4.7 Article

Adjusting for Patient Demographics Has Minimal Effects on Rates of Adenoma Detection in a Large, Community-based Setting

Journal

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 739-746

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.10.020

Keywords

Colon Cancer; Neoplasm; Polyp; Endoscopy

Funding

  1. Kaiser Permanente Community Benefits program
  2. National Cancer Institute [U54 CA163262, U24 CA171524]
  3. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [T32DK007007]
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U24CA171524, P30CA008748, U54CA163262] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [T32DK007007] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Reliable estimates of adenoma detection rates (ADRs) are needed to inform colonoscopy quality standards, yet little is known about the contributions of patient demographics to variation in ADRs. We evaluated the effects of adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, and family history of colorectal cancer on variations in ADRs and the relative rank order of physicians. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we collected data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who were >= 50 years old who received colonoscopies from 2006 through 2008. We evaluated ADRs (before and after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and family history of colorectal cancer) for 102 endoscopists who performed 108,662 total colonoscopies and 20,792 screening colonoscopies. Adenomas were identified from the pathology database, and cancers were detected by using the Kaiser Permanente Northern California cancer registry. RESULTS: About two-thirds of examiners had unadjusted ADRs for screening exams that met gastroenterology society guidelines (>25% for men and >15% for women), although rates of detection varied widely (7.7%-61.5% for male patients and 1.7%-45.6% for female patients). Adjusting for case mix reduced the variation in detection rates (from 8-fold to 3-fold for male patients and from 27-fold to 5-fold for female patients), but the median change in physician order by detection rate was just 2 ranks, and few physicians changed quartiles of detection. For example, only 3 of 102 endoscopists moved into and 3 out of the lowest quartile of ADR. CONCLUSIONS: In a community-based setting, most endoscopists met the ADR standards, although there was wide variation in ADRs, which was similar to that reported from academic and referral settings. Case-mix adjustment reduced variability but had only small effects on differences in ADRs between physicians, and only a small percentage of physicians changed quartiles of detection. Adjustments to ADRs are therefore likely only needed in settings in which physicians have very different patient demographics, such as in sex or age. Moderate differences in patient demographics between physicians are unlikely to substantially change rates of adenoma detection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available