Literature DB >> 17273959

Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice.

G Imperiali1, G Minoli, G M Meucci, G Spinzi, E Strocchi, V Terruzzi, F Radaelli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) is recommended by professional societies as part of every colonoscopy program, but little is known with regard to its effectiveness for colonoscopy outcomes. We prospectively assessed whether the implementation of a CQI program in routine clinical practice influences the quality performance of colonoscopy.
METHODS: In an open-access endoscopy unit at a secondary care center in Northern Italy, 6-monthly audit cycles were carried out over a 4-year period, to identify reasons for poor colonoscopy outcomes and institute appropriate changes to improve performance. The colonoscopy completion rate and the polyp detection rate as detected by endoscopists were considered to be key measures for improvement.
RESULTS: The initial crude colonoscopy completion rate was 84.6%, with a range for individual endoscopists 80.4%-94%. Four endoscopists had a completion rate lower than 90%. The overall polyp detection rate was 34%, with a wide variation among endoscopists (range 14%-42%). Poor patient tolerance and differences in colonoscopist expertise were the main determinants of lack of completion and variation in polyp detection rate. Changes to sedation practice, greater access to endoscopy sessions for the endoscopists with the lowest performance rates, and other organizational arrangements, were implemented to improve quality performance. The crude completion rates improved consistently, up to 93.1%, over the study period. This trend was confirmed even when adjusted completion rates were calculated. All endoscopists reached a crude completion rate of 90% or more and a polyp detection rate of over 20%. The introduction of CQI did not significantly change the overall incidence of procedure-related complications.
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of colonoscopy can be improved by implementing a CQI program in routine colonoscopy practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17273959     DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-945196

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  19 in total

1.  Improved bowel preparation increases polyp detection and unmasks significant polyp miss rate.

Authors:  Ioannis S Papanikolaou; Athanasios D Sioulas; Nektarios Magdalinos; Iosif Beintaris; Lazaros-Dimitrios Lazaridis; Dimitrios Polymeros; Chrysoula Malli; George D Dimitriadis; Konstantinos Triantafyllou
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 1.337

Review 2.  Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act.

Authors:  Mary A Atia; Francisco C Ramirez; Suryakanth R Gurudu
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

Review 3.  Quality Improvement in Gastroenterology: A Systematic Review of Practical Interventions for Clinicians.

Authors:  Courtney Reynolds; Eric Esrailian; Daniel Hommes
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  The proof is in the pudding: improving adenoma detection rates reduces interval colon cancer development.

Authors:  Sarah B Umar; Francisco C Ramirez
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-12-01

5.  Establishing a quality indicator format for endoscopic ultrasound.

Authors:  Jesse Lachter; Benjamin Bluen; Irving Waxman; Wafaa Bellan
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-11-16

6.  Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Volker Moritz; Michael Bretthauer; Øyvind Holme; Morten Wang Fagerland; Magnus Løberg; Tom Glomsaker; Thomas de Lange; Birgitte Seip; Per Sandvei; Geir Hoff
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 4.623

7.  Segmental increases in force application during colonoscope insertion: quantitative analysis using force monitoring technology.

Authors:  Louis Y Korman; Lawrence J Brandt; David C Metz; Nadim G Haddad; Stanley B Benjamin; Susan K Lazerow; Hannah L Miller; David A Greenwald; Sameer Desale; Milind Patel; Armen Sarvazyan
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Factors influencing variation in physician adenoma detection rates: a theory-based approach for performance improvement.

Authors:  Louise Atkins; Enid M Hunkeler; Christopher D Jensen; Susan Michie; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Theodore R Levin; Virginia P Quinn; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 9.  Colorectal cancer: from prevention to personalized medicine.

Authors:  Gemma Binefa; Francisco Rodríguez-Moranta; Alex Teule; Manuel Medina-Hayas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  Different standards for healthy screenees than patients in routine clinics?

Authors:  Geir Hoff
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.