The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 123, Issue 6 , Pages 528-535, June 2010

Specialty Differences in Polyp Detection, Removal, and Biopsy during Colonoscopy

  • Cynthia W. Ko, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash
    • Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Cynthia W. Ko, MD, MS, Division of Gastroenterology, Box 356424, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
  • ,
  • Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash
    • Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Wash
  • ,
  • Pam Green, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
  • ,
  • William Kreuter, MPA

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle
  • ,
  • Laura-Mae Baldwin, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

Abstract 

Background

Colonoscopy is a technically complex procedure commonly performed to detect and remove colorectal pathology. This study examined the influence of provider characteristics on polyp detection, polyp removal, and diagnostic biopsy rates.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a 20% sample of 2003 Medicare claims. Primary outcome measures were use of diagnostic biopsy, polyp detection, and polyp removal. We used generalized estimating equations to identify independent predictors of the outcomes, adjusting for patient and provider characteristics.

Results

Among 328,167 outpatient colonoscopies, polyp detection and removal rates were significantly lower for nongastroenterologists than gastroenterologists, with adjusted relative risk for polyp detection between 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.83) for general surgeons and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) for internists. Compared with gastroenterologists, diagnostic biopsy was significantly less likely for general (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74) or colorectal surgeons (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65). The likelihood of polyp detection and removal was higher for physicians in the middle 2 quartiles of annual colonoscopy volume, but similar for physicians in the highest and lowest volume quartiles. Polyp detection and removal were significantly less likely for examinations in ambulatory surgery centers or offices than hospital outpatient settings, while diagnostic biopsy was significantly less likely in office settings.

Conclusions

Physician specialty, annual colonoscopy volume, and site of service are significant predictors of polyp detection, polyp removal, and diagnostic biopsy. These findings may have important implications for the effectiveness of colonoscopy.

Keywords: Colonic polyp, Colonoscopy, Colorectal neoplasms

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Funding: This work was funded by the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Dominitz was supported by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Endoscopic Research Career Development Award. This material is the result of work supported in part by resources from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

 Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest.

 Authorship: All authors had access to the data and role in writing the manuscript.

PII: S0002-9343(10)00130-0

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.01.016

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 123, Issue 6 , Pages 528-535, June 2010