Upload
merritt-shields
View
18
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A Study on the Relative Efficiency Of Colorectal Endoscopists. Barbara Lum Nathan Hedges Ruwan Kiringoda Sarah Hong. Colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is the best technique for examination of the large intestine, and for the biopsy and treatment of mucosal lesions. Data Source for the Project. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
A Study on the Relative Efficiency Of Colorectal
Endoscopists
Barbara LumNathan Hedges
Ruwan KiringodaSarah Hong
Colonoscopy
Colonoscopy is the best technique for examination of the large intestine, and for the biopsy and treatment of mucosal lesions
Data Source for the Project
The Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio
Conducted by a group member at the Cleveland Clinic, this study examined the frequency and impact of problems that interfere with
smooth colonoscopy
Goals of the Study To create an objective, quantifiable method of
measuring the efficiency with which a doctor operates
To determine whether there are mathematically significant differences in efficiency levels between doctors
Determine what independent factors may be responsible for varying efficiency levels and to what degree each factor is responsible.
Background
Colonoscopy is the visual examination of the large intestine (colon) using a lighted, flexible fiber-optic or video endoscope.
Background (con’t)
The colon begins in the right-lower abdomen and looks like a big question mark as it moves through the abdomen, ending in the rectum. It is 5 to 6 feet long.
Equipment The flexible colonoscope can be
directed and moved around the many bends of the colon
The scope uses a small, optically-sensitive computer chip at the end.
Equipment (con’t)
Electronic signals are transmitted to the computer.
An open channel in the scope allows other instruments to be passed through in order to perform biopsies, remove polyps, etc.
Colonoscopies are not fun!
Benefits
Identification and/or correction of a problem in the colon.
Allows for diagnosis and specific treatment.
The Study (some numbers to keep in mind)
Five staff surgeons were observed as they performed
colonoscopies.
A total of 203 colonoscopies were observed.
The study began in June 2002 and concluded the following September.
104 men, 99 women.
Mean age of 61; standard deviation of 12 years.
Efficiency Errors The study focused on the incidence of potential efficiency
problems that occur during the implementation of the procedure.
The phrase ‘efficiency error’ was used to define any error in setup, procedure or scope function that results
in the avoidable loss of time.
The researcher quantified how much time was lost by using a stopwatch.
Four Types of Errors
Setup - valves, caps, hoses not fastened securely
Scope function - scope clogged
Procedural - Switching colonoscope midway through the exam, errors by trainees.
Torque - Scope hose overly twisted, needs to be re-set.
Efficiency error results
Church Hull Senagore Strong Remzi Total
“n” (total) 77 32 9 56 28 202
Inefficiency Error21 5 1 14 7 47
Inefficiency Errors7 2 0 1 1 11
Inefficiency Errors2 0 0 0 0 2
otalfficiency Errors
41 9 1 16 9 76
rojected Efficiencyrrors (p=76/202)
28.97 12.04 3.39 21.07 10.53 76
Statistical Analysis, Chi- Squared Test 1
Graph 1: Ho: p = .376Ha: P .376
ChiTest([28.97,12.04,3.39,21.07,10.53 ],[41,32,9,56,28]);
"The chi-squared value is", 134.2603333, "where there are", 5, "classes, and a probability of about ", 0., "percent that the null hypothesis is true and we see such chi squared value.""In particular this test is highly significant and we may reject the null hypothesis based on it"
Chi- Squared Test, Graph 1
Revised Efficiency Error Results
Hull Senagore Strong Remzi Total
“n” (total) 32 9 56 28 125
1 Inefficiency Error5 1 14 7 47
2 Inefficiency Errors2 0 1 1 11
3 Inefficiency Errors0 0 0 0 2
Total Efficiency Errors 9 1 16 9 35
Projected EfficiencyErrors (p=76/202)
8.96 2.52 15.68 7.84 35
Statistical Analysis, Chi- Squared Test 2
Graph 2: Ho: p = .280Ha: P .280
ChiTest([8.96,2.52,15.68,7.84 ],[9,1,16,9]);
"The chi-squared value is", 1.095167234, "where there are", 4, "classes, and a probability of about ", 77.82408589, "percent that the null hypothesis is true and we see such chi squared value.”
"In particular this test is not significant and we should not reject the null hypothesis based on it"
Chi- Squared Test, Graph 2
Part II
What factors could potentially affect the colonoscopists’ incidence of error?
Possible factors: • Years of Practice at the Cleveland Clinic • Level of Specialty Education
• Ex: Residencies, fellowships, graduate degrees• Number of American Board Certifications
Doctor
% of TotalProcedures with
EfficiencyErrors
YearsPracticing
Years ofSpecialty
Education
Number ofBoard
Certifications
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
D r . Jame s Chu r ch
57 . 14% 13 7 0
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
D r . T r acy Hu ll
28 . 13% 8 8 2
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
D r . An t hony S enago r e
11 . 11% 3 12 3
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
D r . Sco tt S t rong
28 . 57% 10 10 1
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
D r . Fe z a R em z i
32 . 14% 5 7 2
The Doctors
Practice
Errors Fitted values
5 10
27.8326
32.14
Remzi
Hull
Strong
Regression of Percentage Errors on Years Practicing
= 0.05 with 3 d.fT = 2.77
Critical value = 2.353
Regression of Percentage Errors on
Specialty
Errors Fitted values
7 12
11.11
57.14
Church
Remzi
HullStrong
Senagore
Years of Specialty Education
= 0.05 with 3 d.fT = -2.24
Critical value = 2.353
Regression of Percentage Errors on
Number of Board Certifications
Certifications
Errors Fitted values
0 3
11.11
57.14
Church
Strong
Remzi
Hull
Senagore
= 0.05 with 3 d.fT = -3.90
Critical value = 2.353
Multivariate Regression of Percentage Errors on
Variable Coefficient Standard Error t Beta
Practice -0.810 3.616 -0.22 -0.194
Specialty -2.970 2.165 -1.37 -0.389
Certifications -12.762 13.200 -0.97 -0.880
Constant 84.288 47.368 1.78 .
Years Practicing, Years of Specialty Education and Number of Board Certifications
Regression Analysis
All three variables appear to be negatively related to percentage of efficiency errors
Relation is not strong enough to be statistically conclusive
Directions of correlations “appear” right, but more doctors need to be sampled to obtain medical significance.
Conclusions
By a medically-acceptable level of significance, one of the doctors was found to be operating at a far inferior efficiency level than the other endoscopists.
“Efficiency errors,” however, refer only to small errors that result in a loss of time for the procedure. They do not, necessarily have an impact on patient safety or welfare.
Implications
If a doctor can be established in a court of law as being inferior, then potential litigation could be brought by unknowing patients who experience deleterious effects as a result of inferior treatment.
Patients should know of a doctor’s track record before undergoing the procedure
Limitations of this study
Number of trials Only 202. Perforated colons, the most serious of operational
errors, only occur in 1/1000 operations. Number of doctors
Only 5. What would a study of 500 doctors yield?
Summary
The overall scope of the study is limited Does not take into account other factors
Patient experience in terms of suffering Risk
As outlined by the abstract, we have met the goals set forth in this presentation.
Overall, this study provides a helpful and informative framework for future studies.