Costs and benefits of a formal quality framework for colonoscopy: Economic evaluation.

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2024-11-18 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2444-6292
Sahar Pakneshan, Naomi Moy, Sam O'Connor, Luke Hourigan, Helmut Messmann, Ayesha Shah, Uwe Dulleck, G J Holtmann
{"title":"Costs and benefits of a formal quality framework for colonoscopy: Economic evaluation.","authors":"Sahar Pakneshan, Naomi Moy, Sam O'Connor, Luke Hourigan, Helmut Messmann, Ayesha Shah, Uwe Dulleck, G J Holtmann","doi":"10.1055/a-2444-6292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> Reduction of colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality is one of the primary objectives of colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) are critical outcome parameters. Analysis of PCCRC rates can validate quality assurance measures in colonoscopy. We assessed the effectiveness of implementing a gastroenterologist-led quality framework that monitors key procedure quality indicators (i.e., bowel preparation quality, adenoma detection rates, or patient satisfaction) by comparing the PCCRC rate before and after implementation. <b>Patients and methods</b> Individuals who had a colonoscopy between 2010 and 2017 at a single tertiary center in Queensland, Australia, were included and divided into two groups: baseline (2010-2014) and redesign phase (2015-2017). Data linkage of the state-wide cancer registry and hospital records enabled identification of subjects who developed colorectal cancers within 5 years of a negative colonoscopy. Costs associated with quality improvement were assessed for effectiveness. <b>Results</b> A total of 19,383 individuals had a colonoscopy during the study period. Seventeen PCCRCs were detected. The PCCRC rate was 0.376 per 1,000 person-years and the average 5-year PCCRC risk ranged from 0.165% to 0.051%. The rate of PCCRCs was higher at the beginning (0.166%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15%-0.17%) compared with the later period with full implementation of quality control measures (0.027%; 95% CI 0.023%-0.03%). The quality process determined an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$5,670.53 per PCCRC avoided. <b>Conclusions</b> This large cohort study demonstrated that a formal gastroenterologist-led quality assurance framework embedded into the routine operations of a clinical department not only reduces interval cancers but is also cost-effective regarding life years gained and quality-adjusted life years.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"12 11","pages":"E1334-E1341"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573468/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2444-6292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims Reduction of colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality is one of the primary objectives of colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) are critical outcome parameters. Analysis of PCCRC rates can validate quality assurance measures in colonoscopy. We assessed the effectiveness of implementing a gastroenterologist-led quality framework that monitors key procedure quality indicators (i.e., bowel preparation quality, adenoma detection rates, or patient satisfaction) by comparing the PCCRC rate before and after implementation. Patients and methods Individuals who had a colonoscopy between 2010 and 2017 at a single tertiary center in Queensland, Australia, were included and divided into two groups: baseline (2010-2014) and redesign phase (2015-2017). Data linkage of the state-wide cancer registry and hospital records enabled identification of subjects who developed colorectal cancers within 5 years of a negative colonoscopy. Costs associated with quality improvement were assessed for effectiveness. Results A total of 19,383 individuals had a colonoscopy during the study period. Seventeen PCCRCs were detected. The PCCRC rate was 0.376 per 1,000 person-years and the average 5-year PCCRC risk ranged from 0.165% to 0.051%. The rate of PCCRCs was higher at the beginning (0.166%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15%-0.17%) compared with the later period with full implementation of quality control measures (0.027%; 95% CI 0.023%-0.03%). The quality process determined an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$5,670.53 per PCCRC avoided. Conclusions This large cohort study demonstrated that a formal gastroenterologist-led quality assurance framework embedded into the routine operations of a clinical department not only reduces interval cancers but is also cost-effective regarding life years gained and quality-adjusted life years.

结肠镜检查正式质量框架的成本与效益:经济评估。
背景和研究目的 降低结直肠癌发病率和死亡率是结肠镜检查的主要目标之一。结肠镜检查后大肠癌(PCCRC)是关键的结果参数。分析 PCCRC 发生率可以验证结肠镜检查的质量保证措施。我们通过比较实施前后的 PCCRC 率,评估了实施以消化内科医生为主导的质量框架的效果,该框架可监控关键的手术质量指标(即肠道准备质量、腺瘤检出率或患者满意度)。患者和方法 纳入 2010 年至 2017 年期间在澳大利亚昆士兰州一家三级中心接受结肠镜检查的患者,并将其分为两组:基线组(2010-2014 年)和重新设计阶段组(2015-2017 年)。通过对全州范围内的癌症登记和医院记录进行数据链接,可以识别在结肠镜检查阴性后 5 年内患上结直肠癌的受试者。评估了与质量改进相关的成本效益。结果 在研究期间,共有 19,383 人接受了结肠镜检查。共发现 17 例 PCCRC。PCCRC 发生率为每千人年 0.376 例,平均 5 年 PCCRC 风险在 0.165% 到 0.051% 之间。与全面实施质量控制措施后的初期(0.027%;95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.023%-0.03%)相比,初期的 PCCRC 发生率更高(0.166%;95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.15%-0.17%)。质量流程决定了每避免一次 PCCRC 的增量成本效益比为-5,670.53 美元。结论 这项大型队列研究表明,将由消化内科医生主导的正式质量保证框架嵌入临床科室的常规运作中,不仅能减少间隔期癌症,而且在获得的生命年数和质量调整生命年数方面也具有成本效益。
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
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
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