Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Aug;72(2):321-7, 327.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.03.002. Epub 2010 Jun 29.

Quality of colonoscopy reporting in community practice.

Author information

  • 1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA. lena_palmer@med.unc.edu

Abstract

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.

Copyright 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
20591430
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC3087434
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk