BACKGROUND: Wait times for hospital screening colonoscopy have increased dramatically in recent years, resulting in an increase in patient referrals to office-based endoscopy clinics. There is no formal regulation of office endoscopy, and it has been suggested that the quality of service in some office locations may be inferior to hospital procedures. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of office-based screening colonoscopies at a clinic in Oakville, Ontario, with published benchmarks for cecal intubation, withdrawal times, polyp detection, adenoma detection, cancer detection and patient complications. METHODS: Demographic information on consecutive patients and colonoscopy reports by all nine gastroenterologists at the Oakville Endoscopy Centre between August 2006 and December 2007 were prospectively obtained. RESULTS: A total of 3741 colonoscopies were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 57.1 years and 51.9% were women. The cecal intubation rate was 98.98% with an average withdrawal time of 9.75 min. A total of 3857 polyps were retrieved from 1725 patients (46.11%), and 1721 adenomas were detected in 953 patients (25.47%). A total of 126 patients (3.37%) had advanced polyps and 18 (0.48%) were diagnosed with colon cancer. One patient (0.027%) had a colonic perforation and two patients had postpolypectomy bleeding (0.053%). These results meet or exceed published benchmarks for quality colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The Ontario Endoscopy Centre data demonstrate that office-based colonoscopies, performed by well-trained physicians using adequate sedation and hospital-grade equipment, result in outcomes at least equal to or better than those of published academic/community hospital practices and are therefore a viable option for the future of screening colonoscopy in Canada.
BACKGROUND: Wait times for hospital screening colonoscopy have increased dramatically in recent years, resulting in an increase in patient referrals to office-based endoscopy clinics. There is no formal regulation of office endoscopy, and it has been suggested that the quality of service in some office locations may be inferior to hospital procedures. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of office-based screening colonoscopies at a clinic in Oakville, Ontario, with published benchmarks for cecal intubation, withdrawal times, polyp detection, adenoma detection, cancer detection and patient complications. METHODS: Demographic information on consecutive patients and colonoscopy reports by all nine gastroenterologists at the Oakville Endoscopy Centre between August 2006 and December 2007 were prospectively obtained. RESULTS: A total of 3741 colonoscopies were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 57.1 years and 51.9% were women. The cecal intubation rate was 98.98% with an average withdrawal time of 9.75 min. A total of 3857 polyps were retrieved from 1725 patients (46.11%), and 1721 adenomas were detected in 953 patients (25.47%). A total of 126 patients (3.37%) had advanced polyps and 18 (0.48%) were diagnosed with colon cancer. One patient (0.027%) had a colonic perforation and two patients had postpolypectomy bleeding (0.053%). These results meet or exceed published benchmarks for quality colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The Ontario Endoscopy Centre data demonstrate that office-based colonoscopies, performed by well-trained physicians using adequate sedation and hospital-grade equipment, result in outcomes at least equal to or better than those of published academic/community hospital practices and are therefore a viable option for the future of screening colonoscopy in Canada.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Desmond Leddin; Richard Hunt; Malcolm Champion; Alan Cockeram; Nigel Flook; Michael Gould; Young-In Kim; Jonathan Love; David Morgan; Susan Natsheh; Dan Sadowski Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: D T Simmons; G C Harewood; T H Baron; B T Petersen; K K Wang; F Boyd-Enders; B J Ott Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Nicolle M Gatto; Harold Frucht; Vijaya Sundararajan; Judith S Jacobson; Victor R Grann; Alfred I Neugut Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-02-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mark Ram Borgaonkar; Lawrence Hookey; Roger Hollingworth; Ernst J Kuipers; Alan Forster; David Armstrong; Alan Barkun; Ron Bridges; Rose Carter; Chris de Gara; Catherine Dube; Robert Enns; Donald Macintosh; Sylviane Forget; Grigorios Leontiadis; Jonathan Meddings; Peter Cotton; Roland Valori Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Sang Man Park; Soon Hak Lee; Keun Young Shin; Jun Heo; Sang Hun Sung; Soon Hong Park; So Young Choi; Dong Wook Lee; Hyun Gu Park; Hyun Seok Lee; Seong Woo Jeon; Sung Kook Kim; Min Kyu Jung Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jae Il Chung; Nayoung Kim; Min Sik Um; Kyung Phil Kang; Donghun Lee; Jong Chun Na; Eun Sil Lee; Yeon Mu Chung; Ji Yeon Won; Kwang Ho Lee; Tek Man Nam; Jung Hun Lee; Hyun Chul Choi; Sang Hyub Lee; Young Soo Park; Jin Hyuk Hwang; Jin-Wook Kim; Sook-Hyang Jeong; Dong Ho Lee Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Ankie Reumkens; Eveline J A Rondagh; C Minke Bakker; Bjorn Winkens; Ad A M Masclee; Silvia Sanduleanu Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Carol M Lewis; Amy C Hessel; Dianna B Roberts; Yunxia Z Guo; F Christopher Holsinger; Lawrence E Ginsberg; Adel K El-Naggar; Randal S Weber Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2010-12
Authors: Joseph W Leung; Lynne D Do; Rodelei M Siao-Salera; Catherine Ngo; Dhavan A Parikh; Surinder K Mann; Felix W Leung Journal: J Interv Gastroenterol Date: 2011-01
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
Authors: Ja Sung Choi; Young Hoon Youn; Sang Kil Lee; Jin Yi Choi; Hee Man Kim; Yu Jin Kim; Ki Jun Han; Hyeon Geun Cho; Si Young Song; Jae Hee Cho Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 4.584