PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16377324

Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines, physicians tend to perform postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies too frequently. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the baseline compliance rate with postpolypectomy guidelines in our unit and to determine the influence of a continuous quality improvement (CQI) intervention on improving the compliance rate and on decreasing the potential additional costs because of the scheduling of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies earlier than indicated. DESIGN: This was a single-arm, pretest-posttest design. SETTING: This study took place at a tertiary care, academic medical center. PATIENTS: The medical records of all patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy in our unit retrospectively during 6 months preceding (baseline period) and prospectively for 6 months after an intervention (postintervention period) were reviewed for patient demographics, colonoscopy findings, and scheduling of repeat colonoscopies. INTERVENTION: We used 3 components: (1) distribution of a wallet-size card with a summary of postpolypectomy guidelines to all endoscopists, (2) placement of guideline charts near computers used for typing endoscopy reports, and (3) distribution and reinforcement of the guidelines in a monthly continuous quality improvement meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were compliance rates, mean times to repeat colonoscopy, and additional costs from surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than indicated were compared between the two periods. RESULTS: There were 278 patients in the baseline period and 242 in the postintervention period, with similar patient and polyp characteristics. After the intervention, the compliance rate with guidelines improved from 57.2% to 81% (p < 0.001). The mean time to a repeat colonoscopy increased from 4.5 to 5.2 years (p = 0.003) (i.e., a 14% reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies performed per year). This would result in a reduction of a total of 73 surveillance colonoscopies per year in our unit, with a projected cost savings of 171,331 dollars per year (cost of a colonoscopy assumed at 2347 dollars). LIMITATIONS: The limitation of the study was possible enhanced performance secondary to being observed (Hawthorne effect). Because more than 1 intervention was used, we do not know which one is more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively simple and easy-to-implement quality improvement initiatives can significantly enhance compliance with postpolypectomy guidelines and result in cost savings because of a reduction in the number of postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopies being scheduled earlier than recommended guidelines.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Madhusudhan R Sanaka, Dennis M Super, Edward S Feldman, Kevin D Mullen, D R Ferguson, Arthur J McCullough. 2006. Improving compliance with postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines: an interventional study using a continuous quality improvement initiative.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2005.08.048

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparative Efficacy of Different AI Systems for Polyp Detection by Size During Colonoscopy: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of death despite being largely preventable through polypectomy. AI systems designed to enhance polyp detection during colonoscopy have shown promise, but the extent to which they improve detection of different-sized polyps remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the size-stratified efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method, and generated exploratory rankings while acknowledging all cross-platform comparisons are indirect. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to July 25, 2026, supplemented by citation searching. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted vs standard colonoscopy in adults (&#x2265;18 years of age), reporting mean polyp detection counts stratified by size (&#x2264;5 mm, 6-9 mm, and &#x2265;10 mm). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We conducted frequentist NMA using the HKSJ method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation, calculated 95% prediction intervals (PIs), and assessed heterogeneity using I2 and &#x3c4;2. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs (4156 participants) compared 8 AI systems to standard colonoscopy, forming a network without direct AI comparisons. For diminutive polyps (&#x2264;5 mm), AI showed a modest advantage (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, 95% PI -1.12 to 1.54), but substantial heterogeneity (I2=86.6%) and wide PI crossing the null indicated high uncertainty. EndoScreener showed the most consistent evidence (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54). For small and large polyps, effects were minimal (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06, 95% PI -0.03 to 0.07; SMD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.03). GRADE certainty was very low for diminutive polyps and low for small and large polyps. Sensitivity analysis excluding Tianjin YuJin did not materially change findings. CONCLUSIONS: AI may modestly enhance diminutive polyp detection, but effects on small and large polyps are minimal, with no platform superiority. Given very low to low certainty, findings are hypothesis-generating. This exploratory NMA provides size-stratified comparisons that can inform future head-to-head trial design. Unlike prior reviews aggregating all polyp sizes, we show the overall AI benefit is driven by diminutive polyp detection, providing a framework for targeted deployment-prioritizing AI for diminutive polyp screening, with limited value for larger lesions. Head-to-head trials are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD420251266932; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251266932.

Colonoscopy↗

Optical adjuncts for enhanced colonoscopic diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Optical techniques using previously unexploited properties of light interaction with tissue may be valuable in the detection, diagnosis and staging of colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: A Medline search (1990 to present) was conducted on optical diagnostics in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. The reference list of each identified article was reviewed for further relevant papers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Chromoendoscopy is the only optical adjunct to colonoscopy that has been tested in large randomized clinical trials. It improves the detection of small and flat colorectal adenomas, and of neoplasia in chronic ulcerative colitis and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. All other techniques are the subject of ongoing research and the practicality of population screening with any of the methods has yet to be established. Optical techniques may, however, permit immediate clinical diagnosis, removing the need for histological analysis. They may also improve the diagnosis of early colonic neoplasia.

Colonoscopy↗

Fragile egos.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Colonoscopy↗