Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Deepak Agrawal x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Accuracy of Referring Provider and Endoscopist Impressions of Colonoscopy Indication

Mariam Naveed, Meredith Clary, Chul Ahn, Nisa Kubiliun, Deepak Agrawal, Byron Cryer, Caitlin Murphy, and Amit G. Singal

Background: Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication are used for clinical care, reimbursement, and quality reporting decisions; however, the accuracy of these impressions is unknown. This study assessed the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of methods to classify colonoscopy indication, including referring provider impression, endoscopist impression, and administrative algorithm compared with gold standard chart review. Methods: We randomly sampled 400 patients undergoing a colonoscopy at a Veterans Affairs health system between January 2010 and December 2010. Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication were compared with gold-standard chart review. Indications were classified into 4 mutually exclusive categories: diagnostic, surveillance, high-risk screening, or average-risk screening. Results: Of 400 colonoscopies, 26% were performed for average-risk screening, 7% for high-risk screening, 26% for surveillance, and 41% for diagnostic indications. Accuracy of referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication were 87% and 84%, respectively, which were significantly higher than that of the administrative algorithm (45%; P<.001 for both). There was substantial agreement between endoscopist and referring provider impressions (κ=0.76). All 3 methods showed high sensitivity (>90%) for determining screening (vs nonscreening) indication, but specificity of the administrative algorithm was lower (40.3%) compared with referring provider (93.7%) and endoscopist (84.0%) impressions. Accuracy of endoscopist, but not referring provider, impression was lower in patients with a family history of colon cancer than in those without (65% vs 84%; P=.001). Conclusions: Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication are both accurate and may be useful data to incorporate into algorithms classifying colonoscopy indication.

Full access

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

Melissa Magrath, Edward Yang, Chul Ahn, Christian A. Mayorga, Purva Gopal, Caitlin C. Murphy, Samir Gupta, Deepak Agrawal, Ethan A. Halm, Eric K. Borton, Celette Sugg Skinner, and Amit G. Singal

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.