Literature DB >> 25675176

A multicenter pragmatic study of an evidence-based intervention to improve adenoma detection: the Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study.

Praveen T Rajasekhar1, Colin J Rees1, Mike G Bramble2, Douglas W Wilson3, Matthew D Rutter2, Brian P Saunders4, A Pali S Hungin3, James E East5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Low adenoma detection rates (ADRs) at colonoscopy are linked to significantly higher interval cancer rates, and vary between colonoscopists. Studies demonstrate that lesion detection is improved by: withdrawal time of ≥ 6 minutes; use of hyoscine butylbromide; position change; and rectal retroflexion. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing the above "bundle" of interventions into colonoscopy practice, and the effect on ADR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A longitudinal cohort design was used. Implementation combined central training, local promotion, and feedback. The uptake marker was change in hyoscine butylbromide use. Comparisons were between the 3 months before and the 9 months after the implementation phase, globally, by endoscopy unit and by quartile when colonoscopists were ranked according to baseline ADR. Chi-squared or Fisher's tests were used to evaluate significance.
RESULTS: 12 units participated. Global and quartile analyses included data from 118 and 68 colonoscopists and 17 508 and 14 193 procedures respectively. A significant increase in hyoscine butylbromide use was observed globally (54.4 % vs. 15.8 %, P < 0.001), in all endoscopy units (P < 0.001) and quartiles (P < 0.001). A significant increase in ADR was observed globally (18.1 % vs. 16.0 %, P = 0.002) and in the lower two colonoscopist quartiles (P < 0.001), with a nonsignificant increase in the upper middle quartile and a significant fall to 21.5 %. in the upper quartile. The significant variations in ADR among the upper three quartiles disappeared.
CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice, introduction of a simple, inexpensive, evidence-based "bundle" of measures is feasible and is associated with higher global ADR, driven by improvements amongst the poorest performing colonoscopists. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25675176     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391563

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  15 in total

Review 1.  British society of gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme (EQIP): overview and progress.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Sara Koo; John Anderson; Mark McAlindon; Andrew M Veitch; Allan John Morris; Pradeep Bhandari; James E East; George Webster; Kofi W Oppong; Ian D Penman
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-01-18

Review 2.  Quality Improvement in Gastroenterology: A Systematic Review of Practical Interventions for Clinicians.

Authors:  Courtney Reynolds; Eric Esrailian; Daniel Hommes
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-07-16       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 3.  Antispasmodic drugs in colonoscopy: a review of their pharmacology, safety and efficacy in improving polyp detection and related outcomes.

Authors:  Santosh Sanagapalli; Kriti Agnihotri; Rupert Leong; Crispin John Corte
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 4.  Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.

Authors:  Eelco C Brand; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

5.  Endoscopic approach to polyp recognition.

Authors:  Conor Lahiff; James E East
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-02-10

6.  Effect of Dynamic Position Changes on Adenoma Detection During Colonoscope Withdrawal: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial.

Authors:  Seung-Woo Lee; Jae Hyuck Chang; Jeong-Seon Ji; Il Ho Maeong; Dae Young Cheung; Joon Sung Kim; Young-Seok Cho; Wook-Jin Chung; Bo-In Lee; Sang-Woo Kim; Byung-Wook Kim; Hwang Choi; Myung-Gyu Choi
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Standard versus Endocuff versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Martin Floer; Laura Tschaikowski; Michael Schepke; Radoslaw Kempinski; Katarzyna Neubauer; Elzbieta Poniewierka; Steffen Kunsch; Detlev Ameis; Hauke Sebastian Heinzow; Agneta Auer; Hartmut H Schmidt; Volker Ellenrieder; Tobias Meister
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 4.623

8.  Simple feedback of colonoscopy performance improved the number of adenomas per colonoscopy and serrated polyp detection rate.

Authors:  Osamu Toyoshima; Shuntaro Yoshida; Toshihiro Nishizawa; Tadahiro Yamakawa; Toru Arano; Yoshihiro Isomura; Takamitsu Kanazawa; Hidehiko Ando; Yosuke Tsuji; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-06-17

Review 9.  Recent advances in colonoscopy.

Authors:  Thomas J W Lee; Shelley Nair; Iosif Beintaris; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-03-11

Review 10.  Can technology increase adenoma detection rate?

Authors:  Wee Sing Ngu; Colin Rees
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 4.409

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.