Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 72, Issue 2 , Pages 321-327.e1, August 2010

Quality of colonoscopy reporting in community practice

Current affiliations: Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (L.B.); Center for Health Services Research, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham (D.A., N.H., D.P., D.F.); GI Outcomes Research Group, Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham (D.P., D.F.), North Carolina, USA

Received 13 October 2009; accepted 1 March 2010. published online 30 June 2010.

Background

Quality endoscopy reporting is essential when community endoscopists perform colonoscopies for veterans who cannot be scheduled at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility.

Objective

To examine the quality of colonoscopy reports received from community practices and to determine factors associated with more complete reporting, by using national documentation guidelines.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis.

Setting

Reports submitted to the Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, from 2007 to 2008.

Patients

Subjects who underwent fee-basis colonoscopy.

Main Outcome Measurements

Scores created by comparing community reports with published documentation guidelines. Three scores were created, one for each category of information: Universal Elements (found on all endoscopy reports), Indication Elements (specific to the procedure indication), and Finding Elements (specific to examination findings).

Results

For the 135 included reports, the summary scores were Universal Elements, 57.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-60%); Indication Elements, 73.7% (95% CI, 69%-78%); and Finding Elements, 75.8% (95% CI, 73%-79%). Examples of poor reporting included patient history (20.7%), last colonoscopy date (18.0%), average versus high risk screening (32.0%), withdrawal time (5.9%), and cecal landmark photographs (45.2%). Only the use of automated reporting software was associated with more thorough reporting.

Limitations

Modest sample size, mostly male participants, frequent pathologic findings, limited geography, and lack of complete reporting by a minority of providers.

Conclusions

The overall completeness of colonoscopy reports was low, possibly reflecting a lack of knowledge of reporting guidelines or a lack of agreement regarding important colonoscopy reporting elements. Automated endoscopy software may improve reporting compliance but may not completely standardize reporting quality.

Abbreviations: ASGE, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, CI, confidence interval, CO-RADS, colonoscopy reporting and data system, CORI, Community Outcomes Research Initiative, CPRS, computerized patient reporting system, EMR, electronic medical record, NCCRT, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, P-P, standardized normal probability, Q-Q, quantile-quantile, VA, Veterans Administration

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 DISCLOSURE: All authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. L. Palmer received research support for this study from a T32 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Training Grant 5-T32 DK007634-19. D. Fisher received research support for this study from a VA Health Services Research and Development Career Development Transition Award (RCD 03-174). D. Provenzale received research support for this study from a NIH K24 grant 5 K24 DK002926. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

 If you want to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr. Palmer at lena_palmer@med.unc.edu.

PII: S0016-5107(10)00269-5

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2010.03.002

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume 72, Issue 2 , Pages 321-327.e1, August 2010