Literature DB >> 25952092

The association of colonoscopy quality indicators with the detection of screen-relevant lesions, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers in an asymptomatic Canadian colorectal cancer screening population.

Robert J Hilsden1, Catherine Dube2, Steven J Heitman1, Ronald Bridges1, S Elizabeth McGregor3, Alaa Rostom2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although several quality indicators of colonoscopy have been defined, quality assurance activities should be directed at the measurement of quality indicators that are predictive of key screening colonoscopy outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the association among established quality indicators and the detection of screen-relevant lesions (SRLs), adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers.
DESIGN: Historical cohort study.
SETTING: Canadian colorectal cancer screening center. PATIENTS: A total of 18,456 asymptomatic men and women ages 40 to 74, at either average risk or increased risk for colorectal cancer because of a family history, who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 2008 to 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Using univariate and multivariate analyses, we explored the association among procedural quality indicators and 3 colonoscopy outcomes: detection of SRLs, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers.
RESULTS: The crude rates of SRLs, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers were 240, 6.44, and .54 per 1000 colonoscopies, respectively. Several indicators, including endoscopist withdrawal time (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4) and cecal intubation rate (OR, 13.9; 95% CI, 1.9-96.9), were associated with the detection of SRLs. No quality indicator was associated with the risk of adverse events. Endoscopist average withdrawal time over 6 minutes (OR, .12; 95% CI, .002-.85) and SRL detection rate over 20% (OR, .17; 95% CI, .03-.74) were associated with a reduced risk of postcolonoscopy cancers. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study.
CONCLUSION: Quality assurance programs should prioritize the measurement of endoscopist average withdrawal time and adenoma (SRL) detection rate.
Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25952092     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.03.1914

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


  17 in total

Review 1.  Risk of Advanced Adenoma, Colorectal Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer Mortality in People With Low-Risk Adenomas at Baseline Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Catherine Dubé; Mafo Yakubu; Bronwen R McCurdy; Andrea Lischka; Anna Koné; Meghan J Walker; Leslea Peirson; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

3. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

4. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Screening: when things go wrong.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Rinku Sutradhar; Ning Liu; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-08-13

Review 7.  Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.

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

8.  Defining Benchmarks for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenomas Per Colonoscopy in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Due to a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test.

Authors:  Robert J Hilsden; Ronald Bridges; Catherine Dube; S Elizabeth McGregor; Christopher Naugler; Sarah M Rose; Alaa Rostom; Steven J Heitman
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  Optimizing Colonoscopy Quality: From Bowel Preparation to Surveillance.

Authors:  Carla G Abou Fadel; Rani H Shayto; Ala I Sharara
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03

10.  Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History.

Authors:  Dayna R Cenin; Jill Tinmouth; Steffie K Naber; Catherine Dubé; Bronwen R McCurdy; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.