M1021 Endoscopy Unit Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy: the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (cag) Endoscopy Quality Initiative (EQI) Practice Audit Project

2009 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. A-333
Author(s):  
David Armstrong ◽  
Roger Hollingworth ◽  
Donald G. MacIntosh ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
Ronald Bridges ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. A-332
Author(s):  
David Armstrong ◽  
Roger Hollingworth ◽  
Donald G. MacIntosh ◽  
Joanne Cabrera ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. S151
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Groleau ◽  
Mélissandre Ostiguy ◽  
Prevost Jantchou

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 286-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphnée Beaulieu ◽  
Alan N Barkun ◽  
Catherine Dubé ◽  
Jill Tinmouth ◽  
Pierre Hallé ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVES: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published consensus recommendations for safety and quality indicators in digestive endoscopy. The present article focuses specifically on the identification of key elements that should be found in all electronic endoscopy reports detailing recommendations adopted by the CAG consensus group.METHODS: A committee of nine individuals steered the CAG Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group, which had a total membership of 35 voting individuals with knowledge on the subject relating to endoscopic services. A comprehensive literature search was performed with regard to the key elements that should be found in an electronic endoscopy report. A task force reviewed all published, full-text, adult and human studies in French or English.RESULTS: Components to be entered into the standardized report include identification of procedure, timing, procedural personnel, patient demographics and history, indication(s) for procedure, comorbidities, type of bowel preparation, consent for the procedure, pre-endoscopic administration of medications, type and dose of sedation used, extent and completeness of examination, quality of bowel preparation, relevant findings and pertinent negatives, adverse events and resulting interventions, patient comfort, diagnoses, endoscopic interventions performed, details of pathology specimens, details of follow-up arrangements, appended pathology report(s) and, when available, management recommendations. Summary information should be provided to the patient or family.CONCLUSION: Continuous quality improvement should be the responsibility of every endoscopist and endoscopy facility to ensure improved patient care. Appropriate documentation of endoscopic procedures is a critical component of such activities.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Armstrong ◽  
Roger Hollingworth ◽  
Donald MacIntosh ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
Sandra Daniels ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a colonoscopists’ practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback.METHODS: A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smart-phones with automated data upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates.RESULTS: Over a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference −11.3% [95% CI −2.8% to −19.9%]; P=0.01).DISCUSSION: Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations.CONCLUSION: Real-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.


2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark R Borgaonkar ◽  
Lawrence Hookey ◽  
Roger Hollingworth ◽  
Ernst J Kuipers ◽  
Alan Forster ◽  
...  

The growth in the use of endoscopy to diagnose and treat many gastointestinal disorders, and its central role in cancer screening programs, has led to a significant increase in the number of procedures performed. This growth, however, has also led to many variations in, among others, the provision of services, the choice of sedative medications and the training of providers. The recognition of the significance of quality in endoscopy has prompted several countries, including Canada, to initiate efforts to adopt nationwide quality improvement programs. The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology formed a committee to review endoscopy and quality with the aim of stimulating improvement. This article focuses specifically on patient safety indicators that were developed at a consensus conference aimed at generating a broad range of recommendations for selected endoscopic procedures, which if adopted, could lead to significant changes in how endoscopy services are provided.INTRODUCTION: The importance of quality indicators has become increasingly recognized in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patient safety requires the identification and monitoring of occurrences associated with harm or the potential for harm. The identification of relevant indicators of safety compromise is, therefore, a critical element that is key to the effective implementation of endoscopy quality improvement programs.OBJECTIVE: To identify key indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group was formed to address issues of quality in endoscopy. A subcommittee was formed to identify key safety indicators. A systematic literature review was undertaken, and articles pertinent to safety in endoscopy were identified and reviewed. All complications and measures used to document safety were recorded. From this, a preliminary list of 16 indicators was compiled and presented to the 35-person consensus group during a three-day meeting. A revised list of 20 items was subsequently put to the consensus group for vote for inclusion on the final list of safety indicators. Items were retained only if the consensus group highly agreed on their importance.RESULTS: A total of 19 indicators of safety compromise were retained and grouped into the three following categories: medication-related – the need for CPR, use of reversal agents, hypoxia, hypotension, hypertension, sedation doses in patients older than 70 years of age, allergic reactions and laryngospasm/bronchospasm; procedure-related early – perforation, immediate postpolypectomy bleeding, need for hospital admission or transfer to emergency department from the gastroenterology unit, instrument impaction, severe persistent abdominal pain requiring evaluation proven to not be perforation; and procedure-related delayed – death within 30 days of procedure, 14-day unplanned hospitalization, 14-day unplanned contact with a health provider, gastrointestinal bleeding within 14 days of procedure, infection or symptomatic metabolic complications.CONCLUSIONS: The 19 indicators of safety compromise in endoscopy, identified by a rigorous, evidence-based consensus process, provide clear outcomes to be recorded by all facilities as part of their continuing quality improvement programs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Fraser Kegel ◽  
Niv Sne ◽  
Timothy Rice ◽  
Eric Joy ◽  
Shayan Shahsavar ◽  
...  

Background. Canadian independent health facilities (IHFs) have been implemented to reduce hospital endoscopy volume and expedite endoscopic evaluations for patients suspected to have underlying colorectal cancer. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of a prospective database at a large-volume urban IHF. The primary outcomes were wait times, and the secondary outcomes were colonoscopy quality indicators and complication rates. Results. Median wait times from referral to colonoscopy met the recommendations set out by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and Cancer Care Ontario for all indications: chronic abdominal pain: 43 days; new onset change in bowel habits: 36 days; bright red rectal bleeding: 42 days; documented iron-deficiency anemia: 43 days; fecal occult blood test positive: 38 days; cancer likely based on imaging or physical exam: 23 days; chronic diarrhea and chronic constipation: 42 days; and screening colonoscopies: 55 days. Secondary outcomes of quality indicators and complication rates all met or exceeded the CCO and CAG recommendations. Conclusions. This IHF met the recommended wait times for all indications for colonoscopy while maintaining high procedural quality and safety. IHFs are one solution to help meet the increasing demand for colonoscopy in Ontario.


2016 ◽  
Vol 151 (1) ◽  
pp. 204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Groleau ◽  
Mélissandre Ostiguy ◽  
Dieudonné Soubeiga ◽  
Patricia Perreault ◽  
Jessica Ezri ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document