A wide variation of the quality of colonoscopy reporting system in the real clinical practice in southeastern area of Korea.
- Author:
Jung Min LEE
1
;
Yu Jin KANG
;
Eun Soo KIM
;
Yoo Jin LEE
;
Kyung Sik PARK
;
Kwang Bum CHO
;
Seong Woo JEON
;
Min Kyu JUNG
;
Hyun Seok LEE
;
Eun Young KIM
;
Jin Tae JUNG
;
Byung Ik JANG
;
Kyeong Ok KIM
;
Yun Jin CHUNG
;
Chang Hun YANG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Colonoscopy; Report; Survey; Quality
- MeSH: Certification; Colonoscopy*; Colorectal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Korea*; Postal Service; Primary Health Care; Quality Improvement; Specialization
- From:Intestinal Research 2016;14(4):351-357
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: BACKGROUND/AIMS: Establishment of a colonoscopy reporting system is a prerequisite to determining and improving quality. This study aimed to investigate colonoscopists' opinions and the actual situation of a colonoscopy reporting system in a clinical practice in southeastern area of Korea and to assess the factors predictive of an inadequate reporting system. METHODS: Physicians who performed colonoscopies in the Daegu-Gyeongbuk province of Korea and were registered with the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) were interviewed via mail about colonoscopy reporting systems using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 181 endoscopists invited to participate, 125 responded to the questionnaires (response rate, 69%). Most responders were internists (105/125, 84%) and worked in primary clinics (88/125, 70.4%). Seventy-one specialists (56.8%) held board certifications for endoscopy from the KSGE. A median of 20 colonoscopies (interquartile range, 10–47) was performed per month. Although 88.8% of responders agreed that a colonoscopy reporting system is necessary, only 18.4% (23/125) had achieved the optimal reporting system level recommended by the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. One-third of endoscopists replied that they did not use a reporting document for the main reasons of "too busy" and "inconvenience." Non-endoscopy specialists and primary care centers were independent predictive factors for failure to use a colonoscopy reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of colonoscopy reporting systems varies widely and is considerably suboptimal in actual clinical practice settings in southeastern Korea, indicating considerable room for quality improvements in this field.
