Surveying ADR Knowledge and Practices among US Gastroenterologists

Michael Peng, Douglas Rex

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is of primary importance to the quality of screening colonoscopy. An online survey was conducted to assess knowledge and practices on ADR. Methods: Paid questionnaire distributed by email. Eligible respondents were board certified gastroenterologists who perform > 80 colonoscopies per month with 3 to 35 years practice after fellowship. Results: There were 250 respondents. In total, 39% were unaware that ADR applies only to screening colonoscopies and 76% incorrectly answered that ADR includes sessile-serrated polyps/adenomas. A total of 51% of respondents incorrectly believe the threshold is set at 25% because 25% is a national ADR average. Many also believe the threshold depends on the patient population (current evidence suggests adjusting ADR for factors other than age and sex is unnecessary). 75% ranked ADR as highly important. 80% reported tracking ADR. A busy practice was the most common reason for not tracking ADR. Caps, chromoendoscopy, and good bowel preparation were viewed as valuable for improving ADR (this is true except for caps). High-definition colonoscopes and education were considered less valuable, despite evidence indicating that both are associated with improved ADR. In total, 57% reported not sharing ADR information with their patients, and 59% reported that no patients in the last 6 months asked for their ADR. Conclusions: The importance of ADR as a quality measure is well understood, but there are misconceptions among gastroenterologists regarding the definition and measurement of ADR, and which methods are proven to increase ADR. Patients are having very little impact on ADR measurement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Adenoma
Colonoscopy
Gastroenterologists
Colonoscopes
Sex Factors
Age Factors
Polyps

Keywords

  • adenoma detection rate
  • colonoscopy
  • colorectal polyps

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Surveying ADR Knowledge and Practices among US Gastroenterologists. / Peng, Michael; Rex, Douglas.

In: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{30c58d02453b48d2aefdfc001fcdb47d,
title = "Surveying ADR Knowledge and Practices among US Gastroenterologists",
abstract = "Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is of primary importance to the quality of screening colonoscopy. An online survey was conducted to assess knowledge and practices on ADR. Methods: Paid questionnaire distributed by email. Eligible respondents were board certified gastroenterologists who perform > 80 colonoscopies per month with 3 to 35 years practice after fellowship. Results: There were 250 respondents. In total, 39{\%} were unaware that ADR applies only to screening colonoscopies and 76{\%} incorrectly answered that ADR includes sessile-serrated polyps/adenomas. A total of 51{\%} of respondents incorrectly believe the threshold is set at 25{\%} because 25{\%} is a national ADR average. Many also believe the threshold depends on the patient population (current evidence suggests adjusting ADR for factors other than age and sex is unnecessary). 75{\%} ranked ADR as highly important. 80{\%} reported tracking ADR. A busy practice was the most common reason for not tracking ADR. Caps, chromoendoscopy, and good bowel preparation were viewed as valuable for improving ADR (this is true except for caps). High-definition colonoscopes and education were considered less valuable, despite evidence indicating that both are associated with improved ADR. In total, 57{\%} reported not sharing ADR information with their patients, and 59{\%} reported that no patients in the last 6 months asked for their ADR. Conclusions: The importance of ADR as a quality measure is well understood, but there are misconceptions among gastroenterologists regarding the definition and measurement of ADR, and which methods are proven to increase ADR. Patients are having very little impact on ADR measurement.",
keywords = "adenoma detection rate, colonoscopy, colorectal polyps",
author = "Michael Peng and Douglas Rex",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MCG.0000000000001188",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology",
issn = "0192-0790",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surveying ADR Knowledge and Practices among US Gastroenterologists

AU - Peng, Michael

AU - Rex, Douglas

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is of primary importance to the quality of screening colonoscopy. An online survey was conducted to assess knowledge and practices on ADR. Methods: Paid questionnaire distributed by email. Eligible respondents were board certified gastroenterologists who perform > 80 colonoscopies per month with 3 to 35 years practice after fellowship. Results: There were 250 respondents. In total, 39% were unaware that ADR applies only to screening colonoscopies and 76% incorrectly answered that ADR includes sessile-serrated polyps/adenomas. A total of 51% of respondents incorrectly believe the threshold is set at 25% because 25% is a national ADR average. Many also believe the threshold depends on the patient population (current evidence suggests adjusting ADR for factors other than age and sex is unnecessary). 75% ranked ADR as highly important. 80% reported tracking ADR. A busy practice was the most common reason for not tracking ADR. Caps, chromoendoscopy, and good bowel preparation were viewed as valuable for improving ADR (this is true except for caps). High-definition colonoscopes and education were considered less valuable, despite evidence indicating that both are associated with improved ADR. In total, 57% reported not sharing ADR information with their patients, and 59% reported that no patients in the last 6 months asked for their ADR. Conclusions: The importance of ADR as a quality measure is well understood, but there are misconceptions among gastroenterologists regarding the definition and measurement of ADR, and which methods are proven to increase ADR. Patients are having very little impact on ADR measurement.

AB - Background: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is of primary importance to the quality of screening colonoscopy. An online survey was conducted to assess knowledge and practices on ADR. Methods: Paid questionnaire distributed by email. Eligible respondents were board certified gastroenterologists who perform > 80 colonoscopies per month with 3 to 35 years practice after fellowship. Results: There were 250 respondents. In total, 39% were unaware that ADR applies only to screening colonoscopies and 76% incorrectly answered that ADR includes sessile-serrated polyps/adenomas. A total of 51% of respondents incorrectly believe the threshold is set at 25% because 25% is a national ADR average. Many also believe the threshold depends on the patient population (current evidence suggests adjusting ADR for factors other than age and sex is unnecessary). 75% ranked ADR as highly important. 80% reported tracking ADR. A busy practice was the most common reason for not tracking ADR. Caps, chromoendoscopy, and good bowel preparation were viewed as valuable for improving ADR (this is true except for caps). High-definition colonoscopes and education were considered less valuable, despite evidence indicating that both are associated with improved ADR. In total, 57% reported not sharing ADR information with their patients, and 59% reported that no patients in the last 6 months asked for their ADR. Conclusions: The importance of ADR as a quality measure is well understood, but there are misconceptions among gastroenterologists regarding the definition and measurement of ADR, and which methods are proven to increase ADR. Patients are having very little impact on ADR measurement.

KW - adenoma detection rate

KW - colonoscopy

KW - colorectal polyps

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062214240&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062214240&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001188

DO - 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001188

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

SN - 0192-0790

ER -