MONITORING OF COLONOSCOPY QUALITY INDICATORS REVEALS ADHERENCE TO ESGE GUIDELINE IN AN ACADEMIC ENDOSCOPY FACILITY

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Triantafyllou ◽  
S Karamaroudis ◽  
S Hariklia Vorri ◽  
P Gkolfakis ◽  
V Papadopoulos ◽  
...  
Endoscopy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geir Hoff ◽  
Edoardo Botteri ◽  
Gert Huppertz-Hauss ◽  
Jan Magnus Kvamme ◽  
Øyvind Holme ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Systematic training in colonoscopy is highly recommended; however, we have limited knowledge of the effects of “training-the-colonoscopy-trainer” (TCT) courses. Using a national quality register on colonoscopy performance, we aimed to evaluate the effects of TCT participation on defined quality indicators. Methods This observational study compared quality indicators (pain, cecal intubation, and polyp detection) between centers participating versus not participating in a TCT course. Nonparticipating centers were assigned a pseudoparticipating year to match their participating counterparts. Results were compared between first year after and the year before TCT (pseudo)participation. Time trends up to 5 years after TCT (pseudo)participation were also compared. Generalized estimating equation models, adjusted for age, sex, and bowel cleansing, were used. Results 11 participating and 11 nonparticipating centers contributed 18 555 and 10 730 colonoscopies, respectively. In participating centers, there was a significant increase in detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm, from 26.4 % to 29.2 % (P = 0.035), and reduction in moderate/severe pain experienced by women, from 38.2 % to 33.6 % (P = 0.043); no significant changes were found in nonparticipating centers. Over 5 years, 20 participating and 18 nonparticipating centers contributed 85 691 and 41 569 colonoscopies, respectively. In participating centers, polyp detection rate increased linearly (P = 0.003), and pain decreased linearly in women (P = 0.004). Nonparticipating centers did not show any significant time trend during the study period. Conclusions Participation in a TCT course improved polyp detection rates and reduced pain experienced by women. These effects were maintained during a 5-year follow-up.


Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (09) ◽  
pp. 871-877
Author(s):  
Øyvind Holme ◽  
Ina Pedersen ◽  
Asle Medhus ◽  
Lars Aabakken ◽  
Tom Glomsaker ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Colonoscopy performance varies between endoscopists, but little is known about the impact of endoscopy assistants on key performance indicators. We used a large prospective colonoscopy quality database to perform an exploratory study to evaluate differences in selected quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. Methods All colonoscopies reported to the Norwegian colonoscopy quality assurance register Gastronet can be used to trace individual endoscopy assistants. We analyzed key quality indicators (cecum intubation rate, polyp detection rate, colonoscopies rated as severely painful, colonoscopies with sedation or analgesia, and satisfaction with information) for colonoscopies performed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. Differences between individual assistants were analyzed by fitting multivariable logistic regression models, with the best performing assistant at each participating hospital as reference. All models were adjusted for the endoscopist. Results 63 endoscopy assistants from 12 hospitals assisted in 15 365 colonoscopies. Compared with their top performing peers from the same hospital, one assistant was associated with cecum intubation failure, four with poor polyp detection, nine with painful colonoscopy, 16 with administration of sedation or analgesics during colonoscopy, and three with patient dissatisfaction about information given relating to the colonoscopy. The number of procedures during the study period or lifetime experience as an endoscopy assistant were not associated with any quality indicator. Conclusion In this exploratory study, there was little variation on important colonoscopy quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. However, there were differences among assistants that may be clinically important. Endoscopy assistants should be subject to quality surveillance similarly to endoscopists.


2006 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. S220-S221
Author(s):  
G. Meucci ◽  
F. Radaelli ◽  
G. Bartesaghi ◽  
G. Minoli ◽  
Aigo

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. AB502
Author(s):  
Dineen Smith ◽  
Georgios I. Papachristou ◽  
Asif Khalid

2011 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. AB396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyndon V. Hernandez ◽  
John I. Allen ◽  
Dominic Klyve ◽  
Joseph E. Geenen ◽  
Michael J. Schmalz ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. AB198
Author(s):  
Rena Yadlapati ◽  
Andrew J. Gawron ◽  
Rajesh N. Keswani

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document