Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice

Background and study aim: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) is recommended by professional societies as part of every colonoscopy program, but little is known with regard to its effectiveness for colonoscopy outcomes. We prospectively assessed whether the implementation of a CQI program in routine clinical practice influences the quality performance of colonoscopy.

Methods: In an open-access endoscopy unit at a secondary care center in Northern Italy, 6-monthly audit cycles were carried out over a 4-year period, to identify reasons for poor colonoscopy outcomes and institute appropriate changes to improve performance. The colonoscopy completion rate and the polyp detection rate as detected by endoscopists were considered to be key measures for improvement.

Results: The initial crude colonoscopy completion rate was 84.6 %, with a range for individual endoscopists 80.4 % - 94 %. Four endoscopists had a completion rate lower than 90 %. The overall polyp detection rate was 34 %, with a wide variation among endoscopists (range 14 % - 42 %). Poor patient tolerance and differences in colonoscopist expertise were the main determinants of lack of completion and variation in polyp detection rate. Changes to sedation practice, greater access to endoscopy sessions for the endoscopists with the lowest performance rates, and other organizational arrangements, were implemented to improve quality performance. The crude completion rates improved consistently, up to 93.1 %, over the study period. This trend was confirmed even when adjusted completion rates were calculated. All endoscopists reached a crude completion rate of 90 % or more and a polyp detection rate of over 20 %. The introduction of CQI did not significantly change the overall incidence of procedure-related complications.

Conclusions: The effectiveness of colonoscopy can be improved by implementing a CQI program in routine colonoscopy practice.

References

• 1 Rex D K. Colonoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc Clinics N Am. 2000;  10 135-160
• 2 Rex D K, Rahmani E Y, Haseman J H. et al . Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practice.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 17-23
• 3 Hosokawa O, Shirasaki S, Kaizaki Y. et al . Invasive colorectal cancer detected up to 3 years after a colonoscopy negative for cancer.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 506-510
• 4 Leaper M, Johnston M J, Barclay M. et al . Reasons for failure to diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2004;  36 499-503
• 5 Bressler B, Paszat L F, Vinden C. et al . Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 452-456
• 6 Winawer S J, Zauber A G, O’Brien M J. et al . Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps.  New Engl J Med. 1993;  328 901-906
• 7 Jeroen C, van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB. et al . Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  11 343-350
• 8 Haseman J H, Lemmel G T, Rahmani E Y, Rex D K. Failure of colonoscopy to detect colorectal cancer: evaluation of 47 cases in 20 hospitals.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 451-455
• 9 Berwick D M, Nolan T W. Physicians as leaders in improving health care.  Ann Intern Med. 1998;  128 289-292
• 10 Johanson J F. Continuous quality improvement in the ambulatory endoscopy center.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2002;  12 351-365
• 11 Rex D K, Bond J H, Winawer S. et al . US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1296-308
• 12 ASGE Committee on Outcomes Rresearch . Quality and outcomes assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 827-830
• 13 Minoli G, Meucci G, Prada A. et al . Quality assurance and colonoscopy.  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 522-527
• 14 Ball J E, Osbourne J, Jowett S. et al . Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study.  BMJ. 2004;  329 665-667
• 15 Terruzzi V, Meucci G, Radaelli F. et al . Routine versus “on demand” sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 169-174
• 16 Radaelli F, Meucci G, Terruzzi V. et al . Single bolus of midazolam versus bolus midazolam plus meperidine for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 329-335
• 17 Bowles C J, Leicester R, Romaya C. et al . A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer tomorrow?.  Gut. 2004;  53 277-283
• 18 Anderson M L, Pasha T M, Leighton J A. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 3418-3422
• 19 Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations .A comprehensive review of development and testing for national implementation of hospital core measures. (Accessed September 24, 2005, at http://www.jcaho.org/pms/core+measures/cr_hos_cm.htm)