Literature DB >> 17434349

Factors associated with the technical performance of colonoscopy: An EPAGE Study.

J K Harris1, F Froehlich, V Wietlisbach, B Burnand, J-J Gonvers, J-P Vader.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Variations in colonoscopy practice exist, which may be related to healthcare quality. AIMS: To determine factors associated with three performance indicators of colonoscopy: complete colonoscopy, adenomatous polyp diagnosis, and duration. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy from 21 centres in 11 countries.
METHODS: This prospective observational study used multiple variable regression analyses to identify determinants of the quality indicators.
RESULTS: Six thousand and four patients were included in the study. Patients from private, open-access centres (odds ratio: 3.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.87-5.38) were more likely to have a complete colonoscopy than patients from public, gatekeeper centres. Patients from centres where over 50% of the endoscopists were of senior rank were roughly twice as likely to have an adenoma diagnosed, and longer average withdrawal duration (odds ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.09) was associated with more frequent adenoma diagnoses. Patients who had difficulty during colonoscopy had longer durations to caecum (time ratio: 2.87, 95% confidence interval: 2.72-3.01) and withdrawal durations (time ratio: 1.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.18-1.33) than patients who had no difficulties.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors have been identified as being associated with key quality indicators. The non-modifiable factors permit the identification of patients who may be at greater risk of not having quality colonoscopy, while changes to the modifiable factors may help improve the quality of colonoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17434349     DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2007.02.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Liver Dis        ISSN: 1590-8658            Impact factor:   4.088


  11 in total

1.  Colonoscopy withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2007-08

2.  Queue position in the endoscopic schedule impacts effectiveness of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Alexander Lee; John M Iskander; Nitin Gupta; Brian B Borg; Gary Zuckerman; Bhaskar Banerjee; C Prakash Gyawali
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  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

4.  An endoscopic training model to improve accuracy of colonic polyp size measurement.

Authors:  Chi-Yang Chang; Han-Mo Chiu; Hsiu-Po Wang; Ching-Tai Lee; John Jen Tai; Chia-Hung Tu; Chi-Ming Tai; Tsung-Hsien Chiang; Jason Kunming Huang; Dun-Cheng Chang; Jaw-Town Lin
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Maximizing the general success of cecal intubation during propofol sedation in a multi-endoscopist academic centre.

Authors:  Fabrizio Cardin; Nadia Minicuci; Alessandra Andreotti; Elena Pinetti; Federico Campigotto; Barbara M Donà; Bruno Martella; Oreste Terranova
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Withdrawal time in excellent or very poor bowel preparation qualities.

Authors:  David Widjaja; Manoj Bhandari; Vivian Loveday-Laghi; Mariela Glandt; Bhavna Balar
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-05-16

7.  Open-access colonoscopy on Ontario: associated factors and quality.

Authors:  Shane Hadlock; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Andrew S Wilton; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 8.  Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Roisin Bevan; Katharina Zimmermann-Fraedrich; Matthew D Rutter; Douglas Rex; Evelien Dekker; Thierry Ponchon; Michael Bretthauer; Jaroslaw Regula; Brian Saunders; Cesare Hassan; Michael J Bourke; Thomas Rösch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  Impact of responsive insertion technology (RIT) on reducing discomfort during colonoscopy: randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Artur Pasternak; Miroslaw Szura; Rafal Solecki; Maciej Matyja; Antoni Szczepanik; Andrzej Matyja
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Factors influencing challenging colonoscopies during anesthesiologist-assisted deep sedation.

Authors:  Fabrizio Cardin; Nadia Minicuci; Alessandra Andreotti; Elisa Granziera; Carmelo Militello
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.485

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.