Literature DB >> 14724164

A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?

C J A Bowles1, R Leicester, C Romaya, E Swarbrick, C B Williams, O Epstein.   

Abstract

AIM: To study the availability and quality of adult and paediatric colonoscopy in three National Health Service (NHS) regions.
METHOD: A prospective four month study of colonoscopies in North East Thames, West Midlands, and East Anglia. PATIENTS: Subjects undergoing colonoscopy in 68 endoscopy units.
RESULTS: A total of 9223 colonoscopies were studied. The mean number of colonoscopies performed over the four month period was 142 in district general hospitals and 213 in teaching hospitals. Intravenous sedation was administered in 94.6% of procedures, but 2.2% and 11.4% of "at risk" patients did not have continuous venous access or did not receive supplemental oxygen, respectively. Caecal intubation was recorded in 76.9% of procedures but the adjusted caecal intubation rate was only 56.9%. Reasons for failing to reach the caecum included patient discomfort (34.7%), looping (29.7%), and poor bowel preparation (19.6%). A normal colonoscopy was reported in 42.1%. The most common diagnosis was polyps (22.5%) followed by diverticular disease (14.9%). Inflammatory bowel disease was recorded in 13.9% and carcinoma in 3.8%. Only half of the patients remembered being told of possible adverse events prior to the procedure. Rectal bleeding requiring admission following colonoscopy was reported in six patients. The overall perforation rate was 1:769 and colonoscopy was considered a possible factor in six deaths occurring within 30 days of the procedure. Only 17.0% of colonoscopists had received supervised training for their first 100 colonoscopies and only 39.3% had attended a training course.
CONCLUSION: There is serious under provision of colonoscopy service in most NHS hospitals. Endoscopy sedation guidelines are not always adhered to and there is a wide variation in practice between units. Colonoscopy is often incomplete and does not achieve the target 90% caecal intubation rate. Serious complications of colonoscopy were comparable with previous studies. Training in colonoscopy is often inadequate and improved practice should result from better training.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14724164      PMCID: PMC1774946          DOI: 10.1136/gut.2003.016436

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  35 in total

1.  Colonoscopy services in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  B Macfarlane; R Leicester; C Romaya; O Epstein
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 10.093

2.  Management of colonoscopic perforations.

Authors:  D R Farley; M P Bannon; S P Zietlow; J H Pemberton; D M Ilstrup; D R Larson
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 7.616

3.  Complications and adverse effects of colonoscopy with selective sedation.

Authors:  V F Eckardt; G Kanzler; T Schmitt; A J Eckardt; G Bernhard
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Meta-analysis and cost comparison of polyethylene glycol lavage versus sodium phosphate for colonoscopy preparation.

Authors:  C W Hsu; T F Imperiale
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale.

Authors:  S J Winawer; R H Fletcher; L Miller; F Godlee; M H Stolar; C D Mulrow; S H Woolf; S N Glick; T G Ganiats; J H Bond; L Rosen; J G Zapka; S J Olsen; F M Giardiello; J E Sisk; R Van Antwerp; C Brown-Davis; D A Marciniak; R J Mayer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J D Hardcastle; J O Chamberlain; M H Robinson; S M Moss; S S Amar; T W Balfour; P D James; C M Mangham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test.

Authors:  O Kronborg; C Fenger; J Olsen; O D Jørgensen; O Søndergaard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-30       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Premedication with intravenous antispasmodic speeds colonoscope insertion.

Authors:  B P Saunders; C B Williams
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  A comparison of Fleet Phospho-soda with Picolax in the preparation of the colon for double contrast barium enema.

Authors:  A J Macleod; K A Duncan; R H Pearson; R R Bleakney
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.350

10.  Sodium picosulphate compared with polyethylene glycol solution for large bowel lavage: a prospective randomised trial.

Authors:  D Hamilton; D Mulcahy; D Walsh; C Farrelly; W P Tormey; G Watson
Journal:  Br J Clin Pract       Date:  1996-03
View more
  166 in total

Review 1.  CT colonography: perforation rates and potential radiation risks.

Authors:  A Berrington de Gonzalez; Kwang Pyo Kim; Judy Yee
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2010-04

2.  A snapshot of colonoscopy practice in England: stimulus for improvement.

Authors:  K Palmer; A I Morris
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study.

Authors:  Jennifer E Ball; Jane Osbourne; Sarah Jowett; Mike Pellen; Mark R Welfare
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-09-18

4.  Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story.

Authors:  Vittorio Terruzzi; Silvia Paggi; Arnaldo Amato; Franco Radaelli
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-04-16

5.  Underutilisation of the gastroscope for total colonoscopy in adults: a survey of two European countries.

Authors:  Andriani Koumi; Evangelos Kalaitzakis; Alastair Forbes; Marios Z Panos
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  A reel mechanism-based robotic colonoscope with high safety and maneuverability.

Authors:  Dongkyu Lee; Seonggun Joe; Hyeongseok Kang; Taeyoung An; Byungkyu Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy.

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

Review 8.  Colorectal cancer surveillance: what's new and what's next.

Authors:  Johnie Rose; Knut Magne Augestad; Gregory S Cooper
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Approach to Incomplete Colonoscopy: New Techniques and Technologies.

Authors:  Diana L Franco; Jonathan A Leighton; Suryakanth R Gurudu
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2017-08

10.  Colonoscopy in the very old: why bother?

Authors:  K K Y Yoong; T Heymann
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.401

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.