22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Suboptimal adenoma detection rate (ADR) at colonoscopy is associated with increased risk of interval colorectal cancer. It is uncertain how ADR might be improved. We compared the effect of leadership training versus feedback only on colonoscopy quality in a countrywide randomised trial.

          Design

          40 colonoscopy screening centres with suboptimal performance in the Polish screening programme (centre leader ADR ≤25% during preintervention phase January to December 2011) were randomised to either a Train-Colonoscopy-Leaders (TCLs) programme (assessment, hands-on training, post-training feedback) or feedback only (individual quality measures). Colonoscopies performed June to December 2012 (early postintervention) and January to December 2013 (late postintervention) were used to calculate changes in quality measures. Primary outcome was change in leaders’ ADR. Mixed effect models using ORs and 95% CIs were computed.

          Results

          The study included 24 582 colonoscopies performed by 38 leaders and 56 617 colonoscopies performed by 138 endoscopists at the participating centres. The absolute difference between the TCL and feedback groups in mean ADR improvement of leaders was 7.1% and 4.2% in early and late postintervention phases, respectively. The TCL group had larger improvement in ADR in early (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.01; p<0.001) and late (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.66; p=0.004) postintervention phases. In the late postintervention phase, the absolute difference between the TCL and feedback groups in mean ADR improvement of entire centres was 3.9% (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.50; p=0.017).

          Conclusions

          Teaching centre leaders in colonoscopy training improved important quality measures in screening colonoscopy.

          Trial registration number

          NCT01667198.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

          Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy. 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer.

            Colonoscopy is advocated for screening and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC), but randomized trials supporting the benefit of this practice are not available. To evaluate the association between colonoscopy and CRC deaths. Population-based, case-control study. Ontario, Canada. Persons age 52 to 90 years who received a CRC diagnosis from January 1996 to December 2001 and died of CRC by December 2003. Five controls matched by age, sex, geographic location, and socioeconomic status were randomly selected for each case patient. Administrative claims data were used to detect exposure to any colonoscopy and complete colonoscopy (to the cecum) from January 1992 to an index date 6 months before diagnosis in each case patient and the same assigned date in matched controls. Exposures in case patients and controls were compared by using conditional logistic regression to control for comorbid conditions. Secondary analyses were done to see whether associations differed by site of primary CRC, age, or sex. 10 292 case patients and 51 460 controls were identified; 719 case patients (7.0%) and 5031 controls (9.8%) had undergone colonoscopy. Compared with controls, case patients were less likely to have undergone any attempted colonoscopy (adjusted conditional odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74; P < 0.001]) or complete colonoscopy (adjusted conditional OR, 0.63 [CI, 0.57 to 0.69; P < 0.001]). Complete colonoscopy was strongly associated with fewer deaths from left-sided CRC (adjusted conditional OR, 0.33 [CI, 0.28 to 0.39]) but not from right-sided CRC (adjusted conditional OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.14]). Screening could not be differentiated from diagnostic procedures. In usual practice, colonoscopy is associated with fewer deaths from CRC. This association is primarily limited to deaths from cancer developing in the left side of the colon.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              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.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gut
                Gut
                gutjnl
                gut
                Gut
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0017-5749
                1468-3288
                April 2016
                10 February 2015
                : 65
                : 4
                : 616-624
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education and the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology , Warsaw, Poland
                [2 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Gloucester, UK
                [3 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital , Gloucester, UK
                [4 ]Department of Health Economy and Health Management, University of Oslo , Oslo, Norway
                [5 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet , Oslo, Norway
                [6 ]Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark's Hospital , London, UK
                [7 ]Departments of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, and Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre , Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Michal F Kaminski, Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Roentgen Street 5, Warsaw 02-781, Poland; mfkaminski@ 123456coi.waw.pl
                Article
                gutjnl-2014-307503
                10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307503
                4819605
                25670810
                e239e55a-bff8-4aca-824c-7b6267876010
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 25 April 2014
                : 3 December 2014
                : 8 January 2015
                Categories
                1506
                Endoscopy
                Original article
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                colonoscopy,colorectal adenomas,colorectal cancer screening,adenoma,clinical trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article