CFP
HOME HELP CONTACT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Can Fam Physician
Vol. 55, No. 2, February 2009, pp.170 - 175
Copyright © 2009 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Résumé
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Rapid Responses: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in CFP
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kolber, M.
Right arrow Articles by Diaz, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kolber, M.
Right arrow Articles by Diaz, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Résumés de recherche

Research

Outcomes of 1949 endoscopic procedures

Performed by a Canadian rural family physician

Michael Kolber, MD CCFP
Associate Clinical Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta, performed the procedures in Peace River, Alta, and is currently pursuing a Master’s of Clinical Epidemiology in Edmonton, Alta, while continuing to work in Peace River

Olga Szafran, MHSA
Associate Director of the Research Program in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta. At the time of the study

Juhee Suwal, PhD
Rural researcher in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta

Mark Diaz
Student at the University of Alberta

Correspondence: Dr M. Kolber, Box 7590, Peace River, AB T8S 1T2; telephone 780 624-2581; fax 780 624-4015; e-mailmkolber{at}ualberta.ca

In Canada, very few family physicians routinely perform endoscopic procedures,1 and even fewer have examined the outcomes of the procedures they perform.2,3 As the demand for endoscopy continues to increase, led primarily by colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy, the relative shortage of physicians who can competently perform endoscopies will continue to increase. One way of addressing this shortage of endoscopists is to train some family physicians to competently perform endoscopy. In order to facilitate acceptance of family physicians performing endoscopy, it must be shown that once properly trained, family physicians can perform endoscopy competently and to current quality assurance guidelines.

The lead author (M.K.), a family physician, completed 6 months of additional skills training in gastroenterology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton from January to July 1999. The training consisted of inpatient and consultation service, as well as performance of 230 gastroscopies, 91 colonoscopies, and 16 sigmoidoscopies.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the outcomes of diagnostic and therapeutic (including polypectomy) endoscopic procedures subsequently performed by M.K. in rural Alberta over a 7.5-year period.


   METHODS
TOP
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
Design
This was a quality assurance practice audit of endoscopic procedures performed by a family physician trained in gastroenterology. After completion of the additional skills training in gastroenterology, M.K. subsequently set up practice in Peace River, Alta. As part of initial provincial credentialing, M.K. was advised by the Alberta Association of Gastroenterologists to collect data on the first 25 endoscopic procedures performed in Peace River. Data compilation continued beyond the first 25 procedures, and information on every diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic examination performed to date exists.

This project was submitted to the Health Research Ethics Board (Health Panel) of the University of Alberta and was determined to be for quality assurance purposes; as such, the board stated that ethics review and approval were not required.

Setting
Peace River has a population of 6315 and is 486 km northwest of Edmonton (where the closest gastroenterologist is located) and 195 km northeast of Grande Prairie (where the closest general surgeon is located).4,5 During the study period, there was an average 10 family physicians in Peace River, including 1 (M.K.) who provided full endoscopic services, and 2 who provided limited endoscopic services (1 performed gastroscopy and sigmoidoscopy and the other only performed sigmoidoscopy).

Patients
All patients of any age who had endoscopic procedures performed by M.K. at the Peace River Hospital or the Peace River Community Health Centre during the period September 24, 1999, to May 31, 2007, were included in the practice audit. The patients were identified from the endoscopy records at the Peace River Community Health Centre. Patients who had endoscopic procedures performed by someone other than M.K. were excluded. Also excluded from analysis were 6 endoscopic procedures performed before the start date of the study. There were no complications in these 6 procedures.

Data variables
Data compilation for the study commenced September 24, 1999, 2 weeks after M.K. began practising in Peace River. This start date reflects the arrival of the first colonoscopes, when the endoscopic service became fully operational.

The data collected included type of endoscopic procedure performed, indications for and results of endoscopies, complications, completion rate, and whether or not a referral to a specialist was made. All endoscopy and pathology reports were examined using the hospital charts and the local family medicine clinic’s electronic medical records, when necessary. If data for a particular procedure could not be verified by the research assistant, that procedure was excluded from the study.

Although some procedures had more than 1 indication, only the most important indication was recorded. Also, only the most important finding was recorded. For example, if a patient had colon cancer and a polyp, only the colon cancer was recorded. Endoscopic findings were determined clinically by the endoscopist and verified with pathology. For example, to determine the type of polyp, the size of the polyp was measured during endoscopy and then the pathology report was reviewed. The overall adenoma detection rate was determined by the total number of adenomas found, divided by the total number of lower gastrointestinal procedures performed. Multiple polyps in the same patient were only counted once. The adenoma detection rate for male and female patients by age group (≥ 50 years vs < 50 years) was based on the total number of polyps and adenomas found divided by the total number of lower gastrointestinal procedures performed, stratified by sex and age group. Finally, if a minor endoscopic finding was not clinically relevant to the reason for endoscopy (eg, asymptomatic diverticulosis or hemorrhoids), the procedure finding was considered to be normal.

Cecal intubation was determined by endoscopic visualization of the ileocecal valve and appendiceal orifice or by intubating the terminal ileum, when necessary. In 2007, photo documentation of these anatomic landmarks became routine. Colonoscopies were considered incomplete if the cecum was not reached, and the adjusted cecal intubation rate excluded those who had poor bowel preparation, stricture, or equipment failure.

In May 2006, nursing staff began recording the time it took to complete endoscopic procedures; only the total time from insertion to removal of the scope was recorded.

Complications of endoscopy were noted, specifically bleeding and perforation. To assess competency with conscious sedation, the number of times that naloxone was used was also documented.

Data analysis
Descriptive data analyses were performed using SPSS 15.0 for Windows. The unit of analysis was the procedure, rather than the patient.


   RESULTS
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
During the period September 24, 1999, to May 31, 2007, 1956 endoscopic procedures were performed. Data could not be verified for 7 procedures (5 patients), leaving 1949 procedures being performed on 1272 patients. The procedures included 667 (34.2%) gastroscopies, 1178 (60.4%) colonoscopies, and 104 (5.3%) sigmoidoscopies.

The characteristics of all endoscopy cases are noted in Table 1. A total of 58.8% of the endoscopic procedures were performed on female patients. The age range of patients was 7 to 92 years; the average age was 52.2 years. Of all endoscopic procedures, 91.0% were performed on an outpatient basis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Characteristics of cases: N = 1949.

 
Indications for endoscopy
The most common indications for gastroscopy were abdominal pain, diarrhea, or weight loss (33.9%), gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (16.6%), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (14.1%) (Table 2). The most common indications for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy were colorectal cancer screening (29.6%), gastrointestinal blood loss (including rectal bleeding, anemia, and positive fecal occult blood test results) (27.8%), and abdominal pain or diarrhea (17.8%) (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Gastroscopy indications and findings: N = 667.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy indications and findings: N = 1282.

 
Endoscopic findings
Although results of many of the gastroscopies were normal (24.1%), gastritis or duodenitis was found in 252 (37.8%) cases and peptic ulcer disease in 50 (7.5%) cases (Table 2). In addition, there were 17 (2.5%) cases of celiac disease, 14 of which were new diagnoses. Finally, there were 6 (0.9%) cases of upper gastrointestinal cancer in 5 different patients and 8 (1.2%) foreign body removals.

There were a total of 751 lower endoscopic procedures (colonoscopy plus sigmoidoscopy) performed on female patients, and 531 on male patients. Although 35.5% of results of were normal, there were 27 (2.1%) cases of colorectal cancer, 80 (6.2%) cases of advanced polyps (carcinoma in situ, adenomas > 1 cm in size or with high-grade dysplasia or villous elements), and 163 (12.7%) cases of adenomatous polyps (Table 3). The overall adenoma detection rate was 23.7% (126/531) for male patients and 15.4% (116/751) for female patients. The adenoma detection rate for patients 50 years and older was 29.8% (102/342) for male patients and 18.0% (83/462) for female patients. In addition, there were 48 (3.7%) new cases of inflammatory bowel disease, 29 (2.3%) cases of infectious colitis, with 9 cases of confirmed Clostridium difficile infection and 1 case of colonic tuberculosis.

Competency
Evaluation of competency in endoscopy was specifically targeted to colonoscopies, the most technically difficult procedure. Cecal intubation rates were tracked throughout the study; time to complete a colonoscopy was recorded starting in April 2006. Cecal intubation was successful in 1040 (88.3%) colonoscopies. When adjusted for inadequate preparation, colonic stricturing, and equipment problems, the cecal intubation rate was 92.3% (1040/1127). Procedural time was documented for 187 consecutive colonoscopies from April 19, 2006, to May 31, 2007. One procedure was excluded, as the patient did not take any of the bowel preparation. The average time to complete a colonoscopy was 24.9 minutes.

Complications
In the 1178 colonoscopies, 1 colonoscopic perforation (0.08%) occurred in a 63-year-old man. It was a right-sided pneumatic perforation that was treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require surgery. There was 1 postpolypectomy bleed (0.08%) in a 78-year-old man. This delayed bleed occurred more than 1 week after a hot forceps biopsy polypectomy of a right-sided polyp. The patient was traveling and, therefore, required another colonoscopy at a different hospital. There were no deaths related to complications of endoscopy. Naloxone was used in a total of 5 of the 1949 cases (0.3%); 1 of the cases was an elective reversal immediately upon completion of the procedure, for a patient with complex congenital heart disease.

Referral rate
Of the 1949 endoscopic procedures performed, 123 patients (6.3%) were referred to a specialist for their gastrointestinal problems. Half (50.4%) of these referrals were for definitive surgical care.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 
This practice audit of endoscopic procedures illustrates competency and safety results comparable to those in the existing literature on quality assurance and, to the best of our knowledge, is the largest analysis of endoscopic procedures performed by a family physician to date.

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer has set 90% as the criterion standard for the cecal intubation rate and suggests that, for screening colonoscopy, the cecal intubation rate should be 95%.6,7 Recent literature suggests, however, that these targets might be difficult to achieve; 3 studies report gastroenterologists’ unadjusted cecal intubation rates of 85.1%, 88%, and 92%.8–10 Our cecal intubation rate is comparable to these rates, and our adjusted cecal intubation rate of 92.3% compares favourably with the criterion standard. Our average colonoscopy completion time of 24.9 minutes can also be viewed as an indirect measure of colonoscopy competency.

The adenoma detection rate is another quality indicator in colonoscopy, ensuring appropriate patient selection, procedural intervals, and endoscopist technical competency. Current best evidence suggests that the detection rate for women and men older than 50 years should be 15% and 25%, respectively.6 Our overall adenoma detection rates of 15.4% and 23.7% in female and male patients, respectively, are comparable to those rates; our detection rates for those 50 years and older (29.8% in men, 18.0% in women) are better than the suggested targets. Our 2.1% colorectal cancer pick-up rate is also comparable with those suggested in the current literature.10

The literature suggests that the colonoscopic perforation rate is about 1 in 1000.11–15 Postendoscopy bleeding rates have been quoted from as low as 3 in 1000 to as high as 6 in 100,16 with the standard being about 1%6 and increasing with age and if polypectomies are performed. Our perforation rate of 1 in 1178 and bleed rate of 1 in 1178 are in line with these standards.

The demand for endoscopic examinations, led primarily by the need for colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies, continues to increase at a pace that cannot be met by the current number of physicians performing endoscopy. The apparent discrepancy between recommended and actual wait times for endoscopy illustrates the magnitude of the problem. Although recent Canadian targets recommend that individuals at average risk requiring screening colonoscopy receive endoscopy within 6 months,17 1 Canadian city’s wait time for screening colonoscopy is 11 years.18 Moreover, despite the fact that colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in Canada and is curable if detected early, less than one-quarter of eligible Canadians have had some form of colorectal cancer screening.19 Until new modalities are proven to be superior to the current criterion standard of endoscopy, a substantial increase in the number of health care professionals performing endoscopy is required.

This study adds to previous findings that show that adequately trained family physicians can perform endoscopy safely and competently.2,20–23 In an era in which the possibility of training nurses to perform endoscopy is being explored,24 family physicians might be a logical resource to help with the increasing "endoscopic burden" of screening an aging population for colorectal cancer.

Limitations
This practice audit has some limitations. The complication and referral rates could be underestimated in that some complications could have occurred or patients might have been referred to tertiary care physicians without the physician’s (M.K.) knowledge. It is, however, anticipated that this would occur with rather low frequency, given that about 80% of the patients were from within a 1-hour radius of Peace River, and Peace River has only 1 hospital and 1 family medicine clinic. Reporting of endoscopic findings is likely to differ between studies, as there is no standard reporting protocol. In our study, if an endoscopic finding did not have relevance to the symptoms (such as asymptomatic diverticulosis), the endoscopy result was recorded as normal.

Conclusion
The findings of this practice audit provide evidence that a family physician with additional training in gastroenterology is able to provide safe and competent endoscopic service. Continuing to train family physicians in gastrointestinal medicine might be one avenue to improving access to timely gastrointestinal care and endoscopic evaluations for many rural patients.



   EDITOR’S KEY POINTS
 
  • The demand for endoscopic examinations, led primarily by the need for colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies, continues to increase at a pace that cannot be met by the current number of physicians performing endoscopy. Family physicians trained in endoscopy could help to address this shortage.
  • This study adds to previous research findings that show that adequately trained family physicians can perform endoscopy safely and competently. In this study, cecal intubation rates, adenoma detection rates, and colonoscopic perforation and postendoscopy bleed rates compared favourably with current standards.

 



   POINTS DE REPÈRE DU RÉDACTEUR
 
  • La demande pour des examens endoscopiques, principalement pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal, augmente à un rythme trop élevé pour le nombre actuel de médecins capables de les effectuer. Les médecins de famille formés en endoscopie pourraient aider à répondre à cette pénurie.
  • Cette étude confirme les résultats d’études antérieures qui montrent qu’un médecin de famille adéquatement formé peut effectuer des endoscopies de façon sécuritaire et compétente. Dans cette étude, les taux d’intubation caecale, de détection d’adénomes et ceux de perforation du côlon et de saignement post-endoscopique se comparaient favorablement aux normes actuelles.

 


   Acknowledgments
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
References
 
This project was supported by the Alberta Rural Physician Action Plan, the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta, and the Peace River Primary Care Network. We thank the endoscopy nurses and the medical records staff of the Peace River Community Health Centre for their assistance and Dr James McCormack, Professor in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia, and Dr Richard Fedorak, Professor in the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Alberta, for reviewing the manuscript.


   Footnotes
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
Acknowledgments
 References
 
This article has been peer reviewed.

Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.

Contributors

Drs Kolber, Szafran, and Suwal and Mr Diaz contributed to concept and design of the study; data gathering, analysis, and interpretation; and preparing the manuscript for submission.

Competing interests

None declared


   References
TOP
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 Footnotes
 Acknowledgments
 References
 

  1. College of Family Physicians of Canada, Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. National Physician Survey 2004. Procedures performed by family physicians. Mississauga, ON: College of Family Physicians of Canada; 2004. Available from: www.nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/nps/results/PDF-e/FP/Tables/National/Q8fp.pdf. Accessed 2007 Dec 10.
  2. Cotterill M, Gasparelli R, Kirby E. Colorectal cancer detection in a rural community. Development of a colonoscopy screening program. Can Fam Physician 2005;51:1224–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kirby E. Colonoscopy procedures at a small rural hospital. Can J Rural Med 2004;9(2):89–93.[Medline]
  4. AlbertaFirst.com [website]. Peace River. Edmonton, AB: AlbertaFirst.com Ltd; 2006. Available from: www.albertafirst.com/profiles/statspack/20448.html. Accessed 2008 Jan 3.
  5. Statistics Canada. 2006 community profiles. Peace River, Alberta. All data. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2006. Available from: www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4819038&Geo2=PR&Code2=48&Data=Count&SearchText=Peace%20River&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=48&B1=All&Custom=. Accessed 2008 Jan 3.
  6. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97(6):1296–308.[Medline]
  7. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE, et al. Quality indicators in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63(4 Suppl):S16–28.[Medline]
  8. Aslinia F, Uradomo L, Steele A, Greenwood BD, Raufman JP. Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101(4):721–31.[Medline]
  9. Cotton PB, Connor P, McGee D, Jowell P, Nickl N, Schultz S, et al. Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57(3):352–7.[Medline]
  10. Armstrong D, Hollingworth R, Gardiner T, Klassen M, Smith W, Hunt RH, et al. Practice Audit in Gastroenterology (PAGE) program: a novel approach to continuing professional development. Can J Gastroenterol 2006;20(6):405–10.[Medline]
  11. Cobb WS, Heniford BT, Sigmon LB, Hasan R, Simms C, Kercher KW, et al. Colonoscopic perforations: incidence, management and outcomes. Am Surg 2004;70(9):750–7. discussion 757–8.[Medline]
  12. Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Shapiro JA, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006;145(12):880–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Misra T, Lalor E, Fedorak RN. Endoscopic perforation rates at a Canadian teaching hospital. Can J Gastroenterol 2004;18(4):221–6.[Medline]
  14. Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95(12):3418–22.[Medline]
  15. Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Neugut AI. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(3):230–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Waye JD. Postpolypectomy hemorrhage. Waltham, MA: UpToDate; 2007. Available from: www.uptodate.com. Accessed 2007 Dec 5.
  17. Paterson WG, Depew WT, Paré P, Petrunia D, Switzer C, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ, et al. Canadian consensus on medically acceptable wait times for digestive health care. Can J Gastroenterol 2006;20(6):411–23.[Medline]
  18. Van Rosendaal GM. Queue jumping, social justice, and the doctor-patient relationship. Can Fam Physician 2006;52:1525–6 (Eng), 1527–8 (Fr).[Free Full Text]
  19. Zarychanski R, Chen Y, Bernstein CN, Hébert PC. Frequency of colorectal screening and the impact of family physicians on screening behavior. CMAJ 2007;177(6):593–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Newman RJ, Nichols DB, Cummings DM. Outpatient colonoscopy by rural family physicians. Ann Fam Med 2005;3(2):122–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Edwards JK, Norris TE. Colonoscopy in rural communities: can family physicians perform the procedure with safe and efficacious results? J Am Board Fam Pract 2004;17(5):353–8.[Medline]
  22. Pierzchajlo RP, Ackermann RJ, Vogel RL. Colonoscopy performed by a family physician. A case series of 751 procedures. J Fam Pract 1997;44(5):473–80.[Medline]
  23. Hopper W, Kyker KA, Rodney WM. Colonoscopy by a family physician: a 9-year experience of 1048 procedures. J Fam Pract 1996;43(6):561–6.[Medline]
  24. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF. Colorectal cancer screening in Canada: why not consider nurse endoscopists? CMAJ 2003;169(3):206–7.[Free Full Text]

Related articles in CFP:

Screening and the family physician
Nicholas Pimlott
CFP 2009 55: 121. [Full Text]  

Dépistage et médecins de famille
Nicholas Pimlott
CFP 2009 55: 123. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 cfpHome page
V. E. Ginzburg
Rural scope of practice
Can Fam Physician, April 1, 2009; 55(4): 352 - 352.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 cfpHome page
N. Pimlott
Screening and the family physician
Can Fam Physician, February 1, 2009; 55(2): 121 - 121.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 cfpHome page
N. Pimlott
Depistage et medecins de famille
Can Fam Physician, February 1, 2009; 55(2): 123 - 123.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Rural Family Physician Scope of Practice
Val E. Ginzburg
CFP Online, 19 Feb 2009 [Full text]
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Résumé
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Rapid Responses: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in CFP
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kolber, M.
Right arrow Articles by Diaz, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kolber, M.
Right arrow Articles by Diaz, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Résumés de recherche

HOME HELP CONTACT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES SEARCH