Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: Is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'?

Lucio Petruzziello, Cesare Hassan, Domenico Alvaro, Anna Kohn, Zaccaria Rossi, Angelo Zullo, Paola Cesaro, Bruno Annibale, Alessandra Barca, Emilio Di Giulio, Paolo Giorgi Rossi, Enrico Grasso, Lorenzo Ridola, Cristiano Spada, Guido Costamagna

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The appropriate selection of patients for colonoscopy is crucial for an efficient use of endoscopy. The role of endoscopist in filtering out inappropriate referrals is largely unknown. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study was performed in which consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before colonoscopy, the endoscopist assessed appropriateness of the endoscopic referral without directly consulting official guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Appropriateness of the indication was eventually assessed by a group of experts based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, representing the gold standard. Outcomes of the study were the inappropriateness rate and the main related causes, as well as the concordance rate between the endoscopists and the experts. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of inappropriateness. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled in 20 centres, of which 1489 outpatients were included in the final analysis. According to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, 432 referrals were inappropriate, corresponding to an inappropriateness rate of 29%. At multivariate analysis, prescription of a repeated colonoscopy (≥2 colonoscopies in the same patient) was strongly associated with the inappropriateness of the indication (odds ratio: 8.8; 95% confidence interval: 6.2, 12.7). Postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 77% of the inappropriate control procedures. A 79% concordance rate between endoscopist and expert assessment was found. Among the 317 discordant cases, postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 51% of the cases, the endoscopists mistakenly classifying it as appropriate in 55% to 61% of the inappropriate cases. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriateness in outpatient colonoscopy referrals remains high, surveillance procedures representing the most frequent source of inappropriateness.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)590-594
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Volume46
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012

Fingerprint

Colonoscopy
Referral and Consultation
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Guidelines
Colorectal Neoplasms
Outpatients
Multivariate Analysis
Patient Selection
Endoscopy
Multicenter Studies
Prescriptions
Odds Ratio
Demography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Prospective Studies
Confidence Intervals

Keywords

  • appropriateness
  • colonoscopy
  • indication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Petruzziello, L., Hassan, C., Alvaro, D., Kohn, A., Rossi, Z., Zullo, A., ... Costamagna, G. (2012). Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: Is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'? Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 46(7), 590-594. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182370b7b

Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy : Is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'? / Petruzziello, Lucio; Hassan, Cesare; Alvaro, Domenico; Kohn, Anna; Rossi, Zaccaria; Zullo, Angelo; Cesaro, Paola; Annibale, Bruno; Barca, Alessandra; Di Giulio, Emilio; Rossi, Paolo Giorgi; Grasso, Enrico; Ridola, Lorenzo; Spada, Cristiano; Costamagna, Guido.

In: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, Vol. 46, No. 7, 08.2012, p. 590-594.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Petruzziello, L, Hassan, C, Alvaro, D, Kohn, A, Rossi, Z, Zullo, A, Cesaro, P, Annibale, B, Barca, A, Di Giulio, E, Rossi, PG, Grasso, E, Ridola, L, Spada, C & Costamagna, G 2012, 'Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: Is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'?', Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 590-594. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182370b7b
Petruzziello, Lucio ; Hassan, Cesare ; Alvaro, Domenico ; Kohn, Anna ; Rossi, Zaccaria ; Zullo, Angelo ; Cesaro, Paola ; Annibale, Bruno ; Barca, Alessandra ; Di Giulio, Emilio ; Rossi, Paolo Giorgi ; Grasso, Enrico ; Ridola, Lorenzo ; Spada, Cristiano ; Costamagna, Guido. / Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy : Is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'?. In: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2012 ; Vol. 46, No. 7. pp. 590-594.
@article{290bc64948d34318be77fabf186e9743,
title = "Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: Is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'?",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: The appropriate selection of patients for colonoscopy is crucial for an efficient use of endoscopy. The role of endoscopist in filtering out inappropriate referrals is largely unknown. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study was performed in which consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before colonoscopy, the endoscopist assessed appropriateness of the endoscopic referral without directly consulting official guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Appropriateness of the indication was eventually assessed by a group of experts based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, representing the gold standard. Outcomes of the study were the inappropriateness rate and the main related causes, as well as the concordance rate between the endoscopists and the experts. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of inappropriateness. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled in 20 centres, of which 1489 outpatients were included in the final analysis. According to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, 432 referrals were inappropriate, corresponding to an inappropriateness rate of 29{\%}. At multivariate analysis, prescription of a repeated colonoscopy (≥2 colonoscopies in the same patient) was strongly associated with the inappropriateness of the indication (odds ratio: 8.8; 95{\%} confidence interval: 6.2, 12.7). Postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 77{\%} of the inappropriate control procedures. A 79{\%} concordance rate between endoscopist and expert assessment was found. Among the 317 discordant cases, postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 51{\%} of the cases, the endoscopists mistakenly classifying it as appropriate in 55{\%} to 61{\%} of the inappropriate cases. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriateness in outpatient colonoscopy referrals remains high, surveillance procedures representing the most frequent source of inappropriateness.",
keywords = "appropriateness, colonoscopy, indication",
author = "Lucio Petruzziello and Cesare Hassan and Domenico Alvaro and Anna Kohn and Zaccaria Rossi and Angelo Zullo and Paola Cesaro and Bruno Annibale and Alessandra Barca and {Di Giulio}, Emilio and Rossi, {Paolo Giorgi} and Enrico Grasso and Lorenzo Ridola and Cristiano Spada and Guido Costamagna",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182370b7b",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "590--594",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology",
issn = "0192-0790",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy

T2 - Is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'?

AU - Petruzziello, Lucio

AU - Hassan, Cesare

AU - Alvaro, Domenico

AU - Kohn, Anna

AU - Rossi, Zaccaria

AU - Zullo, Angelo

AU - Cesaro, Paola

AU - Annibale, Bruno

AU - Barca, Alessandra

AU - Di Giulio, Emilio

AU - Rossi, Paolo Giorgi

AU - Grasso, Enrico

AU - Ridola, Lorenzo

AU - Spada, Cristiano

AU - Costamagna, Guido

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - BACKGROUND: The appropriate selection of patients for colonoscopy is crucial for an efficient use of endoscopy. The role of endoscopist in filtering out inappropriate referrals is largely unknown. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study was performed in which consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before colonoscopy, the endoscopist assessed appropriateness of the endoscopic referral without directly consulting official guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Appropriateness of the indication was eventually assessed by a group of experts based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, representing the gold standard. Outcomes of the study were the inappropriateness rate and the main related causes, as well as the concordance rate between the endoscopists and the experts. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of inappropriateness. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled in 20 centres, of which 1489 outpatients were included in the final analysis. According to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, 432 referrals were inappropriate, corresponding to an inappropriateness rate of 29%. At multivariate analysis, prescription of a repeated colonoscopy (≥2 colonoscopies in the same patient) was strongly associated with the inappropriateness of the indication (odds ratio: 8.8; 95% confidence interval: 6.2, 12.7). Postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 77% of the inappropriate control procedures. A 79% concordance rate between endoscopist and expert assessment was found. Among the 317 discordant cases, postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 51% of the cases, the endoscopists mistakenly classifying it as appropriate in 55% to 61% of the inappropriate cases. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriateness in outpatient colonoscopy referrals remains high, surveillance procedures representing the most frequent source of inappropriateness.

AB - BACKGROUND: The appropriate selection of patients for colonoscopy is crucial for an efficient use of endoscopy. The role of endoscopist in filtering out inappropriate referrals is largely unknown. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study was performed in which consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before colonoscopy, the endoscopist assessed appropriateness of the endoscopic referral without directly consulting official guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Appropriateness of the indication was eventually assessed by a group of experts based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, representing the gold standard. Outcomes of the study were the inappropriateness rate and the main related causes, as well as the concordance rate between the endoscopists and the experts. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of inappropriateness. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled in 20 centres, of which 1489 outpatients were included in the final analysis. According to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, 432 referrals were inappropriate, corresponding to an inappropriateness rate of 29%. At multivariate analysis, prescription of a repeated colonoscopy (≥2 colonoscopies in the same patient) was strongly associated with the inappropriateness of the indication (odds ratio: 8.8; 95% confidence interval: 6.2, 12.7). Postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 77% of the inappropriate control procedures. A 79% concordance rate between endoscopist and expert assessment was found. Among the 317 discordant cases, postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 51% of the cases, the endoscopists mistakenly classifying it as appropriate in 55% to 61% of the inappropriate cases. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriateness in outpatient colonoscopy referrals remains high, surveillance procedures representing the most frequent source of inappropriateness.

KW - appropriateness

KW - colonoscopy

KW - indication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863778267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863778267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182370b7b

DO - 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3182370b7b

M3 - Article

C2 - 22178958

AN - SCOPUS:84863778267

VL - 46

SP - 590

EP - 594

JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

SN - 0192-0790

IS - 7

ER -