Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Digestion Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1159/000538113
Thomas J Lux, Katja Herold, Ioannis Kafetzis, Phillip Sodmann, Zita Sassmanshausen, Alexander Meining, Alexander Hann
{"title":"Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices.","authors":"Thomas J Lux, Katja Herold, Ioannis Kafetzis, Phillip Sodmann, Zita Sassmanshausen, Alexander Meining, Alexander Hann","doi":"10.1159/000538113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.</p>","PeriodicalId":11315,"journal":{"name":"Digestion","volume":" ","pages":"224-231"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151964/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538113","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting.

Methods: We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022.

Results: We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%.

Conclusion: The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.

缩小差距:结肠镜检查报告实践中的坚持、不一致和改进的批判性研究》(Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices)。
导言:全面和标准化的结肠镜检查报告对于结直肠癌的预防、监测和研究至关重要。本研究通过分析德国 7 个中心的 21 名内镜医师的报告实践,对国家和国际指南的遵守情况进行了调查,重点是息肉报告:我们确定并评估了德国、欧洲、美国和世界卫生组织提供的声明,以确定结肠镜检查报告的关键要素。获得认证的消化内科医生对每个要素的相关性进行评分,并估算其报告频率。对 2021 年 3 月至 2022 年 3 月期间 351 份结肠镜检查报告中的 874 个息肉进行了评估:结果:我们确定了许多结肠镜检查报告建议。我们将这些建议背后的理由分为临床相关性、合理性以及质量控制和研究。尽管接受调查的消化内科医生认为所有要素都是相关的,但在评估的报告中还是发现了差异。特别是微小息肉或很少异常的属性(如表面完整性)很少被记录(如注射)。此外,使用巴黎分类法或自由文本对息肉白光形态的记录也不一致。总之,对 874 例报告的息肉进行分析后发现,对建议的遵守情况参差不齐,报告频率从 3% 到 89% 不等:结论:不一致的报告实践可能是隐性报告实践和临床相关性不同的建议造成的。未来的建议应明确区分临床相关性与研究、质量控制或解释性目的。此外,应进一步评估计算机辅助记录的作用,以提高非病理结果和微小息肉的报告频率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Digestion
Digestion 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Digestion'' concentrates on clinical research reports: in addition to editorials and reviews, the journal features sections on Stomach/Esophagus, Bowel, Neuro-Gastroenterology, Liver/Bile, Pancreas, Metabolism/Nutrition and Gastrointestinal Oncology. Papers cover physiology in humans, metabolic studies and clinical work on the etiology, diagnosis, and therapy of human diseases. It is thus especially cut out for gastroenterologists employed in hospitals and outpatient units. Moreover, the journal''s coverage of studies on the metabolism and effects of therapeutic drugs carries considerable value for clinicians and investigators beyond the immediate field of gastroenterology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信