Literature DB >> 23613629

Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy.

Vivian E Ekkelenkamp1, Kevin Dowler, Roland M Valori, Paul Dunckley.   

Abstract

AIM: To explore the relationship of patient comfort and experience to commonly used performance indicators for colonoscopy.
METHODS: All colonoscopies performed in our four endoscopy centres are recorded in two reporting systems that log key performance indicators. From 2008 to 2011, all procedures performed by qualified endoscopists were evaluated; procedures performed by trainees were excluded. The following variables were measured: Caecal intubation rate (CIR), nurse-reported comfort levels (NRCL) on a scale from 1 to 5, polyp detection rate (PDR), patient experience of the procedure (worse than expected, as expected, better than expected), and use of sedation and analgesia. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to identify relationships between performance indicators.
RESULTS: A total of 17027 colonoscopies were performed by 23 independent endoscopists between 2008 and 2011. Caecal intubation rate varied from 79.0% to 97.8%, with 18 out of 23 endoscopists achieving a CIR of > 90%. The percentage of patients experiencing significant discomfort during their procedure (defined as NRCL of 4 or 5) ranged from 3.9% to 19.2% with an average of 7.7%. CIR was negatively correlated with NRCL-45 (r = -0.61, P < 0.005), and with poor patient experience (r = -0.54, P < 0.01). The average dose of midazolam (mean 1.9 mg, with a range of 1.1 to 3.5 mg) given by the endoscopist was negatively correlated with CIR (r = -0.59, P < 0.01). CIR was positively correlated with PDR (r = 0.44, P < 0.05), and with the numbers of procedures performed by the endoscopists (r = 0.64, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The best colonoscopists have a higher CIR, use less sedation, cause less discomfort and find more polyps. Measuring patient comfort is valuable in monitoring performance.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colonoscopy; Comfort; Endoscopy; Performance; Quality

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23613629      PMCID: PMC3631987          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i15.2355

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  31 in total

1.  Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study.

Authors:  Harminder Singh; Zoann Nugent; Alain A Demers; Charles N Bernstein
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Polypectomy rate as a quality measure for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jason E Williams; Thienluong Domi Le; Douglas O Faigel
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate.

Authors:  Dawn L Francis; Daniel T Rodriguez-Correa; Anna Buchner; Gavin C Harewood; Michael Wallace
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Thomas J W Lee; Matthew D Rutter; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Andrew F Goddard; Andrew Chilton; Claire Nickerson; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Colin J Rees
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Colorectal cancers detected after colonoscopy frequently result from missed lesions.

Authors:  Heiko Pohl; Douglas J Robertson
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 11.382

6.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Jaroslaw Regula; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Maria Zwierko; Maciej Rupinski; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice.

Authors:  Vincent de Jonge; Jerome Sint Nicolaas; Djuna L Cahen; Willem Moolenaar; Rob J Th Ouwendijk; Thjon J Tang; Antonie J P van Tilburg; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-09-10       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Risk factors for advanced lesions undetected at prior colonoscopy: not always poor preparation.

Authors:  A Ferrández; M Navarro; M Díez; F Sopena; P Roncalés; M Polo-Tomas; R Sáinz; A Lanas
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 10.093

9.  Colonic work-up after incomplete colonoscopy: significant new findings during follow-up.

Authors:  M Neerincx; J S Terhaar sive Droste; C J Mulder; M Räkers; J F Bartelsman; R J Loffeld; H A Tuynman; R M Brohet; R W van der Hulst
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 10.093

10.  Ongoing colorectal cancer risk despite surveillance colonoscopy: the Polyp Prevention Trial Continued Follow-up Study.

Authors:  Keith Leung; Paul Pinsky; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Elaine Lanza; Arthur Schatzkin; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  24 in total

Review 1.  Training in Endoscopy.

Authors:  Keith Siau; Neil D Hawkes; Paul Dunckley
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-09

2.  An evaluation scale of medical services quality based on "patients' experience".

Authors:  Chang-Jun Tian; Yue Tian; Liang Zhang
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2014-04-08

Review 3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy: Current insights and caveats.

Authors:  Hendrikus Jm Pullens; Peter D Siersema
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-12-16

4.  UEG Week 2020 Poster Presentations.

Authors: 
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.623

5.  Variation in caecal intubation rates between screening and symptomatic patients.

Authors:  Nalin Nagrath; Perminder S Phull
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 6.  What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

Authors:  Kelli S Hancock; Ranjan Mascarenhas; David Lieberman
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-06

7.  Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Keith Siau; Sauid Ishaq; Sergio Cadoni; Toshio Kuwai; Abdulkani Yusuf; Noriko Suzuki
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  A randomised study of comfort during bronchoscopy comparing conscious sedation and anaesthetist-controlled general anaesthesia, including the utility of bispectral index monitoring.

Authors:  Thomas R Skinner; Joseph Churton; Timothy P Edwards; Farzad Bashirzadeh; Christopher Zappala; Justin T Hundloe; Hau Tan; Andrew J Pattison; Maryann Todman; Gunter F Hartel; David I Fielding
Journal:  ERJ Open Res       Date:  2021-05-31

9.  Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance.

Authors:  Vivian E Ekkelenkamp; Arjun D Koch; Jelle Haringsma; Jan-Werner Poley; Henk R van Buuren; Ernst J Kuipers; Robert A de Man
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-07-18

10.  Interobserver variability in comfort scores for screening colonoscopy.

Authors:  David N Naumann; Sarah Potter-Concannon; Sharad Karandikar
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.