A multicenter pragmatic study of an evidence-based intervention to improve adenoma detection: the Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study

Background and study aims: Low adenoma detection rates (ADRs) at colonoscopy are linked to significantly higher interval cancer rates, and vary between colonoscopists. Studies demonstrate that lesion detection is improved by: withdrawal time of ≥ 6 minutes; use of hyoscine butylbromide; position change; and rectal retroflexion. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing the above “bundle” of interventions into colonoscopy practice, and the effect on ADR.

Materials and methods: A longitudinal cohort design was used. Implementation combined central training, local promotion, and feedback. The uptake marker was change in hyoscine butylbromide use. Comparisons were between the 3 months before and the 9 months after the implementation phase, globally, by endoscopy unit and by quartile when colonoscopists were ranked according to baseline ADR. Chi-squared or Fisher’s tests were used to evaluate significance.

Results: 12 units participated. Global and quartile analyses included data from 118 and 68 colonoscopists and 17 508 and 14 193 procedures respectively. A significant increase in hyoscine butylbromide use was observed globally (54.4 % vs. 15.8 %, P < 0.001), in all endoscopy units (P < 0.001) and quartiles (P < 0.001). A significant increase in ADR was observed globally (18.1 % vs. 16.0 %, P = 0.002) and in the lower two colonoscopist quartiles (P < 0.001), with a nonsignificant increase in the upper middle quartile and a significant fall to 21.5 %. in the upper quartile. The significant variations in ADR among the upper three quartiles disappeared.

Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, introduction of a simple, inexpensive, evidence-based “bundle” of measures is feasible and is associated with higher global ADR, driven by improvements amongst the poorest performing colonoscopists.

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 2 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 3 Rees CJ, Painter J, Valori R, Barton R. BSG Quality and safety indicators for endoscopy. London: The JAG Office; 2007
• 4 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
• 5 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
• 6 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
• 7 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
• 8 Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 33-36
• 9 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
• 10 Lee JM, Cheon JH, Park JJ et al. Effects of hyosine N-butyl bromide on the detection of polyps during colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology 2010; 57: 90-94
• 11 East JE, Saunders BP, Burling D et al. Surface Visualisation at CT colonography simulated colonoscope withdrawal: effect of hyoscine butylbromide as antispasmodic.. Gut 2009; 58 (Suppl. 01) A122
• 12 East JE, Bassett P, Arebi N et al. Dynamic patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increase adenoma detection: a randomized, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 456-463
• 13 Hanson JM, Atkin WS, Cunliffe WJ et al. Rectal retroflexion: an essential part of lower gastrointestinal endoscopic examination. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44: 1706-1708
• 14 Shojania KG, Grimshaw JM. Evidence-based quality improvement: the state of the science. Health Aff 2005; 24: 138-150
• 15 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.. How to change practice: understand, identify and overcome barriers to change. http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/Into-practice/Support-for-service-improvement-and-audit/How-to-change-practice-barriers-to-change.pdf (publication 2007)
• 16 Pronovost PJ, Goeschel CA, Colantuoni E et al. Sustaining reductions in catheter related bloodstream infections in Michigan intensive care units: observational study. BMJ 2010; 340: c309 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c309.
• 17 Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2725-2732
• 18 Rajasekhar PT, Rees CJ, Rutter MD et al. Developing a clinical research network: the Northern Region Endoscopy Group experience. Clin Med 2014; 14: 107-112
• 19 Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
• 20 Lee TJ, Clifford GM, Rajasekhar P et al. High yield of colorectal neoplasia detected by colonoscopy following a positive faecal occult blood test in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. J Med Screen 2011; 18: 82-86
• 21 Wennberg JE. Practice variations and health care reform: connecting the dots. Health Aff 2004; DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.var.140.
• 22 Bhangu A, Bowley DM, Horner R et al. Volume and accreditation, but not specialty, affect quality standards in colonoscopy. Br J Surg 2012; 99: 1436-1444
• 23 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
• 24 Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D et al. A realistic evaluation: the case of protocol-based care. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 38 DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-38.
• 25 Iles V, Sutherland K. Managing change in the NHS: Organisational Change: A Review for Health Care Managers, Professionals and Researchers. National Co-ordinationg Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation.. http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/files/project/SDO_FR_08-1001-001_V01.pdf (publication 2001)
• 26 Macefield R. Usablility studies and the Hawthorne effect. J Usability Stud 2007; 2: 145-154
• 27 Ball JE, Osbourne J, Jowett S et al. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004; 329: 665-667
• 28 Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6 CD000259. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3.
• 29 Chassin MR, Loeb JM, Schmaltz SP et al. Accountability measures – using measurement to promote quality improvement. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 683-688
• 30 O’Brien MA, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 4 CD000409
• 31 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 656-665
• 32 Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219-226