TY - JOUR
T1 - Predictors of guideline concordance for surveillance colonoscopy recommendations in patients at a safety-net health system
AU - Kahn, Ben
AU - Freeland, Zachary
AU - Gopal, Purva
AU - Agrawal, Deepak
AU - Mayorga, Christian A.
AU - Mithani, Rozina
AU - Skinner, Celette Sugg
AU - Halm, Ethan A.
AU - Singal, Amit G.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was conducted as part of the NCI-funded consortium Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regiments (PROSPR) with support from NIH/NCI Grant U54CA163308-01. Dr. Halm was supported in part by the AHRQ Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (R24 HS022418). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or AHRQ.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
PY - 2015/11/1
Y1 - 2015/11/1
N2 - Purpose: Appropriate surveillance intervals for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2014 physician quality reporting system measures. Appropriateness of surveillance intervals will continue to be monitored closely, particularly as reimbursements become tied to quality measures. Aims: Quantify and identify predictors for guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations after adenoma polypectomy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who had colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net health system between June 2011 and December 2013. Surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations were defined as potential overuse and underuse. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify correlates of guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations, overuse, and underuse. Results: Among 1,822 patients with polypectomy, 1,329 had ≥1 adenoma. Surveillance interval recommendations were guideline-concordant in 1,410 (77.4 %) patients, potential overuse in 263 (14.4 %), potential underuse in 85 (4.7 %), and missing in 64 (3.5 %) patients. Predictors of guideline-concordant recommendations in multivariate analyses included age >65 years (OR 1.36, 95 % CI 1.02–1.80), incomplete resection (OR 3.58, 95 % CI 1.41–9.09), and good/excellent prep quality (OR 2.22, 95 % CI 1.72–2.86). Underuse recommendations were more likely in patients with ≥3 adenomas; overuse recommendations were more likely in patients with high-grade dysplasia or fair prep quality and less likely in those with piecemeal resection, ≥3 adenomas, age >65, or Hispanic ethnicity. Conclusions: Surveillance recommendations are not concordant with guidelines in one of four cases. Interventions to improve prep quality and guideline concordance of surveillance recommendations can improve cost-effectiveness of CRC screening.
AB - Purpose: Appropriate surveillance intervals for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2014 physician quality reporting system measures. Appropriateness of surveillance intervals will continue to be monitored closely, particularly as reimbursements become tied to quality measures. Aims: Quantify and identify predictors for guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations after adenoma polypectomy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who had colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net health system between June 2011 and December 2013. Surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations were defined as potential overuse and underuse. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify correlates of guideline-concordant surveillance recommendations, overuse, and underuse. Results: Among 1,822 patients with polypectomy, 1,329 had ≥1 adenoma. Surveillance interval recommendations were guideline-concordant in 1,410 (77.4 %) patients, potential overuse in 263 (14.4 %), potential underuse in 85 (4.7 %), and missing in 64 (3.5 %) patients. Predictors of guideline-concordant recommendations in multivariate analyses included age >65 years (OR 1.36, 95 % CI 1.02–1.80), incomplete resection (OR 3.58, 95 % CI 1.41–9.09), and good/excellent prep quality (OR 2.22, 95 % CI 1.72–2.86). Underuse recommendations were more likely in patients with ≥3 adenomas; overuse recommendations were more likely in patients with high-grade dysplasia or fair prep quality and less likely in those with piecemeal resection, ≥3 adenomas, age >65, or Hispanic ethnicity. Conclusions: Surveillance recommendations are not concordant with guidelines in one of four cases. Interventions to improve prep quality and guideline concordance of surveillance recommendations can improve cost-effectiveness of CRC screening.
KW - Colon cancer
KW - Colonoscopy
KW - Colorectal adenomas
KW - Prep quality
KW - Screening
KW - Surveillance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943348976&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943348976&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10552-015-0661-x
DO - 10.1007/s10552-015-0661-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 26376891
AN - SCOPUS:84943348976
SN - 0957-5243
VL - 26
SP - 1653
EP - 1660
JO - Cancer Causes and Control
JF - Cancer Causes and Control
IS - 11
ER -