Accuracy of Referring Provider and Endoscopist Impressions of Colonoscopy Indication

J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Jul;15(7):920-925. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0123.

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 (κ=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.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Algorithms
  • Colonoscopy* / methods
  • Colorectal Neoplasms / diagnosis*
  • Colorectal Neoplasms / epidemiology*
  • Female
  • Health Personnel*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Mass Screening
  • Middle Aged
  • Population Surveillance
  • Referral and Consultation*
  • Reproducibility of Results