A wide variation of the quality of colonoscopy reporting system in the real clinical practice in southeastern area of Korea

• Main Authors: Jung Min Lee, 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
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases 2016-10-01
• Series: Intestinal Research
• Subjects: Colonoscopy; Report; Survey; Quality
• Online Access: http://www.irjournal.org/upload/pdf/ir-14-351.pdf
• ISSN: 1598-9100; 2288-1956

Background/AimsEstablishment 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.MethodsPhysicians 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsThe 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.