Polyp Sizing Poster Improves Polyp Measurement but Not Adenoma Detection Rates by Endoscopists in a Large Community Practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Accurate sizing of polyps and improving adenoma detection rates (ADR) are important goals for high-quality colonoscopy. Surveillance intervals are based on accurate sizing of polyps. There are no clinical tools or interventions that have demonstrated improvement in both these metrics. We investigated the efficacy of a simple, low-cost intervention, based on use of polyp sizing posters to improve measurements of polyps and increase ADRs during colonoscopy at a large gastroenterology community practice. METHODS:We collected data on polyp measurements and ADRs by 62 gastrointestinal endoscopists at a large multi-site community practice, from January to November 2015 (baseline). In a prospective study, endoscopy units were given a polyp sizing poster to be hung above the endoscopy video monitor (intervention group, for 33 endoscopists) or for usual care (control group, for 29 endoscopists) in December 2015, and we collected data on polyp measurements and ADRs over the following 6 months (January-June 2016). We compared the endoscopists' assessment of polyp size and their ADRs before and after the intervention using a mixed effects proportional odds model, controlling for provider age and sex and patient and indication for colonoscopy. Our primary aim was to assess the effect of the snare and forcep-based polyp sizing poster on change in polyp size. The secondary aim was to study the effect of the polyp sizing poster on ADR. RESULTS:Our final analysis included 85,657 polyps from 38,307 colonoscopies. The characteristics of patients who underwent colonoscopy were similar between the control and intervention group (median age, 61 years; 48.1% female; 53.9% undergoing screening; 31.4% undergoing surveillance; 14.7% receiving a diagnostic colonoscopy). The endoscopists' median age was 51 years (range, 33-76) years, and 15 were women (24.2%). During the baseline period, male endoscopists were more likely to size polyps larger than measurements made by female endoscopists (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% CI, 1.24-2.55; P = .002). For the intervention group, 78.6% of polyps were assigned to the 1-5 mm category during the baseline period compared to 76.0% after the intervention, whereas the proportions of polyps assigned to the 6-10 mm category increased from 16.9% during the baseline period to 18.3% after the intervention. In the control group, 78.9% of polyps were assigned to the 1-5 mm category during the baseline period and 78.3% were assigned to this group in the prospective study; 16.5% of polyps were assigned to the 6-10 mm during the baseline period and 17.5% were assigned to this group in the prospective study. The interaction between intervention group and timing (baseline vs after the intervention) was statistically significant, with an increase in the odds of larger polyp sizing after the intervention (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.23; P < .001). The odds of larger polyp measurement during the intervention period, compared to the baseline period, increased for male endoscopists (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.27; P < .001) and female endoscopists (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.36; P = .04), as well as for younger physicians (<50 years; OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46; P < .001) but not for older physicians (>50 years; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .44). The average ADR for male and female endoscopists combined during the baseline period was 42%. The change in ADR from the baseline vs the post-intervention was an increase of 2.6% in the control group compared to 5.7% in the intervention group (P = .39) CONCLUSIONS: Placement of a polyp sizing poster above the endoscopy video monitor increases the odds of polyps being assigned a larger size but does not affect ADRs.