Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

VA Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium.

Lieberman DA, Faigel DO, Logan JR, Mattek N, Holub J, Eisen G, Morris C, Smith R, Nadel M. Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2009 Mar 1; 69(3 Pt 2):645-53.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions


BACKGROUND: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. SETTING: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. DESIGN: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) > 9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. RESULTS: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9% did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1% did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3%, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14% of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9%) and morphology (14.7%). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0% to 6.5%. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps > 9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4% and 10% in 81% of practices. LIMITATION: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.

Questions about the HSR website? Email the Web Team

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.