UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Colonoscopy should be delivered by endoscopists performing high quality procedures. The British Society of Gastroenterology, the UK Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland have developed quality assurance measures and key performance indicators for the delivery of colonoscopy within the UK. This document sets minimal standards for delivery of procedures along with aspirational targets that all endoscopists should aim for.

Related collections

Most cited references 57

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality.

Alaa Rostom, Emilie Jolicoeur (2004)

Bowel preparation quality scales are used to document the superiority of one preparation regime vs. another. The validity and reliability of these scales are not routinely stated in reports of studies in which the scales are used. A new colonoscopy bowel preparation scale (the Ottawa bowel preparation scale) was developed and validated prospectively. Ninety-seven consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were entered into the study. The quality of the bowel preparation was assessed independently by two investigators who used the Ottawa scale, and the only other validated scale (Aronchick scale) that could be identified. The interobserver agreement and reliability of each scale was assessed by the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), the intraclass correlation coefficient, and regression analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients were, respectively, 0.89 and 0.62 for the Ottawa and Aronchick scales (p<0.001). The values for the kappa statistic, an intraclass correlation coefficient measuring agreement over and above chance agreement, were, respectively, 0.94 and 0.77 (p<0.001). Linear regression analysis, mapping the line best describing the scatter of scores by raters, for the Ottawa scale revealed a slope of the line of 0.93 and a y intercept of 0.10. The Aronchick scale revealed a slope of 0.65 and a y intercept of 0.46. The Ottawa scale thus was closer to an identity line comparing raters (i.e., closer to a line with slope of 1.00 and y intercept of 0.00). The Ottawa scale demonstrated a right colon kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.92: 95% CI[0.88, 0.95], a mid colon kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.88: 95% CI[0.82, 0.92], and a rectosigmoid kappa (intraclass correlation coefficient) of 0.89: 95% CI[0.83, 0.92]. The Ottawa scale was validated prospectively and demonstrates high interobserver agreement and reliability, whether used as a total score or for individual colon segments.

0 comments Cited 118 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis.

Douglas J Robertson, David Lieberman, Sidney Winawer … (2014)

Some individuals are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) despite recent colonoscopy. We examined individuals under colonoscopic surveillance for colonic adenomas to assess possible reasons for diagnosing cancer after a recent colonoscopy with complete removal of any identified polyps.

0 comments Cited 114 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effect of screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

D E Rex, Charles Kahi, Thomas Imperiale … (2009)

Colonoscopy is used widely for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; however, its long-term impact on the incidence and mortality of CRC is not known. We assessed CRC incidence and mortality in a group of asymptomatic average-risk patients who underwent screening colonoscopy between 1989 and 1993 at a university hospital. By using standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios, we compared our observed CRC rates with expected rates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. The cohort comprised 715 patients (mean age, 61 +/- 6.5 y; 59% male; 95% Caucasian) with 10,492 patient-years of follow-up. There were 12 cases of CRC: 5 found at baseline and 7 found after a median follow-up period of 8 years (range, 3-16 y). When the first 2 years of follow-up were excluded, there were 7 incident cases of CRC (95% confidence interval [CI], 2-13) over 9075 person-years of follow-up. The expected number based on SEER data was 21. The incidence rate was 0.77 cases per 1000 person-years, and the standardized incidence ratio was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.10-0.62), consistent with a relative risk reduction in CRC incidence of 67%. Three patients died from CRC (95% CI, 0-9). The expected number of deaths based on SEER data was 9. The mortality rate was 0.29 per 1000 person-years, and the standardized mortality ratio was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.0-1.06), consistent with a relative reduction in CRC death of 65%. In this average-risk cohort, CRC incidence and mortality were reduced after screening colonoscopy. These results provide additional evidence for the effectiveness of colonoscopy as a primary CRC screening modality.

0 comments Cited 112 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Gut

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Gut

Journal ID (hwp): gutjnl

Journal ID (publisher-id): gut

Title: Gut

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )

ISSN (Print): 0017-5749

ISSN (Electronic): 1468-3288

Publication date (Print): December 2016

Publication date (Electronic): 16 August 2016

Volume: 65

Issue: 12

Pages: 1923-1929

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust , South Shields, UK

[2 ]Durham University School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health

[3 ]Northern Region Endoscopy Group

[4 ]Imperial College Endoscopy Unit, St Mark's Hospital , London, UK

[5 ]Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees , Stockton-on-Tees, UK

[6 ]University Hospital of Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust , Coventry, UK

[7 ]South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust , Torquay, UK

[8 ]Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Author notes

[Correspondence to ] Professor Colin J Rees, Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, NE34 0PL, UK; colin.rees@ 123456stft.nhs.uk

Article

Publisher ID: gutjnl-2016-312044

DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312044

PMC ID: 5136732

PubMed ID: 27531829

SO-VID: 3b576c75-b1c7-4057-93ee-aa4eb26dcd0b

Copyright © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/