Literature DB >> 21048675

The impact of videorecording on the quality of colonoscopy performance: a pilot study.

Douglas K Rex1, David G Hewett, Meghana Raghavendra, Naga Chalasani.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Colonoscopy provides imperfect protection against colorectal cancer and is operator dependent. Colonoscopies typically are poorly documented. We aimed to determine whether videorecording impacts short-term performance of colonoscopy.
METHODS: We videorecorded routine colonoscopies by seven colonoscopists, with and without their awareness. Colonoscopy quality was measured by blinded assessment of inspection time and technique.
RESULTS: From pre- to post-awareness of videorecording, mean inspection time increased by 49% for all colonoscopies combined and increased significantly for four individual colonoscopists. The overall quality of mucosal inspection technique improved by 31% after awareness of videorecording.
CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of videorecording improved physician performance of colonoscopy. Further investigation of the role of videorecording in achieving sustained improvements in the quality performance of colonoscopy, including increases in adenoma detection, is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21048675     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  32 in total

Review 1.  Achieving competence in colonoscopy: Milestones and the need for a new endoscopic curriculum in gastroenterology training.

Authors:  Sara B Stanford; Stephanie Lee; Candace Masaquel; Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-12-10

2.  Procedure volume influences adherence to celiac disease guidelines.

Authors:  Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Robert C Kapel; Daniel Sheehan; Nina S Lerner; Peter H Green; Alfred I Neugut; Andrew Rundle
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.566

3.  Leveraging Telemedicine Infrastructure to Monitor Quality of Operating Room to Intensive Care Unit Handoffs.

Authors:  Mark E Barry; Beth R Hochman; Meghan B Lane-Fall; Denise Zappile; Daniel N Holena; Brian P Smith; Lewis J Kaplan; Ann Huffenberger; Patrick M Reilly; Jose L Pascual
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II.

Authors:  Vivian Ussui; Susan Coe; Cynthia Rizk; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 5.  The road ahead: what if gastroenterologists were accountable for preventing colorectal cancer?

Authors:  Jeffrey K Lee; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 6.  Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act.

Authors:  Mary A Atia; Francisco C Ramirez; Suryakanth R Gurudu
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-16

7.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

8.  Performance Improvement: Quality Is in the Cards.

Authors:  Emily J Campbell; James M Richter
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Quality indicators for colorectal cancer screening for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Tech Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-04

10.  Quality colonoscopy: a matter of time, technique or technology?

Authors:  Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.