Impact of a Clinical Decision Support System on Guideline Adherence of Surveillance Recommendations for Colonoscopy After Polypectomy

Restricted access

Background: Surveillance colonoscopy is required in patients with polyps due to an elevated colorectal cancer (CRC) risk; however, studies suggest substantial overuse and underuse of surveillance colonoscopy. The goal of this study was to characterize guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations after implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR)–based Colonoscopy Pathology Reporting and Clinical Decision Support System (CoRS). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net healthcare system before (n=1,822) and after (n=1,320) implementation of CoRS in December 2013. Recommendations were classified as guideline-adherent or nonadherent according to the US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC. We defined surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations as potential overuse and underuse, respectively. We used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to identify correlates of guideline-adherent recommendations. Results: The proportion of guideline-adherent surveillance recommendations was significantly higher post-CoRS than pre-CoRS (84.6% vs 77.4%; P<.001), with fewer recommendations for potential overuse and underuse. In the post-CoRS period, CoRS was used for 89.8% of cases and, compared with cases for which it was not used, was associated with a higher proportion of guideline-adherent recommendations (87.0% vs 63.4%; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23–1.42). In multivariable analysis, surveillance recommendations were also more likely to be guideline-adherent in patients with adenomas but less likely among those with fair bowel preparation and those with family history of CRC. Of 203 nonadherent recommendations, 70.4% were considered potential overuse, 20.2% potential underuse, and 9.4% were not provided surveillance recommendations. Conclusions: An EMR-based CoRS was widely used and significantly improved guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations.

These authors contributed equally and are co-first authors.

These authors contributed equally and are co-senior authors.

Author contributions: Study concept and design: Gupta, Halm, Skinner, Singal. Data acquisition: Magrath, Yang, Singal. Data analysis: Ahn, Borton, Singal. Data interpretation: Ahn, Mayorga, Gopal, Murphy, Agrawal, Halm, Borton, Skinner, Singal. Manuscript preparation: Magrath, Yang, Singal. Critical revision: Ahn, Mayorga, Gopal, Murphy, Gupta, Agrawal, Halm, Borton, Skinner, Singal. Funding: Halm, Skinner. Guarantor: Singal.Correspondence: Amit G. Singal, MD, MS, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 5959 Harry Hines Boulevard, PO Box 1, Suite 420, Dallas, TX 75390-8887. Email: amit.singal@utsouthwestern.edu
  • 1.

    US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med2008;149:627637.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    ElmunzerBJSingalAGSussmanJB. Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc2015;81:700709.e703.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    LiebermanDAde GarmoPLFleischerDE. Patterns of endoscopy use in the United States. Gastroenterology2000;118:619624.

  • 4.

    LiebermanDARexDKWinawerSJ. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology2012;143:844857.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    SainiSDSchoenfeldPVijanS. Surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective for patients with adenomas who are at high risk of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology2010;138:22922299.e2291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    CooperGSKouTDBarnholtz SloanJS. Use of colonoscopy for polyp surveillance in Medicare beneficiaries. Cancer2013;119:18001807.

  • 7.

    GoodwinJSSinghAReddyN. Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Arch Intern Med2011;171:13351343.

  • 8.

    SchoenREPinskyPFWeissfeldJL. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology2010;138:7381.

  • 9.

    le ClercqCMBouwensMWRondaghEJ. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut2014;63:957963.

  • 10.

    Sint NicolaasJde JongeVvan BaalenO. Optimal resource allocation in colonoscopy: timing of follow-up colonoscopies in relation to adenoma detection rates. Endoscopy2013;45:545552.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    SeeffLCManninenDLDongFB. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?Gastroenterology2004;127:16611669.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    KristAHJonesRMWoolfSH. Timing of repeat colonoscopy: disparity between guidelines and endoscopists' recommendation. Am J Prev Med2007;33:471478.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    MysliwiecPABrownMLKlabundeCNRansohoffDF. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med2004;141:264271.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    SchreudersENicolaasJSde JongeV. The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol2013;27:3338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    KahnBFreelandZGopalP. Predictors of guideline concordance for surveillance colonoscopy recommendations in patients at a safety-net health system. Cancer Causes Control2015;26:16531660.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    SkinnerCSGuptaSHalmEA. Development of the Parkland-UT Southwestern Colonoscopy Reporting System (CoRS) for evidence-based colon cancer surveillance recommendations. J Am Med Inform Assoc2016;23:402406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    LaiEJCalderwoodAHDorosG. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc2009;69:620625.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    ZhangJYuKF. What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA1998;280:16901691.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    KimERSinnDHKimJY. Factors associated with adherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval. Surg Endosc2012;26:16901695.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    JohnsonMRGrubberJGrambowSC. Physician non-adherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Gastroenterology2015;149:938951.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    RansohoffDFYankaskasBGizliceZGangarosaL. Recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance in community practice. Dig Dis Sci2011;56:26232630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    KingsleyJKaranthSRevereFLAgrawalD. Cost effectiveness of screening colonoscopy depends on adequate bowel preparation rates – a modeling study. PLoS One2016;11:e0167452.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    CohenBTangRSGroesslE. Effectiveness of a simplified “patient friendly” split dose polyethylene glycol colonoscopy prep in Veterans Health Administration patients. J Interv Gastroenterol2012;2:177182.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    MeneesSBKimHMElliottEE. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc2013;78:510516.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    CalderwoodAHJacobsonBC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc2010;72:686692.

  • 26.

    LiangPSDominitzJA. Editorial: bowel preparation: is fair good enough?Am J Gastroenterol2014;109:17251727.

  • 27.

    CalderwoodAHThompsonKDSchroyPCIII. Good is better than excellent: bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc2015;81:691699.e691.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    LebwohlBKastrinosFGlickM. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc2011;73:12071214.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    AdlerJRobertsonDJ. Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions. Am J Gastroenterol2015;110:16571664.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    PatelNTongLAhnC. Post-polypectomy guideline adherence: importance of belief in guidelines, not guideline knowledge or fear of missed cancer. Dig Dis Sci2015;60:29372945.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    SainiSDNayakRSKuhnLSchoenfeldP. Why don't gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines?: results of a national survey. J Clin Gastroenterol2009;43:554558.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    ShahTUVoilsCIMcNeilR. Understanding gastroenterologist adherence to polyp surveillance guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol2012;107:12831287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    CresswellKMBatesDWSkeikhA. Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc2013;20:e913.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    American Gastroenterological Association. AGA Institute guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: clinical decision tool. Gastroenterology2014;146:14131414.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    ImlerTDMoreaJImperialeTF. Clinical decision support with natural language processing facilitates determination of colonoscopy surveillance intervals. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol2014;12:11301136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    LeimanDAMetzDCGinsbergGG. A novel electronic medical record–based workflow to measure and report colonoscopy quality measures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol2016;14:333337.e331.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    MurphyCCSandlerRSGrubberJM. Underuse and overuse of colonoscopy for repeat screening and surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol2016;14:436444.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1 1 0
Full Text Views 198 198 15
PDF Downloads 96 96 9
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0