BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the first cause of cancer-related mortality in Portugal. CRC screening reduces disease-specific mortality. Colonoscopy is currently the preferred method for screening as it may contribute to the reduction of CRC incidence. This beneficial effect is strongly associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR). AIM: Our aim was to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy at our unit by measuring the currently accepted quality parameters and publish them as benchmarking indicators. METHODS: From 5,860 colonoscopies, 654 screening procedures (with and without previous fecal occult blood testing) were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 66.4 ± 7.8 years, and the gender distribution was 1:1. The overall ADR was 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32-39), the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.56-0.77), and the sessile serrate lesion detection rate was 1% (95% CI 0-2). The bowel preparation was rated as adequate in 496 (76%) patients. The adjusted cecal intubation rate (CIR) was 93.7% (95% CI 91.7-95.8). Most colonoscopies were performed under monitored anesthesia care (53%), and 35% were unsedated. The use of sedation (propofol or midazolam based) was associated with a higher CIR with an odds ratio of 3.60 (95% CI 2.02-6.40, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data show an above-standard ADR. The frequency of poor bowel preparation and the low sessile serrated lesion detection rate were acknowledged, and actions were implemented to improve both indicators. Quality auditing in colonoscopy should be compulsory, and while many units may do so internally, this is the first national report from a high-throughput endoscopy unit.
BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the first cause of cancer-related mortality in Portugal. CRC screening reduces disease-specific mortality. Colonoscopy is currently the preferred method for screening as it may contribute to the reduction of CRC incidence. This beneficial effect is strongly associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR). AIM: Our aim was to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy at our unit by measuring the currently accepted quality parameters and publish them as benchmarking indicators. METHODS: From 5,860 colonoscopies, 654 screening procedures (with and without previous fecal occult blood testing) were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 66.4 ± 7.8 years, and the gender distribution was 1:1. The overall ADR was 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32-39), the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.56-0.77), and the sessile serrate lesion detection rate was 1% (95% CI 0-2). The bowel preparation was rated as adequate in 496 (76%) patients. The adjusted cecal intubation rate (CIR) was 93.7% (95% CI 91.7-95.8). Most colonoscopies were performed under monitored anesthesia care (53%), and 35% were unsedated. The use of sedation (propofol or midazolam based) was associated with a higher CIR with an odds ratio of 3.60 (95% CI 2.02-6.40, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data show an above-standard ADR. The frequency of poor bowel preparation and the low sessile serrated lesion detection rate were acknowledged, and actions were implemented to improve both indicators. Quality auditing in colonoscopy should be compulsory, and while many units may do so internally, this is the first national report from a high-throughput endoscopy unit.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenoma; Colonoscopy; Colorectal neoplasms; Quality health care indicators; Quality of health care
Authors: Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Andrea Riphaus; Florian Schreiber; Peter Vilmann; Ulrike Beilenhoff; Jose R Aparicio; John J Vargo; Maria Manolaraki; Caroline Wientjes; István Rácz; Cesare Hassan; Gregorios Paspatis Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Amir Qaseem; Thomas D Denberg; Robert H Hopkins; Linda L Humphrey; Joel Levine; Donna E Sweet; Paul Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Aasma Shaukat; Steven J Mongin; Mindy S Geisser; Frank A Lederle; John H Bond; Jack S Mandel; Timothy R Church Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brenda K Edwards; Anne-Michelle Noone; Angela B Mariotto; Edgar P Simard; Francis P Boscoe; S Jane Henley; Ahmedin Jemal; Hyunsoon Cho; Robert N Anderson; Betsy A Kohler; Christie R Eheman; Elizabeth M Ward Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 6.860
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
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Michael Bretthauer; Michal F Kaminski; Magnus Løberg; Ann G Zauber; Jaroslaw Regula; Ernst J Kuipers; Miguel A Hernán; Eleanor McFadden; Annike Sunde; Mette Kalager; Evelien Dekker; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Kjetil Garborg; Maciej Rupinski; Manon C W Spaander; Marek Bugajski; Ole Høie; Tryggvi Stefansson; Geir Hoff; Hans-Olov Adami Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873