Literature DB >> 15712636

Relationship of colonoscopy completion rates and endoscopist features.

Gavin C Harewood1.   

Abstract

The success rate for reaching the cecum has been widely discussed as an indicator of technical expertise for colonoscopy. However, few studies have addressed the impact of endoscopist-specific parameters on cecal intubation rates. The aim of this study was to characterize the relationship between endoscopist-specific parameters (age, gender, experience level, annual procedure volume, insertion and withdrawal times) and cecal intubation rates for colonoscopy. Procedural data from all colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists at the outpatient endoscopy unit of Rochester Methodist Hospital, Minnesota, between January and December 2003 were reviewed. Procedural data of 45 endoscopists who performed 17,100 colonoscopies over the study period were analyzed. The average cecal intubation rate was 93.9% (SD, 2.9%). Higher experience level (>9 years [median]) was significantly predictive of a cecal intubation rate >94% (OR = 3.43; 95% CI, 1.03-12.29; P = 0.04). Although higher procedure volume was not predictive of higher colonoscopy completion rates overall, when analysis was confined to the junior faculty members (<5 years' experience), completion rates for those endoscopists doing >200 per year (92.5%) was significantly higher than for those doing <200 per year (88.5%; P = 0.04). Our observations suggest that cecal intubation rates increase with increasing endoscopist experience. Moreover, among junior endoscopists, an annual volume of at least 200 procedures appears to be required to maintain adequate competence. Future prospective studies should provide data to support consensus guidelines recommending minimum annual procedure numbers required for maintenance of endoscopic competence among trained endoscopists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15712636     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-005-1276-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  23 in total

1.  Colonoscopy practice patterns since introduction of medicare coverage for average-risk screening.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; David A Lieberman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 2.  Colonoscoping the "difficult" colon.

Authors:  W A Webb
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 0.688

3.  Photodocumentation of total colonoscopy: how successful are endoscopists? Do reviewers agree?

Authors:  J B Marshall; D N Brown
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Effect of variable stiffness colonoscopes on cecal intubation times for routine colonoscopy by an experienced examiner in sedated patients.

Authors:  D K Rex
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 10.093

Review 5.  Confirmation of cecal intubation during colonoscopy.

Authors:  W C Cirocco; L C Rusin
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.585

6.  History of the Rochester Epidemiology Project.

Authors:  L J Melton
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 7.616

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Colonoscopy: practice variation among 69 hospital-based endoscopists.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Patrick Connor; Daniel McGee; Paul Jowell; Nick Nickl; Steve Schutz; Joseph Leung; John Lee; Eric Libby
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Volume and yield of screening colonoscopy at a tertiary medical center after change in medicare reimbursement.

Authors:  Devang N Prajapati; Kia Saeian; David G Binion; David M Staff; Joseph P Kim; Benson T Massey; Walter J Hogan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  28 in total

1.  Procedure volume influences adherence to celiac disease guidelines.

Authors:  Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Robert C Kapel; Daniel Sheehan; Nina S Lerner; Peter H Green; Alfred I Neugut; Andrew Rundle
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.566

Review 2.  Quality indicators in colonoscopy.

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

3.  Canadian credentialing guidelines for colonoscopy.

Authors:  J Romagnuolo; R Enns; T Ponich; J Springer; D Armstrong; A N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.522

4.  Differences in characteristics of colorectal neoplasm between young and elderly Thais.

Authors:  Rungsun Rerknimitr; Winudda Ratanapanich; Pradermchai Kongkam; Pinit Kullavanijaya
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-12-21       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Canadian credentialing guidelines for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Authors:  Terry Ponich; Robert Enns; Joseph Romagnuolo; Jonathan Springer; David Armstrong; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.522

6.  Polyp detection rates using magnification with narrow band imaging and white light.

Authors:  Nooman Gilani; Sally Stipho; James D Panetta; Sorin Petre; Michele A Young; Francisco C Ramirez
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-05-16

Review 7.  Current state of micro-robots/devices as substitutes for screening colonoscopy: assessment based on technology readiness levels.

Authors:  Silvia C Tapia-Siles; Stuart Coleman; Alfred Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-06-20       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Does use of a colonoscopy imaging device improve performance? A cohort study.

Authors:  James J Wood; Christopher J W Foy; Roland Valori; Michelle E Lucarotti; Aidan L Fowler; Kevin Dowler; Timothy A Cook
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy.

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

10.  Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Vivian E Ekkelenkamp; Kevin Dowler; Roland M Valori; Paul Dunckley
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.