Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Simplifying Measurement of Adenoma Detection Rates for Colonoscopy.
Gawron, Andrew J; Yao, Yiwen; Gupta, Samir; Cole, Garrett; Whooley, Mary A; Dominitz, Jason A; Kaltenbach, Tonya.
Affiliation
  • Gawron AJ; VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Andrew.Gawron@VA.gov.
  • Yao Y; Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Andrew.Gawron@VA.gov.
  • Gupta S; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Andrew.Gawron@VA.gov.
  • Cole G; Informatics, Decision-Enhancement, and Analytic Sciences Center, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Whooley MA; Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
  • Dominitz JA; San Diego Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Kaltenbach T; Division of Gastroenterology and the Moores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Dig Dis Sci ; 66(9): 3149-3155, 2021 09.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33029706
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the colonoscopy quality metric with the strongest association to interval or "missed" cancer. Accurate measurement of ADR can be laborious and costly.

AIMS:

Our aim was to determine if administrative procedure codes for colonoscopy and text searches of pathology results for adenoma mentions could estimate ADR.

METHODS:

We identified US Veterans with a colonoscopy using Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes between January 2013 and December 2016 at ten Veterans Affairs sites. We applied simple text searches using Microsoft SQL Server full-text searches to query all pathology notes for "adenoma(s)" or "adenomatous" text mentions to calculate ADRs. To validate our identification of colonoscopy procedures, endoscopists of record, and adenoma detection from the electronic health record, we manually reviewed a random sample of 2000 procedure and pathology notes from the 10 sites.

RESULTS:

Structured data fields were accurate in identification of colonoscopies being performed (PPV = 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00) and identifying the endoscopist of record (PPV of 0.95; 95% CI 0.94-0.96) for ADR measurement. Simple text searches of pathology notes for adenoma mentions had excellent performance statistics as follows sensitivity 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.95), NPV 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and PPV 0.93 (0.91-0.94) for measurement of ADR. There was no clinically significant difference in the estimates of overall ADR vs. screening ADR (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Measuring ADR using administrative codes and text searches from pathology results is an efficient method to broadly survey colonoscopy quality.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Colorectal Neoplasms / Adenoma / Colonoscopy / Current Procedural Terminology Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: Dig Dis Sci Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Colorectal Neoplasms / Adenoma / Colonoscopy / Current Procedural Terminology Type of study: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Limits: Humans Country/Region as subject: America do norte Language: En Journal: Dig Dis Sci Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: United States