Impact of Time of Day and Endoscopist Case Number on Screening Colonoscopy Polyp Detection Rate

2010 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. S137
Author(s):  
Justin Kupec
F1000Research ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 107 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Thurtle ◽  
Michael Pullinger ◽  
Jordan Tsigarides ◽  
Iris McIntosh ◽  
Carla Steytler ◽  
...  

Objective: Polyp detection rate (PDR) is an accepted measure of colonoscopy quality. Several factors may influence PDR including time of procedure and order of colonoscopy within a session. Our unit provides evening colonoscopy lists (6-9 pm). We examined whether colonoscopy performance declines in the evening. Design: Data for all National Health Service (NHS) outpatient colonoscopies performed at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in 2011 were examined. Timing, demographics, indication and colonoscopy findings were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression. Results: Data from 2576 colonoscopies were included: 1163 (45.1%) in the morning, 1123 (43.6%) in the afternoon and 290 (11.3%) in the evening.  Overall PDR was 40.80%. Males, increasing age and successful caecal intubation were all significantly associated with higher polyp detection. The indications ‘faecal occult blood screening’ (p<0.001) and ‘polyp surveillance’ (p<0.001) were strongly positively associated and ‘anaemia’ (p=0.01) was negatively associated with PDR. Following adjustment for  covariates, there was no significant difference in PDR between sessions. With the morning as the reference value, the odds ratio for polyp detection in the afternoon and evening were 0.93 (95% CI = 0.72-1.18) and 1.15 (95%CI = 0.82-1.61) respectively. PDR was not affected by rank of colonoscopy within a list, sedation dose or trainee-involvement. Conclusions: Time of day did not affect polyp detection rate in clinical practice. Evening colonoscopy had equivalent efficacy and is an effective tool in meeting increasing demands for endoscopy. Standardisation was shown to have a considerable effect as demographics, indication and endoscopist varied substantially between sessions. Evening sessions were popular with a younger population


2009 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. S176-S177
Author(s):  
Francis Farraye ◽  
Christopher Huang ◽  
Jeremy Hetzel ◽  
Kelsey Omstead ◽  
Shi Yang ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-470
Author(s):  
Fernando Antônio Vieira LEITE ◽  
Luiz Cláudio Miranda ROCHA ◽  
Rodrigo Roda Rodrigues SILVA ◽  
Eduardo Garcia VILELA ◽  
Luiz Ronaldo ALBERTI ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends on quality indicators, which adenoma detection rate (ADR) being the most important. Proximal serrated polyp detection rate (pSPDR) has been studied as a potential quality indicator for colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to analyze and compare the difference in ADR and pSPDR between patients undergoing screening colonoscopy and an unselected population with other indications for colonoscopy, including surveillance and diagnosis. METHODS: This is a historical cohort of patients who underwent colonoscopy in the digestive endoscopy service of a tertiary hospital. Out of 1554 colonoscopies performed, 573 patients were excluded. The remaining 981 patients were divided into two groups: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy (n=428; 43.6%); patients with other indications including surveillance and diagnosis (n=553; 56.4%). RESULTS: Adenoma detection rate of the group with other indications (50.6%) was higher than that of the screening group (44.6%; P=0.03). In regarding pSPDR, there was no difference between pSPDR in both groups (screening 13.6%; other indications 13.7%; P=0.931). There was no significant difference in the mean age (P=0.259) or in the proportion of men and women (P=0.211) between both groups. CONCLUSION: Proximal serrated polyp detection rate showed an insignificant difference between groups with different indications and could be used as a complementary indicator to adenoma detection rate. This could benefit colonoscopists with low colonoscopy volume or low volume of screening colonoscopies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1323-1327 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Liang ◽  
M. F. Kalady ◽  
K. Appau ◽  
J. Church

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document