Literature DB >> 19500788

Effect of GI endoscopy nurse experience on screening colonoscopy outcomes.

Evan S Dellon1, Quinn Kerr Lippmann, Joseph A Galanko, Robert S Sandler, Nicholas J Shaheen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effect of the GI endoscopy nurse experience on colonoscopy outcomes is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the nurse experience was associated with screening colonoscopy complications, procedure length, and cecal intubation.
DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of screening colonoscopies performed by attending physicians between August 2003 and August 2005. Nurse experience was measured in weeks.
SETTING: University of North Carolina Hospitals.
SUBJECTS: Twenty-nine nurses were employed during the study period, 19 of whom were newly hired. A total of 3631 eligible screening colonoscopies were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was any immediate complication; secondary outcomes included time to cecum, total procedure time, and cecal intubation rate.
RESULTS: In procedures staffed by nurses with 2 weeks of experience or less, 3.2% had complications compared with 0.3% for procedures with more experienced nurses (odds ratio [OR] 10.4 [95% CI, 3.55-30.2]). For nurses with 6 months or less of experience, 18% of procedures had cecal-intubation times more than 1 standard deviation above the mean compared with 12% for more experienced nurses (OR 1.60 [95% CI, 1.30-1.97]). Similar results were seen for the total procedure duration (OR 1.61 [95% CI, 1.32-1.97]) and cecal-intubation rates (OR 1.81 [95% CI, 1.37-2.39]). All relationships held after adjusting for potential confounding factors. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective, single-center study.
CONCLUSIONS: GI endoscopy nurse inexperience is associated with an increase in immediate complications, prolonged procedure times, and decreased cecal-intubation rates for screening colonoscopies. These findings have implications for nurse training, procedure efficiency, colonoscopy quality assessment, and patient safety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19500788      PMCID: PMC2753217          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  30 in total

1.  The time and financial impact of training fellows in endoscopy. CORI Research Project. Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative.

Authors:  T McCashland; R Brand; E Lyden; P de Garmo
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  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

4.  Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy: thinner is not always better.

Authors:  J C Anderson; J D Gonzalez; C R Messina; B J Pollack
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  A randomized controlled trial in a training institution comparing a pediatric variable stiffness colonoscope, a pediatric colonoscope, and an adult colonoscope.

Authors:  Douglas A Shumaker; Atif Zaman; Ronald M Katon
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas B Nelson; Kenneth R McQuaid; John H Bond; David A Lieberman; David G Weiss; Tiina K Johnston
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Factors predictive of difficult colonoscopy.

Authors:  J C Anderson; C R Messina; W Cohn; E Gottfried; S Ingber; G Bernstein; E Coman; J Polito
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  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

9.  Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence.

Authors:  Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Systematic evaluation of complications related to endoscopy in a training setting: A prospective 30-day outcomes study.

Authors:  Edmund J Bini; Babak Firoozi; Rosa J Choung; Eyad M Ali; Mohamed Osman; Elizabeth H Weinshel
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  1 in total

1.  Study on the influence of assistant experience on the quality of colonoscopy: A pilot single-center study.

Authors:  Lixia Fu; Mugen Dai; Junwei Liu; Hua Shi; Jundi Pan; Yanmei Lan; Miaoxia Shen; Xiaoduo Shao; Bin Ye
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.817

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.