Quality in Colonoscopy

Brunner, Katherine T.; Calderwood, Audrey H.

doi:10.1007/s11894-015-0461-1

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program Working Group recommends the mean WT for each proceduralist to be 6 min or greater. This is in alliance with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines and the ASGE …”

Section: Withdrawal Timementioning

confidence: 85%

“…A study from 2012 including >2500 colonoscopies found a BBPS score ≥6, with all segments having a score ≥2 was associated with endoscopist recommending interval time frames within the recommended guidelines in >90% of patients. The authors, therefore, established a BBPS ≥6 (≥2 in all segments) fulfilled the USMSTF definition of adequate bowel preparation …”

Section: Rate Of Adequate Bowel Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors, therefore, established a BBPS ≥6 (≥2 in all segments) fulfilled the USMSTF definition of adequate bowel preparation. 16 Although the BBPS may be the most validated scoring system the most commonly used system in clinical practice is a descriptive scale using 'excellent', 'good', 'fair' and 'poor' with 'excellent' and 'good' reaching criteria for adequate preparation and 'fair' and 'poor' most commonly falling into the 'inadequate' category. Although this scoring system is seems relatively apparent, it is subjective and is not clear upon where in the colon it should be assigned.…”

Section: Rate Of Adequate Bowel Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is in alliance with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines and the ASGE. 2,16,32 Studies have shown that physicians with shorter WTs have higher rates of interval CRC. 46 Endoscopists with a mean WT greater than 6 min have been shown to have greater ADRs (28% versus 12%) as well as higher detection of advanced neoplasia (6.4% versus 2.6%).…”

Section: Withdrawal Timementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

Shine

Bui

Burgess

2020

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre‐malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre‐malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high‐quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.

show abstract

Section: Withdrawal Timementioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Rate Of Adequate Bowel Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rate Of Adequate Bowel Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Withdrawal Timementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

Shine

Bui

Burgess

2020

ANZ Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Una preparación colónica adecuada se define como aquella limpieza del colon que permite una evaluación óptima de la mucosa, visualización de pólipos mayores o iguales a 5 mm y tasas de intubación cecal altas 5,7,8 .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Evaluación comparativa de efectividad y tolerabilidad con polietilenglicol y picosulfato de sodio-citrato de magnesio como agentes de preparación intestinal para colonoscopia

Muñoz¹,

Rodriguez

Campaña³

et al. 2018

Rev Chil Cir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative evaluation of effectiveness and tolerability with polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate as intestinal preparation agents for colonoscopy Introduction: The effectiveness of colonoscopy depends on multiple factors, being two of the most important ones an adequate bowel preparation and the patient's tolerability to the preparation. Objectives: Compare effectiveness and tolerability of two bowel preparation agents, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC). Patients and Methods: Randomized clinical trial on outpatients that went into colonoscopy in INDISA Clinic. We evaluated effectiveness and tolerability with Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) and Lawrence questionnaire [composed by Likert scale, two qualitative questions and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain], respectively. Results: 189 patients, 123 were randomized to PEG and 66 to SPMC. BBPS average in patients in the PEG branch was 7.51 (SD 1.66) and for SPMC 7.12 (SD 1.71) (p = 0.111). Likert scale for evaluating tolerability average for PEG was 0.94 (SD 0.68) and for SPMC 0.63 (SD 0.61) (p = 0.0004). VAS scale for PEG had an average of 7.68 (SD 2.4) and for PSCM 9.04 (SD 1.59) (p < 0.0001). When we asked for workplace absenteeism, there were no significant differences between both groups and when we asked about using the same intestinal preparation in a future colonoscopy there was statistical significance in favor to SPMC (p = 0.026). Conclusions: No differences were noted on effectiveness between the PEG and SPMC bowel preparations. Nevertheless, SPMC appeared to be better tolerated by patients.

show abstract

Analysis of population‐based colorectal cancer screening in Guangzhou, 2011‐2015

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To analyze the detection rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps by population‐based screening in Guangzhou. Methods From January 2011 to December 2015, the residents aged 30‐79 were selected for CRC screening. The residents were conducted Questionnaires and/or FOBT to assess high‐risk groups, the free colonoscopy examination was recommended, and the results were evaluated in detail. Results There were 98 927 residents involving screening, 5306 high‐risk residents identified (males 1859 and females 3447), and 4713 subjects underwent colonoscopy (males 1690 and females 3023). CRC was seen in 55 individuals (males 28 and females 27), and the detection rates in male were higher than in female ( P = 0.019). And the detection rates increasing with age, for people over 60 years old, were obviously higher than those younger ( x 2 = 18.64, P = 0.000924). The polyps were seen in 1458 (30.94%) cases， and 1420 subjects received pathological examination (adenomas 971 and non‐adenomatous polyps 449). Advanced adenomas were seen in 462 cases (males 240 and females 222) and 509 cases of non‐advanced adenomas (males 255 and females 254). For advanced adenomas, the detection rates in male were higher than female (14.20% vs 7.34%, P = 2.64 × 10 −14 ). For the detection rates of adenomas or advanced adenomas by age, the people over 40 years were higher than younger (20.91% vs 3.61% P = 7.87 × 10 −6 ; 9.94% vs 2.41%, P = 0.009). Conclusions For Guangzhou residents, the detection rates of CRC and adenoma were 1.17% and 20.60%. The detection rates of CRC increasing with age, for people over 60 years old, were obviously higher than those younger. But for people over 40 years, the detection rate of adenoma and advanced adenoma was higher than younger. So for people over 40 years, the CRC screening is recommended.

show abstract

Quality in Colonoscopy

Cited by 13 publications

References 46 publications

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: an evolving paradigm

Evaluación comparativa de efectividad y tolerabilidad con polietilenglicol y picosulfato de sodio-citrato de magnesio como agentes de preparación intestinal para colonoscopia

Analysis of population‐based colorectal cancer screening in Guangzhou, 2011‐2015

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About