ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2015
Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicomponent audit and feedback for colonoscopy quality improvement among potentially lower-performing endoscopists.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of an Automated, Real-time Adenoma Detection Rate and Colonoscopy Quality Metrics Calculator.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- The quality of screening colonoscopy in rural and underserved areas.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Leveraging electronic medical record functionality to capture adenoma detection rate.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Badge sign-in and report cards improve first case start times in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A prospective quality improvement study.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Individualized feedback on colonoscopy skills improves group colonoscopy quality in providers with lower adenoma detection rates.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Regular feedback to individual endoscopists is associated with improved adenoma detection rate and other key performance indicators for colonoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: Opportunities for Improvement.Cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
- Simplifying Measurement of Adenoma Detection Rates for Colonoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Impact of the National Endoscopy Database (NED) on colonoscopy withdrawal time: a tertiary centre experience.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Adequacy of EGD Reporting: a Review of 100 Reports from 100 Endoscopists.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Review
- Development of an automated ERCP Quality Report Card using structured data fields.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Article
- Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Educational interventions are associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
- Impact of a Citywide Benchmarking Intervention on Colonoscopy Quality Performance.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Prevalence of 'one and done' in adenoma detection rates: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Determination of withdrawal times in individualized opportunistic screening colonoscopies.Medicine · 2019Observational
- Same-Day vs Different-Day Elective Upper and Lower Endoscopic Procedures by Setting.JAMA internal medicine · 2019Article
- Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- A Nationwide Survey and Needs Assessment of Colonoscopy Quality Assurance Programs in the VA.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdenoma-detection rates (ADRs) are associated with decreased interval colorectal cancer (CRC) rates and CRC mortality; quality improvement strategies focus on improving physician ADRs. The objective of this study was to examine the sequential effect of physician report cards and implementing institutional standards of practice (SOP) on ADRs.
methodsColonoscopy metrics were prospectively evaluated at a single academic medical center over a 23-month period (November 2012 to October 2014). ADRs were evaluated over three time periods-Period 1: Before initial report card distribution or SOP (November 2012 to March 2013); Period 2: After individualized report card distribution detailing physician and institutional ADRs (April 2013 to March 2014); Period 3: After second report card and SOP implementation (April 2014 to October 2014). The SOP required physicians to have a minimum 5-min withdrawal time in normal colonoscopies (WT) and an ADR minimum of 20%; those who did not meet benchmarks would require further training or endoscopy block time alterations. Only endoscopists averaging >15 colonoscopies/month were included in this analysis.
resultsTwenty endoscopists met the inclusion criteria, performing 12,894 screening colonoscopies over the 23-month period. Following report card distribution, physician ADRs increased by 3% (P<0.001). SOP implementation resulted in a further significant increase in mean physician ADR of 8% (P<0.0001). Overall, mean ADR increased by 11% from Period 1 to Period 3 (P<0.0001). All physicians met the minimum 20% ADR benchmark during Period 3. Although ADRs significantly correlated with WT overall (r=0.45; 95% CI 0.01, 0.75; P=0.04), mean WT did not significantly increase from Period 1 to Period 3.
conclusionsOur data suggest that distributing colonoscopy quality report cards resulted in a significant ADR improvement. Further, we report evidence that implementing SOP significantly improved ADRs beyond report card distribution and resulted in all endoscopists meeting minimum benchmarks. This suggests that report cards and SOPs may have an additive effect in improving colonoscopy quality, and their implementation in endoscopy labs should be encouraged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25869388What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.