Literature DB >> 12612515

Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists.

Peter B Cotton1, Patrick Connor, Daniel McGee, Paul Jowell, Nick Nickl, Steve Schutz, Joseph Leung, John Lee, Eric Libby.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The medical profession, payers, and patients are interested increasingly in the quality of endoscopic procedures, including colonoscopy. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has recommended "report cards" by which endoscopists may keep track of certain key elements of their practice including indications, findings, duration, technical end points, complications, and patient satisfaction.
METHODS: The GI-Trac endoscopy reporting database includes many of the data points recommended by ASGE for report cards. Seven hospital centers in North America have been collecting data prospectively for varying periods since 1994. These data were aggregated and analyzed by individual endoscopist. A total of 69 endoscopists performed 17,868 colonoscopies.
RESULTS: Twelve percent of the endoscopists reported that more than 20% of procedures they performed were completely normal. The average time taken by 27% of endoscopists was more than 40 minutes (without trainees involved), and only 55% achieved a cecal intubation rate of over 90%; for 9% the rate was less than 80%. Complication rates were too low for individual comparisons.
CONCLUSION: These data provide an idea of colonoscopy performance by individual endoscopists in mainly academic centers. Incorporating all recommended data elements in future reporting databases will contribute to meaningful bench marking and to quality improvement efforts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12612515     DOI: 10.1067/mge.2003.121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  29 in total

1.  Determining scope position during colonoscopy without use of ionizing radiation or magnetic imaging: the enhanced mapping ability of the NeoGuide Endoscopy System.

Authors:  Johannes Striegel; Ralf Jakobs; Jacques Van Dam; Uwe Weickert; Jürgen F Riemann; Axel Eickhoff
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  The quality of colonoscopy services--responsibilities of referring clinicians: a consensus statement of the Quality Assurance Task Group, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

Authors:  Robert H Fletcher; Marion R Nadel; John I Allen; Jason A Dominitz; Douglas O Faigel; David A Johnson; Dorothy S Lane; David Lieberman; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; Deborah P Robin; Paul C Schroy; Robert A Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians with standby specialist support.

Authors:  Sudha Xirasagar; Thomas G Hurley; Lekhena Sros; James R Hebert
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Relationship of colonoscopy completion rates and endoscopist features.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 5.  Quality indicators in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Robert Enns
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.522

6.  Unsedated colonoscopy introduced to ensure access is acceptable to a subgroup of veterans.

Authors:  Felix W Leung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 7.  The difficult colonoscopy.

Authors:  Todd N Witte; Robert Enns
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 8.  Mechanical analysis of insertion problems and pain during colonoscopy: why highly skill-dependent colonoscopy routines are necessary in the first place... and how they may be avoided.

Authors:  Arjo J Loeve; Paul Fockens; Paul Breedveld
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 9.  Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy.

Authors:  Felix W Leung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) sedation: clinical utility of fospropofol.

Authors:  Eric A Harris; David A Lubarsky; Keith A Candiotti
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.423

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.