Literature DB >> 19172208

The quality of screening colonoscopies in an office-based endoscopy clinic.

Douglas Bair1, Joe Pham, M Bianca Seaton, Naveen Arya, Michelle Pryce, Trevor L Seaton.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19172208      PMCID: PMC2695147          DOI: 10.1155/2009/831029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0835-7900            Impact factor:   3.522


  19 in total

1.  Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

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

2.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation: Guidelines on colon cancer screening.

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

3.  Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time.

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

4.  Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings.

Authors:  T F Imperiale; D R Wagner; C Y Lin; G N Larkin; J D Rogge; D F Ransohoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.

Authors:  D A Lieberman; D G Weiss; J H Bond; D J Ahnen; H Garewal; G Chejfec
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  A prospective analysis of 13,580 colonoscopies. Reevaluation of credentialing guidelines.

Authors:  S D Wexner; J E Garbus; J J Singh
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-02-06       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Single bolus of midazolam versus bolus midazolam plus meperidine for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

Authors:  Franco Radaelli; Gianmichele Meucci; Vittorio Terruzzi; Giancarlo Spinzi; Gianni Imperiali; Enrico Strocchi; Nicoletta Lenoci; Natalia Terreni; Giovanna Mandelli; Giorgio Minoli
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Sedation associated with a more complete colonoscopy.

Authors:  W M Rodney; G Dabov; E Orientale; W P Reeves
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 0.493

9.  Endoscopic perforation rates at a Canadian university teaching hospital.

Authors:  Tarun Misra; Eoin Lalor; Richard N Fedorak
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.522

10.  Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study.

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

View more
  11 in total

1.  Indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

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

2.  The cap-assisted technique enhances colonoscopy training: prospective randomized study of six trainees.

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

3.  Learning curves for colonoscopy: a prospective evaluation of gastroenterology fellows at a single center.

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

Review 4.  Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies.

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

5.  Prereferral head and neck cancer treatment: compliance with national comprehensive cancer network treatment guidelines.

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

6.  Different screening definitions have little impact on polypectomy rate estimates.

Authors:  Mengzhu Jiang; Maida J Sewitch; Lawrence Joseph; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  Retrospective analysis showing the water method increased adenoma detection rate - a hypothesis generating observation.

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

8.  The water method significantly enhances proximal diminutive adenoma detection rate in unsedated patients.

Authors:  Felix W Leung; Joseph W Leung; Rodelei M Siao-Salera; Surinder K Mann
Journal:  J Interv Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-01

9.  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

10.  Which should go first during same-day upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy? A randomized prospective study focusing on colonoscopy performance.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.