313 Comparing Screening Colonoscopy Quality Measures in Navigated Uninsured and Insured Patient Populations

2014 ◽  
Vol 146 (5) ◽  
pp. S-70
Author(s):  
Keith B. Naylor ◽  
Cassandra D. Fritz ◽  
Karen E. Kim
2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. AB203
Author(s):  
Suryakanth Gurudu ◽  
Mary A. Atia ◽  
Michael D. Crowell ◽  
Douglas O. Faigel ◽  
M Edwyn Harrison ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (11) ◽  
pp. E1304-E1309
Author(s):  
Julio F. León Moreno

Abstract Background and study aims High-quality colonoscopy is fundamental for preventing colorectal cancer (CRC). The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key colonoscopy quality measure. The aim of this study was to establish the screening colonoscopy ADR of a tertiary referral center in Peru, identify the relationship between the ADR and patient age, sex and the colonoscopist, and determine the endoscopic and histopathological characteristics of the lesions found. Patients and methods A retrospective observational longitudinal study was undertaken between January 2016 and June 2017. Results Eight colonoscopists performed screening colonoscopies on 620 patients scoring ≥ 6 points on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); cecal intubation was complete in 595 patients (cecal intubation rate [CIR] 95.9 %). The overall ADR was 29.7 % (females 25.4 %, males 33.1 %, P = 0.040, 95 %Cl). The ADR colonoscopist range was 25.0 % to 34.4 %. The highest ADR (41.2 %, P = 0.013, 95 %Cl) was for patients aged 65 to 75 years. Adenoma colon locations were: left 49 %, transverse 21.6 % and right 29.4 %. Adenoma dysplasia grades: low 98 %, high 2 %. Sixty-three percent of the lesions were 5 mm to 10 mm. Resections performed: 78.5 % cold biopsy forceps (CBF), 3.4 % cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and 18.1 % endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Conclusions The ADR established was in line with the joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG)/American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and related to patient age and gender but not to the colonoscopist. Colonoscopists should ensure rigorous application of the colonoscopy quality actions. ADR should be evaluated frequently.


Gut ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 61 (7) ◽  
pp. 1050-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J W Lee ◽  
Matthew D Rutter ◽  
Roger G Blanks ◽  
Sue M Moss ◽  
Andrew F Goddard ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 154 (6) ◽  
pp. S-772
Author(s):  
Lisandro Pereyra ◽  
Estanislao J. Gómez ◽  
Juan M. Criniti ◽  
Federico E. Bentolila ◽  
Andres Mora Nuñez ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 110 (8) ◽  
pp. 1134-1139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajesh N Keswani ◽  
Rena Yadlapati ◽  
Kristine M Gleason ◽  
Jody D Ciolino ◽  
Michael Manka ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-337.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Leiman ◽  
David C. Metz ◽  
Gregory G. Ginsberg ◽  
J.T. Howell ◽  
Shivan J. Mehta ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. S603
Author(s):  
Elena Ivanina ◽  
Victoria Obe ◽  
Tuhina Mitra ◽  
Mari Carlesimo ◽  
David Greenwald ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 1106-1107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen F Riemann ◽  
Anurag Agrawal ◽  
Pedro Amaro ◽  
Lene Brink ◽  
Wolfgang Fischbach ◽  
...  

Gut ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A147.1-A147
Author(s):  
J J Hurley ◽  
A B Hawthorne ◽  
J Torkington ◽  
J Green ◽  
S Dolwani

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document