TY - JOUR
T1 - Colon polypectomy report card improves polypectomy competency
T2 - results of a prospective quality improvement study (with video)
AU - Duloy, Anna M.
AU - Kaltenbach, Tonya R.
AU - Wood, Mariah
AU - Gregory, Dyanna L.
AU - Keswani, Rajesh N.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge The Digestive Health Foundation of Northwestern Memorial Hospital for their support of this research. DISCLOSURE: The following authors disclosed financial relationships relevant to this publication: T. Kaltenbach: Consultant for Olympus America and Aries Pharmaceutical. R.N. Keswani: Consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. Research support for this study was provided by The Digestive Health Foundation of Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2019/6
Y1 - 2019/6
N2 - Background and Aims: Polypectomy competency varies significantly among providers. Poor polypectomy technique may lead to interval cancer and/or adverse events. Our aim was to determine the effect of a polypectomy skills report card on subsequent polypectomy performance. Methods: We conducted a 3-phase, prospective, single-blinded study. In phase 1 (“baseline”), we graded 10 polypectomies per endoscopist using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool (scores 1-4); mean overall scores ≥3 are competent. In phase 2 (“pre–report card”), we selected 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist. We subsequently gave endoscopists a report card with baseline scores and instructional videos demonstrating optimal polypectomy technique. In phase 3 (“post–report card”), 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist were selected. Raters, blinded to study phase, graded 10 pre– and 10 post–report card polypectomies per endoscopist. We compared mean DOPyS scores and rate of competent polypectomy in the pre– and post–report card phases. Results: We graded 110 pre– and 110 post–report card polypectomies performed by 11 endoscopists. The mean DOPyS score increased between the pre– and post–report card phases (2.7 ± .9 vs 3.0 ± .8, P = .01); this improvement was seen for diminutive (P < .0001) but not for small-to-large polyps. Rate of competent polypectomy significantly improved from the pre– to post–report card phase (56% vs 69%, P = .04); this improvement was seen for diminutive (57% vs 81%, P = .001) but not for small-to-large polyps (55% vs 36%, P = .2). Conclusions: Report cards with educational videos effectively improved polypectomy technique, primarily because of improvements in resecting diminutive polyps. The improved competency and decreased piecemeal resection may reduce the risk of polyp recurrence. Further education is needed to improve larger polyp resection.
AB - Background and Aims: Polypectomy competency varies significantly among providers. Poor polypectomy technique may lead to interval cancer and/or adverse events. Our aim was to determine the effect of a polypectomy skills report card on subsequent polypectomy performance. Methods: We conducted a 3-phase, prospective, single-blinded study. In phase 1 (“baseline”), we graded 10 polypectomies per endoscopist using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool (scores 1-4); mean overall scores ≥3 are competent. In phase 2 (“pre–report card”), we selected 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist. We subsequently gave endoscopists a report card with baseline scores and instructional videos demonstrating optimal polypectomy technique. In phase 3 (“post–report card”), 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist were selected. Raters, blinded to study phase, graded 10 pre– and 10 post–report card polypectomies per endoscopist. We compared mean DOPyS scores and rate of competent polypectomy in the pre– and post–report card phases. Results: We graded 110 pre– and 110 post–report card polypectomies performed by 11 endoscopists. The mean DOPyS score increased between the pre– and post–report card phases (2.7 ± .9 vs 3.0 ± .8, P = .01); this improvement was seen for diminutive (P < .0001) but not for small-to-large polyps. Rate of competent polypectomy significantly improved from the pre– to post–report card phase (56% vs 69%, P = .04); this improvement was seen for diminutive (57% vs 81%, P = .001) but not for small-to-large polyps (55% vs 36%, P = .2). Conclusions: Report cards with educational videos effectively improved polypectomy technique, primarily because of improvements in resecting diminutive polyps. The improved competency and decreased piecemeal resection may reduce the risk of polyp recurrence. Further education is needed to improve larger polyp resection.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064281545&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064281545&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2019.02.024
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2019.02.024
M3 - Article
C2 - 30825535
AN - SCOPUS:85064281545
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 89
SP - 1212
EP - 1221
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 6
ER -