Ahmad Ahmir, Dhillon Angad, Saunders Brian P, Kabir Misha, Thomas-Gibson Siwan
St Mark's Hospital, Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, London, UK.
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2022 Jan 24;13(5):374-380. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2021-102016. eCollection 2022.
Our aim was to determine aetiology of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) identified from population-based data through local root cause analysis at a high-volume mixed secondary and tertiary referral centre.
DESIGN/METHOD: A subset of national cancer registration data, collected by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, was used to determine PCCRCs diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 at our centre.Root cause analysis was performed for each identified PCCRC, using World Endoscopy Organisation recommendations, to validate it and assess most plausible explanation. We also assessed whether patient, clinician and/or service factors were primarily responsible.
Of 107 'PCCRC' cases provided from the national dataset, 20 were excluded (16 missing data, 4 duplicates). 87 'PCCRC' cases were included of which 58 were true PCCRCs and 29 false PCCRCs.False PCCRCs comprised 17 detected cancers (cancer diagnosed within 6 months of negative colonoscopy) and 12 cases did not meet PCCRC criteria. Inflammatory bowel disease was the most common risk factor (18/58) and the most common site was rectum (19/58). The most common explanation was 'possible missed lesion, prior examination negative but inadequate' (23/58) and clinician factors were primarily responsible for PCCRC occurrence in most cases (37/58).
Our single-centre study shows, after local analysis, there was misclassification of PCCRCs identified from a population-based registry. The degree of such error will vary between registries. Most PCCRCs occurred in cases of sub-optimal examination as indicated by poor photodocumentation. Effective mechanisms to feedback root cause analyses are critical for quality improvement.
我们的目标是通过在一家大型的二级和三级转诊综合中心进行本地根本原因分析,从基于人群的数据中确定结肠镜检查后结直肠癌(PCCRC)的病因。
设计/方法:使用国家癌症登记与分析服务机构收集的国家癌症登记数据子集,来确定2005年至2013年期间在我们中心诊断出的PCCRC。根据世界内镜组织的建议,对每个确定的PCCRC进行根本原因分析,以验证并评估最合理的解释。我们还评估了患者、临床医生和/或服务因素是否为主要原因。
在国家数据集中提供的107例“PCCRC”病例中,排除了20例(16例数据缺失,4例重复)。纳入了87例“PCCRC”病例,其中58例为真正的PCCRC,29例为假PCCRC。假PCCRC包括17例检测到的癌症(在结肠镜检查阴性后6个月内诊断出癌症),12例不符合PCCRC标准。炎症性肠病是最常见的危险因素(18/58),最常见的部位是直肠(19/58)。最常见的解释是“可能漏诊病变,先前检查阴性但不充分”(23/58),在大多数情况下,临床医生因素是PCCRC发生的主要原因(37/58)。
我们的单中心研究表明,经过本地分析后,从基于人群的登记中识别出的PCCRC存在错误分类。这种错误的程度在不同登记处会有所不同。如照片记录不佳所示,大多数PCCRC发生在检查不充分的情况下。反馈根本原因分析结果的有效机制对于质量改进至关重要。