Literature DB >> 26966531

Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy.

Volker Moritz1, Michael Bretthauer2, Øyvind Holme3, Morten Wang Fagerland4, Magnus Løberg5, Tom Glomsaker6, Thomas de Lange7, Birgitte Seip8, Per Sandvei9, Geir Hoff10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm.
RESULTS: The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdominal pain; caecum intubation rate; colonoscopy; polyp detection rate; quality assurance; quality indicator

Year:  2015        PMID: 26966531      PMCID: PMC4766538          DOI: 10.1177/2050640615570147

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J        ISSN: 2050-6406            Impact factor:   4.623


  27 in total

1.  The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK.

Authors:  Daniel R Gavin; Roland M Valori; John T Anderson; Mark T Donnelly; J Graham Williams; Edwin T Swarbrick
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres.

Authors:  Geir Hoff; Michael Bretthauer; Gert Huppertz-Hauss; Eirik Kittang; Asbjørn Stallemo; Ole Høie; Stein Dahler; Sverre Nyhus; Fred-Arne Halvorsen; Jens Pallenschat; Kåre Vetvik; Per Kristian Sandvei; Joachim Friestad; Reidar Pytte; Peter Coll
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.423

Review 3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice.

Authors:  G Imperiali; G Minoli; G M Meucci; G Spinzi; E Strocchi; V Terruzzi; F Radaelli
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 10.093

5.  Colonoscopy using a small-caliber colonoscope with passive-bending after incomplete colonoscopy due to sharp angulation or pain.

Authors:  Koichiro Sato; Fumiko Shigiyama; Sayo Ito; Tomoyuki Kitagawa; Kenji Tominaga; Takeshi Suzuki; Iruru Maetani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Colonoscopy: Sliding into the depths of sedation--is this what we want?

Authors:  Geir Hoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 46.802

7.  Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  K K Garborg; M Løberg; J Matre; O Holme; M Kalager; G Hoff; M Bretthauer
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Prevalence of advanced adenomas in small and diminutive colon polyps using direct measurement of size.

Authors:  Franklin C Tsai; Williamson B Strum
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Detailed postal feedback about prescribing to asthma patients combined with a guideline statement showed no impact: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jens Søndergaard; Morten Andersen; Kirstin Vach; Jakob Kragstrup; Malcolm Maclure; Lars F Gram
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2002-04-17       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?

Authors:  C J A Bowles; R Leicester; C Romaya; E Swarbrick; C B Williams; O Epstein
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 4.623

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.