Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 63, Issue 4, pp 856–859 | Cite as

Adenoma Detection Rate Falls at the End of the Day in a Large Multi-site Sample

  • Felippe O. MarcondesEmail author
  • Rebecca A. Gourevitch
  • Robert E. Schoen
  • Seth D. Crockett
  • Michele Morris
  • Ateev Mehrotra
Original Article

Abstract

Background

There is concern that mental and physical fatigue among endoscopists over the course of the day will lead to lower adenoma detection rate (ADR). There are mixed findings in the prior literature on whether such an association exists.

Aims

The aim of this study was to measure the association between the number of colonoscopies performed in a day and ADR and withdrawal time.

Methods

We analyzed 86,624 colonoscopy and associated pathology reports between October 2013 and September 2015 from 131 physicians at two medical centers. A previously validated natural language processing program was used to abstract relevant data. We identified the order of colonoscopies performed in the physicians’ schedule and calculated the ADR and withdrawal time for each colonoscopy position.

Results

The ADR for our overall sample was 29.9 (CI 29.6–30.2). The ADR for colonoscopies performed at the 9th + position was significantly lower than those at the 1st–4th or 5th–8th position, 27.2 (CI 25.8–28.6) versus 29.9 (CI 29.5–30.3), 30.2 (CI 29.6–30.9), respectively. Withdrawal time steadily decreased by colonoscopy position going from 11.6 (CI 11.4–11.9) min for the 1st colonoscopy to 9.6 (8.9–10.3) min for the 9th colonoscopy.

Conclusion

In our study population, ADR and withdrawal time decrease by roughly 7 and 20%, respectively, by the end of the day. Our results imply that rather than mental or physical fatigue, lower ADR at the end of the day might be driven by endoscopists rushing.

Keywords

Adenoma detection rate Colonoscopy Quality measurement 

Abbreviations

ADR

Adenoma detection rate

CIE

Central Illinois Endoscopy

CI

95% confidence interval

Notes

Acknowledgments

Support comes from National Cancer Institute 5R01CA168959.

Author contributions

FOM and AM involved in study concept and design; MM involved in acquisition of data; FOM, AM, and RAG involved in analysis and interpretation of data; FOM, AM, RAG, RES, AM, and SDC involved in drafting the manuscript; FOM involved in statistical analysis; RES, AM, and SDC involved in critical revision of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest and writing assistance

The authors disclose no conflicts, and no writing assistance was provided other than from listed authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2345–2357.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1095–1105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013;42:599–618.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meester RGS, Doubeni CA, Zauber AG, van Ballegooijen M, Corley DA, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Impact of adenoma detection on the benefit of faecal testing versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2017;141:2359–2367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanaka MR, Deepinder F, Thota PN, Lopez R, Burke CA. Adenomas are detected more often in morning than in afternoon colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:1659–1664; quiz 1665.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leffler DA, Kheraj R, Bhansali A, et al. Adenoma detection rates vary minimally with time of day and case rank: a prospective study of 2139 first screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:554–560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee A, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Endoscopist fatigue estimates and colonoscopic adenoma detection in a large community-based setting. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(601–610):e602.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freedman JS, Harari DY, Bamji ND, et al. The detection of premalignant colon polyps during colonoscopy is stable throughout the workday. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1197–1206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan MY, Cohen H, Spiegel BM. Fewer polyps detected by colonoscopy as the day progresses at a Veteran’s Administration teaching hospital. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:1217–1223; quiz 1143.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Almadi MA, Sewitch M, Barkun AN, Martel M, Joseph L. Adenoma detection rates decline with increasing procedural hours in an endoscopist’s workload. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;29:304–308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Almario CV, Spiegel BMR. Does endoscopist fatigue impact adenoma detection rate? A review of the evidence to date. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:611–613.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lurix E, Hernandez AV, Thoma M, Castro F. Adenoma detection rate is not influenced by full-day blocks, time, or modified queue position. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:827–834.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nadkarni PM, Ohno-Machado L, Chapman WW. Natural language processing: an introduction. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18:544–551.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carrell DS, Schoen RE, Leffler DA, et al. Challenges in adapting existing clinical natural language processing systems to multiple, diverse healthcare settings. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24:986–991.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mehrotra A, Dellon ES, Schoen RE, et al. Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:1233-1239; e1214.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harkema H, Chapman WW, Saul M, Dellon ES, Schoen RE, Mehrotra A. Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures. J Am Med Inform Assoc.. 2011;18(Suppl 1):i150–i156.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mehrotra A, Morris M, Gourevitch RA, et al. Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc.. 2017;S0015-5107:32205–32208.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marcondes FO, Dean KM, Schoen RE, et al. The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician’s adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc.. 2015;82:668–675.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Long MD, Martin C, Sandler RS, Herfarth HH, Shaheen NJ, Dellon ES. Reduced polyp detection as endoscopy shift progresses: experience with screening colonoscopy at a tertiary-care hospital. J Clin Gastroenterol.. 2011;45:253–258.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Munson GW, Harewood GC, Francis DL. Time of day variation in polyp detection rate for colonoscopies performed on a 3-hour shift schedule. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:467–475.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonGalvestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Care PolicyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  3. 3.Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and NutritionUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyUniversity of North Carolina School of MedicineChapel HillUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical InformaticsUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  6. 6.Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  7. 7.UPMC Presbyterian, Digestive Disorders CenterPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations