Literature DB >> 16494586

Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital.

Florence Aslinia1, Lance Uradomo, Allison Steele, Bruce D Greenwald, Jean-Pierre Raufman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite increased emphasis on endoscopic performance indicators, e.g., cecal intubation rates, limited data from actual clinical practice have been published.
OBJECTIVES: Retrospective database review to determine the rate and documentation of cecal intubation during colonoscopy at the University of Maryland Medical Center.
METHODS: We reviewed 5,477 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 10 faculty gastroenterologists at a University hospital over a 6-yr period (March 1, 1999 to February 28, 2005). Unadjusted cecal intubation rates were analyzed as were rates that were adjusted based on the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer recommendations. We analyzed trends in overall and individual cecal intubation rates, circumstances that impact these rates, and the quality of documentation of cecal intubation.
RESULTS: The overall adjusted cecal intubation rate for the entire 6 yr was 90.3%, and increased over the study period with the highest adjusted rate (93.7%) in the most recent year studied. There was no correlation between cecal intubation rate and patient age, gastroenterology fellow involvement, or endoscopist experience and number of procedures/year. In contrast, colon cancer screening, male gender, outpatient colonoscopy, and adequate bowel preparation predicted a higher cecal intubation rate. Written and photographic documentation of cecal intubation improved significantly after 2002.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed cecal intubation and documentation rates that meet current guidelines, and identified factors that may cause substantial variance in these rates depending on the nature of the practice. The present analysis confirms that computerized databases can be used to assess individual and group cecal intubation and documentation rates on an annual basis, and to make these data available to the public.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16494586     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00494.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  71 in total

1.  Trainees' adenoma detection rate is higher if ≥ 10 minutes is spent on withdrawal during colonoscopy.

Authors:  Mark A Gromski; Christopher A Miller; Suck-Ho Lee; Eun Seo Park; Tae Hoon Lee; Sang-Heum Park; Il-Kwun Chung; Sun-Joo Kim; Young Hwangbo
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Assessing colonoscopy training outcomes using quality indicators.

Authors:  Leigh D Eckert; Matthew W Short; Jason E Domagalski; Khalid A Jaboori; Patricia A Short
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2009-09

3.  Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration: Relatively low sensitivity in the endosonographer population.

Authors:  Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Thibaud Koessler; Jeanin E van Hooft; Paul Fockens
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Endoscopic management of failed colonoscopy in clinical practice: to change endoscopist, instrument, or both?

Authors:  Sergio Morini; Angelo Zullo; Cesare Hassan; Roberto Lorenzetti; Salvatore M A Campo
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-08-05       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  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

6.  The impact of advances in instrumentation and techniques of colonoscopy from 1988 to 2008 on inpatient colonoscopy performance at a high volume endoscopy unit in the United States: significantly shorter procedure time, higher completion rate, performance on sicker inpatients, and near disappearance of flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Mitchell S Cappell; Rami Abboud
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-04-17       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  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

8.  Sedation-risk-free colonoscopy for minimizing the burden of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Felix W Leung; Abdulrahman M Aljebreen; Emilio Brocchi; Eugene B Chang; Wei-Chih Liao; Takeshi Mizukami; Melvin Schapiro; Konstantinos Triantafyllou
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-03-16

Review 9.  Methods of reducing discomfort during colonoscopy.

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

10.  Characterization of TCP-1 probes for molecular imaging of colon cancer.

Authors:  Zhonglin Liu; Brian D Gray; Christy Barber; Michael Bernas; Minying Cai; Lars R Furenlid; Andrew Rouse; Charmi Patel; Bhaskar Banerjee; Rongguang Liang; Arthur F Gmitro; Marlys H Witte; Koon Y Pak; James M Woolfenden
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 9.776

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.