Literature DB >> 19106730

Rates of complete colonic evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy and their associated factors: a population-based study.

Randy Rizek1, Lawrence F Paszat, Therese A Stukel, Refik Saskin, Cindy Li, Linda Rabeneck.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of colonoscopy there is growing concern about the quality of these procedures.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rates of complete colonic evaluation after an incomplete colonoscopy and their associated factors.
METHODS: Men and women > or =50 years old living in Ontario on January 1, 1997 who did not have a prior history of colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, or colonic resection comprised the inception cohort. Receipt of an incomplete colonoscopy between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2002 was determined. Individuals were followed over 1 year and the time from incomplete colonoscopy to complete colonic evaluation was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A generalized estimating equations model was used to evaluate the association between patient, physician, and setting factors and complete colonic evaluation.
RESULTS: Twenty thousand one hundred sixty-six individuals had an incomplete colonoscopy, of whom 29.4% underwent complete colonic evaluation within 1 year after the procedure. Women > or =80 years were less likely to undergo complete colonic evaluation (odds ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.79-0.99), as were those who had their colonoscopy in a private office or clinic (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.89).
CONCLUSIONS: Only 29.4% of individuals with an incomplete colonoscopy underwent complete colonic evaluation within 1 year after the procedure. Women > or =80 years and those who had their colonoscopy in a private office or clinic were less likely to undergo complete colonic evaluation. The quality of care provided to older women and colonoscopy practice in office settings may be suboptimal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19106730     DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d92bc

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Colometer: a real-time quality feedback system for screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Dobromir Filip; Xuexin Gao; Leticia Angulo-Rodríguez; Martin P Mintchev; Shane M Devlin; Alaa Rostom; Wayne Rosen; Christopher N Andrews
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Is there a role for colon capsule endoscopy beyond colorectal cancer screening? A literature review.

Authors:  Konstantinos Triantafyllou; Iosif Beintaris; George D Dimitriadis
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Factors associated with colonoscopy performed in nonhospital settings.

Authors:  Othman Alharbi; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence Paszat; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Rinku Sutradhar; Lingsong Yun; Christopher M Vinden; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 5.  Review: capsule colonoscopy-a concise clinical overview of current status.

Authors:  Diana E Yung; Emanuele Rondonotti; Anastasios Koulaouzidis
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-10

6.  When and why a colonoscopist should discontinue colonoscopy by himself?

Authors:  Tao Gan; Jin-Lin Yang; Jun-Chao Wu; Yi-Ping Wang; Li Yang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Colonoscopy: basic principles and novel techniques.

Authors:  Yark Hazewinkel; Evelien Dekker
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 46.802

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.