel preparation; 57.4—88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7—62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10—0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (p < 0.001). In this analysis, non-GI providers can be expected to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI providers based on performance outcomes for the key quality metrics.
背景 大肠癌(CRC)是美国第三大确诊癌症和第二大癌症死因。结肠镜检查是筛查的重要工具,既可作为初筛方法,也可作为粪便异常 CRC 筛查结果的后续检查。结肠镜检查的质量通常用四个关键指标来衡量:肠道准备、盲肠插管、平均退出时间和腺瘤检测。结肠镜检查通常由消化内科医生(GI)进行,但在农村和医疗服务不足的地区,非 GI 医疗服务提供者通常也会进行结肠镜检查。本研究旨在评估非 GI 医疗机构进行结肠镜筛查的质量和安全性,并将其结果与 GI 医疗机构的结果进行比较。方法 使用描述性统计来描述研究人群的特征。根据医疗机构类型对质量指标的结果进行分层并进行比较。所有比较均以 p < 0.05 为临界值,所有 p 值均为双侧。结果 在按医疗机构类型比较绩效时,未发现统计差异。消化内科医生、普外科医生和全科医生在盲肠插管方面的绩效中位数为 98%-100%;肠道准备方面为 97.4%-100%;男性腺瘤检出率为 57.4%-88.9%;女性腺瘤检出率为 47.7%-62.13%;平均退出时间为 0:12:10-0:20:16。所有类型的医疗服务提供者都达到或超过了每项质量指标的目标指标(p < 0.001)。在这项分析中,根据关键质量指标的绩效结果,非消化道医疗服务提供者的结肠镜检查质量与消化道医疗服务提供者类似。