Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume 2016, Article ID 1929361, 7 pages
Research Article

The Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting in Usual Practice: Are Endoscopists Reporting Key Data Elements?

1Montfort Hospital, Gastroenterology, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1K 0T2
2Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
3Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5
4Toronto Digestive Disease Associates Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada L4L 4Y7
5Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2L7
6Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 1A8
7Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 3M6
8Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 3M7

Received 19 July 2015; Accepted 3 July 2016

Academic Editor: John Marshall

Copyright © 2016 S. D. Hadlock et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Background. High quality reporting of endoscopic procedures is critical to the implementation of colonoscopy quality assurance programs. Objective. The aim of our research was to (1) determine the quality of colonoscopy (CS) reporting in “usual practice,” (2) identify factors associated with good quality reporting, and (3) compare CS reporting in open-access and non-open-access procedures. Methods. 557 CS reports were randomly selected and assigned a score based on the number of mandatory data elements included in the report. Reports documenting greater than 70% of the mandatory data elements were considered to be of good quality. Physician and procedure factors associated with good quality CS reporting were identified. Results. Variables that were consistently well documented included date of the procedure (99.6%), procedure indication (88.9%), a description of the most proximal anatomical segment reached (98.6%), and documentation of polyp location (97.8%). Approximately 79.4% of the reports were considered to be of good quality. Gastroenterology specialty, lower annual CS volume, and fewer years in practice were associated with good quality reporting. Discussion. CS reporting in usual practice in Ontario lacks quality in several areas. Almost 1 in 5 reports was of poor quality in our study. Conclusions. Targeted interventions and/or use of mandatory fields in synoptic reports should be considered to improve CS reporting.