Improving Colonoscopy Quality for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the National VA Healthcare System
NCT ID: NCT04389957
Last Updated: 2025-05-30
Study Results
Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.
View full resultsBasic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
445 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2020-06-01
2024-03-29
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Promoting Veteran-Centered Colorectal Cancer Screening
NCT02027545
Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM)
NCT01239082
Use of Telehealth In-home Messaging to Improve GI (Gastrointestinal) Endoscopy Completion Rates
NCT00310362
Preventing Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in the VA
NCT07071454
Multi-Target Colorectal Cancer Screening Test for the Detection of Colorectal Advanced Adenomatous Polyps and Cancer
NCT01397747
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
High quality colonoscopy is critical for CRC prevention. Observational studies found significant rates of CRC even after normal colonoscopy, likely due to colonoscopists' varied performance in detecting and removing polyps. Among Medicare beneficiaries, approximately 7% of all CRC occurred in individuals who had colonoscopy that apparently missed the CRC diagnosis. A pooled analysis from eight surveillance studies suggested 52% of incident CRCs after colonoscopy were due to missed lesions. These interval cancers highlight the need to focus on colonoscopy quality indicators.
Adenoma detection rate (ADR) significantly varies by provider and has been strongly linked to both CRC incidence and mortality. In essence, polyps that are not found cannot be removed for CRC prevention. ADR, defined as the proportion of screening colonoscopies performed by a physician that has one or more histologically-confirmed adenomatous polyps or CRC, is the primary benchmark for colonoscopy inspection quality. Increasing ADR correlates with a lower risk of interval and fatal CRC. A landmark US study of 314,872 colonoscopy exams showed marked variability in providers' ability to detect polyps, with the ADR ranging from 7.4 to 52.5%. In patients of providers with the highest ADRs, as compared with those in the lowest, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for fatal interval CRC was 0.38 (95% Confidence Interval \[CI\], 0.22 to 0.65). Each 1% increase in ADR was associated with a decrease risk of 3% for interval CRC and 5% for CRC death.
Using the methods the team developed, the investigators have powerful pilot results showing colonoscopy quality variability in the VA and direct association with CRC death. From 1999-2011, there were 634,331 Veterans with baseline colonoscopy performed by one of 3101 colonoscopists with ADRs ranging from 13-79%. In patients who had a colonoscopy without polyps found, the higher the provider ADR, the more protected the patient was from developing future CRC: adjusted HR (adjHR) 0.57 for incident (95%CI: 0.42-0.79; ptrend\< 0.001) and 0.73 for fatal (95%CI: 0.50-1.06; p=0.047) CRC for the highest vs. lowest ADR quintile. Among individuals who had a colonoscopy with polypectomy, increasing ADR was also associated with reduced risk: adjHRs 0.46 for incident (95%CI: 0.34-0.62; ptrend\< 0.001) and 0.53 for fatal (95%CI: 0.34-0.84; ptrend=0.006) CRC for the highest vs. lowest quintile. A 5% absolute increase in ADR was associated with relative reductions in fatal CRC risk of 4% after normal colonoscopy (adjHR 0.96, 95%CI: 0.95-0.97) and 6% after polypectomy (adjHR 0.94; 95%CI: 0.89-0.98) Other important quality metrics, including bowel preparation quality and cecal intubation rate also impact patient outcomes with poor bowel preparation and incomplete examinations associated with missed lesions and need for earlier repeat procedures.
Audit and feedback of colonoscopy quality improves performance and outcomes. The VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) is an example of a VA nationwide reporting system that formed to focus on quality and has led to a decrease in mortality of 47% in patients 30 days after surgery. VASQIP provides information to providers for self-assessment and quality improvement purposes. There is similarly strong evidence that providing colonoscopy performance feedback improves quality and patient outcomes. Kahi and colleagues showed in a single-center VA setting that a quarterly report card improved colonoscopy quality. Most recently, in a large prospective European cohort study evaluating annual feedback and quality benchmark indicators on screening colonoscopy performance, the majority of the endoscopists (74.5%) increased their annual ADR. Moreover, individuals examined by endoscopists in the highest ADR quintile (\> 24.6%) had significantly lower risk of interval CRC and death. When compared with no increase in ADR, reaching or maintaining the highest quintile ADR decreased adjusted hazard ratios for interval and fatal CRC to 0.27 (95% CI, 0.12-0.63; p = .03), and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.56; p = .03).
Quality Gap: Quality reporting improves patient outcomes. The national VA healthcare system currently lacks a reliable, efficient program to routinely measure and report colonoscopy quality. Accurate measurement of quality metrics is challenging, because validated quality metrics are not available in structured VA data from VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The challenge is multifactorial. Colonoscopy procedure documentation resides in text notes in Vista/ Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) or endoscopic reporting software. The commonly used VA endoscopy note writer software programs (i.e. Endopro®, Provation®, etc) do not facilitate tracking pathology data and quality measurement. None of the current VA endoscopy reporting programs link to VA pathology data (to determine ADR); and production-level pathology data is not in the CDW. Thus, within VA, there has not been a reliable, efficient way to track critical procedure and pathology results to measure colonoscopy quality and ensure optimal protection from CRC incidence and death for Veterans.
Proposed Solution and Rationale for Study: The foundation of VA-EQuIP is a novel natural language processing (NLP) algorithm and informatics reporting infrastructure that the investigators developed to measure the quality of colonoscopies performed by individual VA colonoscopists. The team will evaluate a national quality improvement program to better understand how and why such a program is effective or ineffective in different contexts. This study is critically needed to allow us to perform a rigorous evaluation to answer implementation science questions and to advance the clinical and epidemiologic knowledge on the impact of colonoscopy quality on CRC mortality. Leveraging the informatics investment made by VA Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR\&D) as well as the National Gastroenterology Program office partnership in quality improvement initiatives, the roll out of VA-EQuIP is a rare opportunity to study, in real time, the deployment and impact of a large-scale learning health system initiative. Most existing performance measures are calculated at the facility level. The concept of calculating metrics from individual provider procedures and comparing these metrics not only with local peers but with national providers represents a profound culture shift. This is where implementation science becomes essential, especially with respect to stakeholder engagement, adaptation and tailoring.
A primary justification for this study is that VA-EQuIP has a high probability of improving a quality metric outcome (ADR) directly associated with CRC death, one of the most common cancers in Veterans. A randomized controlled trial of this magnitude is an opportunity to show, for the first time, that even small improvements in clinical performance from audit and feedback can save Veterans lives, since even a 1% increase in ADR translates to a 3% reduction in interval cancer death. The proposal for a randomized program evaluation is a tremendous opportunity to determine the large scale effect of the audit and feedback strategy on changes in the colonoscopy quality metrics of individual endoscopists over time. The evaluation of VA-EQuIP implementation will identify factors associated with effective implementation and colonoscopy quality improvement (impact) at VA sites. Prior and planned work builds toward long-term goal to reduce mortality in Veterans by increasing early detection of CRC and inform national quality improvement initiatives such as remediation training for continual low performing endoscopists.
Finally, with upcoming expansion to community care, VA will be making policy decisions about what services should be furnished by VA versus non-VA providers. It is more crucial than ever that health services researchers apply rigorous methods to identify meaningful quality metrics that are linked by evidence to patient outcomes so that these measures of quality will be used to justify such crucial "make versus buy" determinations. It is hopeful that the investigators study will not only improve colonoscopy quality but also provide a framework for assessing the quality of other procedures such as bone marrow biopsy or bronchoscopy.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Endoscopy Providers
In the primary analysis model, there were 68 sites with usable data with 98,442 procedures from 445 providers in the pre-intervention time frame and 129,972 procedures from 392 providers in the post-intervention time frame.
Veterans Affairs Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (VA-EQuIP)
We created an innovative informatics framework for centralized reporting of colonoscopy quality across the VA, facilitating the implementation of the VA Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (VA-EQuIP). The VA-EQuIP quality dashboard (updated at 6 month intervals) provided adenoma detection rates (ADR), bowel preparation quality, and cecal intubation rate to every facility.This initiative directly addressed the OIG's recommendations and the VA's urgent need for evidence-based colonoscopy quality measurement and reporting. Through VA-EQuIP, we provided bi-annual audits and feedback on colonoscopy quality for VA sites and endoscopists, along with individual provider benchmarking against local and national performance standards. Additionally, we organized collaborative learning sessions led by national experts in colonoscopy training and quality. These sessions focused on shared learning, featuring lectures, discussions, skill-building activities, and work on quality improvement projects.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Veterans Affairs Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (VA-EQuIP)
We created an innovative informatics framework for centralized reporting of colonoscopy quality across the VA, facilitating the implementation of the VA Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program (VA-EQuIP). The VA-EQuIP quality dashboard (updated at 6 month intervals) provided adenoma detection rates (ADR), bowel preparation quality, and cecal intubation rate to every facility.This initiative directly addressed the OIG's recommendations and the VA's urgent need for evidence-based colonoscopy quality measurement and reporting. Through VA-EQuIP, we provided bi-annual audits and feedback on colonoscopy quality for VA sites and endoscopists, along with individual provider benchmarking against local and national performance standards. Additionally, we organized collaborative learning sessions led by national experts in colonoscopy training and quality. These sessions focused on shared learning, featuring lectures, discussions, skill-building activities, and work on quality improvement projects.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Qualitative interviews will be conducted with GI section chiefs and individual endoscopists at participating facilities.
Exclusion Criteria
-VA facilities without existing colonoscopy procedure or pathology notes in our operational database will not be included in the study.
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
VA Office of Research and Development
FED
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Andrew Gawron, MD MS
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT
Tonya R. Kaltenbach, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
VA San Diego Health Care System
San Diego, California, United States
San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, CA
San Francisco, California, United States
Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
VA Ann Arbor Health Care System
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, UT
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
VA Puget Sound Health Care System
Seattle, Washington, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Gawron AJ, Yao Y, Gupta S, Cole G, Whooley MA, Dominitz JA, Kaltenbach T. Simplifying Measurement of Adenoma Detection Rates for Colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Sep;66(9):3149-3155. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06627-2. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
Gawron AJ, Sultan S, Glorioso TJ, Califano S, Kralovic SM, Jones M, Kirsh S, Dominitz JA. Pre-endoscopy coronavirus disease 2019 screening and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 nucleic acid amplification testing in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system: clinical practice patterns, outcomes, and relationship to procedure volume. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Sep;96(3):423-432.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.018. Epub 2022 Apr 22.
Gawron AJ, Dominitz JA. Higher Quality Colonoscopy: Worth the Wait? Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2022 Apr 1;13(4):e00471. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000471.
Gupta S, Earles A, Bustamante R, Patterson OV, Gawron AJ, Kaltenbach TR, Yassin H, Lamm M, Shah SC, Saini SD, Fisher DA, Martinez ME, Messer K, Demb J, Liu L. Adenoma Detection Rate and Clinical Characteristics Influence Advanced Neoplasia Risk After Colorectal Polypectomy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jul;21(7):1924-1936.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.10.003. Epub 2022 Oct 19.
Demb J, Liu L, Bustamante R, Dominitz JA, Earles A, Shah SC, Gawron AJ, Martinez ME, Gupta S. COVID-19 Pandemic Had Minimal Impact on Colonoscopy Completion After Colorectal Cancer Red Flag Sign or Symptoms in US Veterans. Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Apr;68(4):1208-1217. doi: 10.1007/s10620-022-07685-4. Epub 2022 Sep 28.
Gawron AJ, Bailey T, Codden R, Dominitz J, Gupta S, Helfrich C, Kahi C, Krop L, Malvar C, McKee G, Millar M, Mog A, Nguyen-Vu T, Patterson O, Presson AP, Saini S, Whooley M, Yao Y, Zickmund S, Kaltenbach T. Improving colonoscopy quality in the national VA healthcare system. Contemp Clin Trials. 2025 Feb;149:107784. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2024.107784. Epub 2024 Dec 25.
Gawron AJ, Mckee G, Dominitz JA, Yao Y, Whooley M, Kaltenbach T. Validation of a National Pathology Database for Colonoscopy Quality Reporting and Assurance. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr;23(5):866-868.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.08.017. Epub 2024 Aug 28. No abstract available.
Kaltenbach T, Gawron A, Meyer CS, Gupta S, Shergill A, Dominitz JA, Soetikno RM, Nguyen-Vu T, A Whooley M, Kahi CJ. Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) Irrespective of Indication Is Comparable to Screening ADR: Implications for Quality Monitoring. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1883-1889.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.02.028. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
Trivedi M, Godil S, Demb J, Earles A, Bustamante R, Patterson OV, Gawron AJ, Kaltenbach T, Mahata S, Liu L, Gupta S. Baseline Characteristics and Longitudinal Outcomes of Traditional Serrated Adenomas: A Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Jun;21(6):1637-1645. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.030. Epub 2022 Oct 12.
Gawron AJ, Horner B, Zurbuchen R, Boynton K, Fang JC. A comprehensive intervention to enhance inpatient colon preparation quality for colonoscopy. Minerva Gastroenterol (Torino). 2023 Sep;69(3):351-358. doi: 10.23736/S2724-5985.21.02766-5. Epub 2021 Apr 1.
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
SDR 18-148
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.