Colonoscopy Indication Algorithm Performance Across Diverse Health Care Systems in the PROSPR Consortium.

Andrea N Burnett-Hartman, Aruna Kamineni, Douglas A Corley, Amit G Singal, Ethan A Halm, Carolyn M Rutter, Jessica Chubak, Jeffrey K Lee, Chyke A Doubeni, John M Inadomi, V Paul Doria-Rose, Yingye Zheng
{"title":"Colonoscopy Indication Algorithm Performance Across Diverse Health Care Systems in the PROSPR Consortium.","authors":"Andrea N Burnett-Hartman, Aruna Kamineni, Douglas A Corley, Amit G Singal, Ethan A Halm, Carolyn M Rutter, Jessica Chubak, Jeffrey K Lee, Chyke A Doubeni, John M Inadomi, V Paul Doria-Rose, Yingye Zheng","doi":"10.5334/egems.296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the importance of characterizing colonoscopy indication for quality monitoring and cancer screening program evaluation, there is no standard approach to documenting colonoscopy indication in medical records.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied two algorithms in three health care systems to assign colonoscopy indication to persons 50-89 years old who received a colonoscopy during 2010-2013. Both algorithms used standard procedure, diagnostic, and laboratory codes. One algorithm, the KPNC algorithm, used a hierarchical approach to classify exam indication into: diagnostic, surveillance, or screening; whereas the other, the SEARCH algorithm, used a logistic regression-based algorithm to provide the probability that colonoscopy was performed for screening. Gold standard assessment of indication was from medical records abstraction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1,796 colonoscopy exams included in analyses; age and racial/ethnic distributions of participants differed across health care systems. The KPNC algorithm's sensitivities and specificities for screening indication ranged from 0.78-0.82 and 0.78-0.91, respectively; sensitivities and specificities for diagnostic indication ranged from 0.78-0.89 and 0.74-0.82, respectively. The KPNC algorithm had poor sensitivities (ranging from 0.11-0.67) and high specificities for surveillance exams. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the SEARCH algorithm for screening indication ranged from 0.76-0.84 across health care systems. For screening indication, the KPNC algorithm obtained higher specificities than the SEARCH algorithm at the same sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite standardized implementation of these indication algorithms across three health care systems, the capture of colonoscopy indication data was imperfect. Thus, we recommend that standard, systematic documentation of colonoscopy indication should be added to medical records to ensure efficient and accurate data capture.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":" ","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6676916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the importance of characterizing colonoscopy indication for quality monitoring and cancer screening program evaluation, there is no standard approach to documenting colonoscopy indication in medical records.

Methods: We applied two algorithms in three health care systems to assign colonoscopy indication to persons 50-89 years old who received a colonoscopy during 2010-2013. Both algorithms used standard procedure, diagnostic, and laboratory codes. One algorithm, the KPNC algorithm, used a hierarchical approach to classify exam indication into: diagnostic, surveillance, or screening; whereas the other, the SEARCH algorithm, used a logistic regression-based algorithm to provide the probability that colonoscopy was performed for screening. Gold standard assessment of indication was from medical records abstraction.

Results: There were 1,796 colonoscopy exams included in analyses; age and racial/ethnic distributions of participants differed across health care systems. The KPNC algorithm's sensitivities and specificities for screening indication ranged from 0.78-0.82 and 0.78-0.91, respectively; sensitivities and specificities for diagnostic indication ranged from 0.78-0.89 and 0.74-0.82, respectively. The KPNC algorithm had poor sensitivities (ranging from 0.11-0.67) and high specificities for surveillance exams. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the SEARCH algorithm for screening indication ranged from 0.76-0.84 across health care systems. For screening indication, the KPNC algorithm obtained higher specificities than the SEARCH algorithm at the same sensitivity.

Conclusion: Despite standardized implementation of these indication algorithms across three health care systems, the capture of colonoscopy indication data was imperfect. Thus, we recommend that standard, systematic documentation of colonoscopy indication should be added to medical records to ensure efficient and accurate data capture.

在PROSPR联盟中,结肠镜检查指征算法在不同医疗保健系统中的表现
背景:尽管结肠镜检查指征特征对质量监测和癌症筛查项目评估具有重要意义,但在医疗记录中记录结肠镜检查指征尚无标准方法。方法:我们在三个医疗保健系统中应用两种算法对2010-2013年期间接受结肠镜检查的50-89岁患者进行结肠镜检查指征分配。这两种算法都使用标准程序、诊断和实验室代码。一种算法,KPNC算法,使用分层方法将检查指征分为:诊断、监测或筛查;而另一种是SEARCH算法,使用基于逻辑回归的算法来提供进行结肠镜检查进行筛查的概率。金标准评价指征来自病历摘录。结果:1796例结肠镜检查纳入分析;参与者的年龄和种族/民族分布在不同的医疗保健系统中有所不同。KPNC算法筛选适应症的敏感性和特异性分别为0.78 ~ 0.82和0.78 ~ 0.91;诊断指征的敏感性和特异性分别为0.78-0.89和0.74-0.82。KPNC算法的敏感性较差(范围为0.11-0.67),对监测检查的特异性较高。SEARCH算法用于筛查适应症的曲线下面积(AUC)在卫生保健系统中的范围为0.76-0.84。在筛选适应症方面,KPNC算法在相同灵敏度下比SEARCH算法具有更高的特异性。结论:尽管在三个卫生保健系统中标准化实施了这些指征算法,但结肠镜检查指征数据的采集尚不完善。因此,我们建议在医疗记录中增加结肠镜检查指征的标准、系统的记录,以确保有效和准确的数据采集。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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