Literature DB >> 28555631

The Conversion of Planned Colonoscopy to Sigmoidoscopy and the Effect of this Practice on the Measurement of Quality Indicators.

Sabina Beg1, Stefano Sansone1, Francesco Manguso1, John Schembri1, Jay Patel1, Mo Thoufeeq1, Gareth Corbett1, Krish Ragunath1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A cecal intubation rate (CIR) of >90% is a well-accepted quality indicator of colonoscopy and is consequently monitored within endoscopy units. Endoscopists' desire to meet this target may mean that incomplete colonoscopies are recorded as flexible sigmoidoscopies. The aim of this study was to examine whether the conversion of requested colonoscopies is a clinically significant phenomenon and whether this impacts upon the measurement of quality indicators.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all flexible sigmoidoscopies performed between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015 at Nottingham University Hospitals, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Cambridge University Hospitals was performed. Where a colonoscopy was requested but a flexible sigmoidoscopy performed, the patient's records and endoscopy reports were reviewed to determine whether this conversion was decided before the start of the procedure and documented.
RESULTS: During the 12-month period, 6,839 flexible sigmoidoscopies were performed by 125 endoscopists. The original requests of 149 sigmoidoscopies could not be retrieved and were therefore excluded from this analysis. Of the 6,690 sigmoidoscopy requests reviewed, 2.8% (n=190) procedures were originally requested as a colonoscopy. On review of patient records, 85 conversions were appropriate according to pre-defined criteria. However, 105 conversions were deemed inappropriate, occurring in patients who had a valid documented indication for colonoscopy and had undergone full bowel preparation. The most common reasons cited included poor bowel preparation (n=37), technically challenging procedure (n=24), at the endoscopist's discretion based on clinical factors (n=21), and obstructing patology (n=8). A clear reason for conversion was not apparent in 11 cases. During the study period, 21,271 colonoscopies were performed and so conversions represent 0.45% of the total requests. When inappropriate conversions were included in individuals' performance data, 15 endoscopists fell to ≤90% target cecal intubation target.
CONCLUSIONS: A small, but significant number of colonoscopies are converted to flexible sigmoidoscopies at the time of the procedure. This study demonstrates the conversion of colonoscopy to sigmoidoscopy as being a potential limitation of relying on CIR alone. Endoscopy units should consider monitoring the rate of inappropriate conversions to ensure quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28555631     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2017.138

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


  15 in total

1.  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:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness.

Authors:  S Morini; C Hassan; G Meucci; A Toldi; A Zullo; G Minoli
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study.

Authors:  Florian Froehlich; Vincent Wietlisbach; Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Bernard Burnand; John-Paul Vader
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 4.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis; Muhammad Usman Ali; Rachel Warren; Meghan Kenny; Diana Sherifali; Parminder Raina
Journal:  Clin Colorectal Cancer       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 4.481

5.  Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Thomas F Imperiale; Danielle R Latinovich; L Lisa Bratcher
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study.

Authors:  Nicolle M Gatto; Harold Frucht; Vijaya Sundararajan; Judith S Jacobson; Victor R Grann; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; John Anderson; Roland Valori; Ewa Kraszewska; Maciej Rupinski; Jacek Pachlewski; Ewa Wronska; Michael Bretthauer; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Ernst J Kuipers; Jaroslaw Regula
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Siwan Thomas Gibson; Matt D Rutter; Phil Baragwanath; Rupert Pullan; Mark Feeney; Neil Haslam
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 23.059

10.  An analysis of the learning curve to achieve competency at colonoscopy using the JETS database.

Authors:  Stephen Thomas Ward; Mohammed A Mohammed; Robert Walt; Roland Valori; Tariq Ismail; Paul Dunckley
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2014-01-27       Impact factor: 23.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.