Elsevier

Clinical Radiology

Volume 60, Issue 5, May 2005, Pages 558-564
Clinical Radiology

National audit of the sensitivity of double-contrast barium enema for colorectal carcinoma, using control charts: For the Royal College of Radiologists Clinical Radiology Audit Sub-Committee

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2004.09.014Get rights and content

AIM

To audit the sensitivity of double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) for colorectal carcinoma, as currently practised in UK departments of radiology.

METHODS

As part of its programme of national audits, the Royal College of Radiologists Clinical Radiology Audit Sub-Committee undertook a retrospective audit of the sensitivity of DCBE for colorectal carcinoma during 2002. The following targets were set: demonstration of a lesion ≥95%; correct identification as a carcinoma ≥90%.

RESULTS

Across the UK, 131 departments took part in the audit, involving 5454 examinations. The mean demonstration rate was 92.9% and the diagnosis rate was 85.9%, slightly below the targets set. The equivocal rate (lesion demonstrated, but not defined as malignant) was 6.9%, the perception failure rate was 2.8% and the technical failure rate was 4.4%. Control-chart methodology was used to analyze the data and to identify any departments whose performance was consistent with special-cause variation.

CONCLUSION

When compared with the diagnosis rate (84.6%) and demonstration rate (92.7%) reported in the Wessex Audit 1995, [Thomas RD, Fairhurst JJ, Frost RA. Wessex regional audit: barium enema in colo-rectal carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1995;50:647–50.1] a similar level of performance was observed in the NHS today, implying that the basic process for undertaking and reporting DCBE has remained relatively unchanged over the last few years. Improvement in the future will require fundamental changes to the process of reporting DCBE, in order to minimize the perception failure rate and accurately to describe lesions, so reducing the equivocal rate. Control-chart methodology has a useful role in identifying strategies to deliver continual improvement.

Introduction

Double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) is a standard technique for investigating colonic disease, and is widely used in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Ideally, 100% of such lesions would be demonstrated on DCBE and diagnosed (interpreted) correctly. Unfortunately, 100% rates are seldom, if ever, attainable2, 3, 4, 5, 6 because some lesions cannot be seen, because it is sometimes not possible to be sure that the lesion is malignant, and because human error in perceiving and reporting the lesion cannot be ruled out. Less than 100% performance can have potentially adverse consequences for patient outcomes and satisfaction, stemming from delayed diagnosis. In 1995, the Wessex Regional Audit1 found the average demonstration rate of 10 radiology departments was 92.7% (96.8% after correction for errors of perception) and the diagnosis rate was 84.6%. The authors proposed targets of 97% demonstration rates and 94% diagnosis rates.

We undertook a national audit of DCBE demonstration and diagnosis rates to determine if any improvement had occurred since the Wessex Regional Audit (1995), and also to provide guidance on how current performance could be improved. For the latter purpose, we adopted Shewhart's theory of variation,7, 8 which seeks to provide guidance on the action required to deliver continual improvement. After some debate, we adopted the targets set out in Table 1. These targets are higher than those reported by the Wessex Audit and lower than those it proposed for re-audit, but were considered by the Audit Sub-Committee as attainable procedural and personal standards.

Section snippets

Methods

All 302 UK NHS radiology departments on the Royal College of Radiology (RCR) audit database were, through their nominated contact, invited to participate; 131 did so. A consultant radiologist from each department was asked to undertake this retrospective study and to obtain, from the pathology department, a list of colorectal cancer cases with a histologically confirmed diagnosis recorded during the year 2001. This list was then used to identify all such patients who had had a DCBE at any time

Results

Fig. 1 displays on a control chart the diagnosis rate for all departments. The overall diagnosis rate, horizontal line, was 85.9% (4687/5454), range 50% to 100%. The control chart divides the departments into three distinct groups. The 7 departments on or above the upper control limit indicate that special-cause variation rather than chance has produced these high diagnosis rates. The 3 departments below the lower control limit again imply special-cause variation, this time producing low

Discussion

The overall diagnosis rate (85.9%) in this study is comparable with that of the Wessex Audit (84.6%), but the range in our study was wide (50% to 100%), as was that in Wessex (36% to 95%). To improve the diagnosis rate, we need to identify strategies for shifting the mean and reducing the tail. The control-charts methodology incorporates such guidance. The 7 departments that had particularly high diagnosis rates should be studied to learn from their apparently superior process, although the

Conclusion

When set against the diagnosis rates and demonstration rates reported in the Wessex Audit 1995,1 it appears that a similar level of performance is currently being achieved in the NHS today, suggesting that the basic process for undertaking and reporting DCBE has remain relatively unchanged over the last few years. This indicates that improvement in the future requires fundamental changes to the process of reporting DCBE, in order to minimize the perception failure rate and accurately to

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the radiologists of the 131 participating departments for their contribution to this audit, particularly the audit leads, who were responsible for collating and submitting the data. Without their hard work, national audits such as this would not be possible. We would also wish to thank our colleagues from the Clinical Radiology Audit Sub-Committee for their input into the preparation of this paper.

References (14)

  • R.D. Thomas et al.

    Wessex regional audit: barium enema in colo-rectal carcinoma

    Clin Radiol

    (1995)
  • M.A. Mohammed et al.

    Bristol, Shipman and clinical governance: Shewhart's forgotten lessons

    Lancet

    (2001)
  • G. Stephenson et al.

    Barium enema in the diagnosis of colonic carcinoma

    Austrian Clin Rev

    (1984)
  • N. Anderson et al.

    Colonoscopically detected colo-rectal cancer missed on barium enema

    Gastrointest Radiol

    (1991)
  • F.-T. Fort

    Radiographic findings in overlooked colon carcinomas: a retrospective analysis

    Acta Radiol

    (1998)
  • F.M. Kelvin et al.

    Colo-rectal carcinoma missed on double contrast barium enema study: a problem in perception

    Am J Roentgenol

    (1981)
  • S. Bolin et al.

    Carcinoma of the colon and rectum: tumours missed by radiologic examination in 61 patients

    Cancer

    (1988)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text