Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been found to be inversely associated with the occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Depicting differences in CIR and ADR between hospitals could provide incentives for quality improvement. The aim of this study was to compare quality parameters of routine colonoscopies between seven hospitals in The Netherlands in order to determine the extent to which possible differences were attributable to procedural and institutional factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively included between November 2012 and January 2013 at two academic and five nonacademic hospitals. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Main outcome measures were CIR and ADR. RESULTS: A total of 3129 patients were included (mean age 59 ±â€Š15 years; 45.5 % male). The majority of patients (86.2 %) had a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥ 6. Overall CIR was 94.8 %, ranging from 89.4 % to 99.2 % between hospitals. After adjustment for case mix (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and indication for colonoscopy), factors associated with CIR were hospital and a BBPS score ≥ 6. Overall ADR was 31.8 % and varied between hospitals, ranging from 24.8 % to 46.8 %. Independent predictors for ADR were hospital, BBPS score ≥ 6, and cecal intubation. By combining CIR and ADR for each hospital, a colonoscopy quality indicator (CQI) was developed, which can be used by hospitals to stimulate quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Differences in the quality of colonoscopy between hospitals can be demonstrated using CIR and ADR. As both indicators are affected by institution and bowel preparation, a comparison between hospitals based on the newly developed CQI could assist in further improving the quality of colonoscopy.

Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is important for optimal colonoscopy. It is important to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation because this allows taking precautions in this specific group. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction score to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation who may benefit from an intensified bowel cleansing regimen. DESIGN: Patient and colonoscopy data were prospectively collected, whereas clinical data were retrospectively collected for a total of 1996 colonoscopies in participants who received split-dose bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted in a random two-thirds of the cohort to develop a prediction model. Validation and evaluation of the discriminative power of the prediction model were performed within the remaining one-third of the cohort. SETTING: Four centers, including one academic and three medium-to-large size nonacademic centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive colonoscopies in November and December 2012. Mean age was 57.3 ± 15.9 years, 45.8% were male and indications for colonoscopy were screening and/or surveillance (27%), abdominal symptoms and/or blood loss and/or anemia (60%), inflammatory bowel disease (9%), and others (4%). INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inadequate bowel preparation defined as Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score <6. RESULTS: A total of 1331 colonoscopies were included in the development cohort, of which 172 (12.9%) had an inadequate bowel preparation. Independent factors included in the prediction model were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System score ≥3, use of tricyclic antidepressants, use of opioids, diabetes, chronic constipation, history of abdominal and/or pelvic surgery, history of inadequate bowel preparation, and current hospitalization. The discriminative ability of the scale was good, with an area under the curve of 0.77 in the validation cohort. LIMITATIONS: Study design partially retrospective, no data on patient compliance. CONCLUSION: We developed a validated, easy-to-use prediction scale that can be used to identify subjects with an increased risk of inadequate bowel preparation with good accuracy.