Accuracy of referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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 (k=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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)920-925
Number of pages6
JournalJNCCN Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Volume15
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Fingerprint

Colonoscopy
Veterans Health
Quality of Health Care
Gold
Colonic Neoplasms
Sensitivity and Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Cite this

Accuracy of referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication. / Naveed, Mariam; Clary, Meredith; Ahn, Chul; Kubiliun, Nisa; Agrawal, Deepak; Cryer, Byron; Murphy, Caitlin; Singal, Amit G.

In: JNCCN Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Vol. 15, No. 7, 01.07.2017, p. 920-925.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{399b788b89174cdd86905c8f082519da,
title = "Accuracy of referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication",
abstract = "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 (k=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.",
author = "Mariam Naveed and Meredith Clary and Chul Ahn and Nisa Kubiliun and Deepak Agrawal and Byron Cryer and Caitlin Murphy and Singal, {Amit G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.6004/jnccn.2017.0123",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "920--925",
journal = "Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN",
issn = "1540-1405",
publisher = "Cold Spring Publishing LLC",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication

AU - Naveed, Mariam

AU - Clary, Meredith

AU - Ahn, Chul

AU - Kubiliun, Nisa

AU - Agrawal, Deepak

AU - Cryer, Byron

AU - Murphy, Caitlin

AU - Singal, Amit G.

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - 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 (k=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.

AB - 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 (k=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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022342933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85022342933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0123

DO - 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0123

M3 - Article

C2 - 28687580

AN - SCOPUS:85022342933

VL - 15

SP - 920

EP - 925

JO - Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN

JF - Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN

SN - 1540-1405

IS - 7

ER -