Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme

Abstract

Objective. An important challenge of any quality assurance (QA) programme is to maintain interest among participants to ensure high data quality over time. The primary aim of this study was to identify factors associated with endoscopist compliance with the Norwegian QA programme for colonoscopies (Gastronet). Material and methods. The Gastronet registration tools are an endoscopy report form to be filled in directly after the procedure by the endoscopist, and a satisfaction questionnaire to be filled in by the patient on the day after the examination. During the study period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006, endoscopist compliance was measured by assessing patient report coverage, defined as the percentage of patient satisfaction questionnaires received by the Gastronet secretariat divided by the total number of colonoscopy reports registered by the individual endoscopists during the study period. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to identify individual factors related to patient report coverage. Results. Eighty-eight endoscopists from 10 hospitals contributed a total of 16,149 colonoscopies. Overall patient report coverage decreased from 87% in 2004 to 80% in 2006. A low patient report coverage was associated with time since the registrations started [odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97–0.98; P < 0.001], use of sedation (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61–0.76; P < 0.001), and incomplete colonoscopy (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.54–0.76; P < 0.001). Conclusions. Decreasing compliance with registration over time may compromise data quality and the validity of the results. Lower coverage of patient's reports (presumably for the most difficult examinations) may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding colonoscopy performance.

Key Words::

• Colonoscopy
• patient satisfaction
• quality assurance
• selection bias

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by grants from The Quality Assurance Foundation of The Norwegian Medical Association and The South-Eastern Norway Health Authority. We thank Elin Hørtha for secretarial work related to the collection and entering of data.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflict of interest.