Dataset Information

Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Healthcare professionals are required to conduct quality control of endoscopy procedures, and yet there is no standardised method for assessing quality. The topic of the present study was to validate the applicability of the procedure in daily practice, giving physicians the ability to define areas for continuous quality improvement.

Methods

In ten endoscopy units in France, 200 patients per centre undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. An evaluation was carried out based on a prospectively developed checklist of 10 quality-control indicators including five dependent upon and five independent of the colonoscopy procedure.

Results

Of the 2000 procedures, 30% were done at general hospitals, 20% at university hospitals, and 50% in private practices. The colonoscopies were carried out for a valid indication for 95.9% (range 92.5-100). Colon preparation was insufficient in 3.7% (range 1-10.5). Colonoscopies were successful in 95.3% (range 81-99). Adenoma detection rate was 0.31 (range 0.17-0.45) in successful colonoscopies.

Conclusion

This tool for evaluating the quality of colonoscopy procedures in healthcare units is based on standard endoscopy and patient criteria. It is an easy and feasible procedure giving the ability to detect suboptimal practice and differences between endoscopy-units. It will enable individual units to assess the quality of their colonoscopy techniques.

SUBMITTER: Coriat R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3324486 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units.

Coriat Romain R Lecler Augustin A Lamarque Dominique D Deyra Jacques J Roche Hervé H Nizou Catherine C Berretta Olivier O Mesnard Bruno B Bouygues Martin M Soupison Alain A Monnin Jean-Luc JL Podevin Philippe P Cassaz Carole C Sautereau Denis D Prat Frédéric F Chaussade Stanislas S

PloS one 20120411 4

<h4>Background and aims</h4>Healthcare professionals are required to conduct quality control of endoscopy procedures, and yet there is no standardised method for assessing quality. The topic of the present study was to validate the applicability of the procedure in daily practice, giving physicians the ability to define areas for continuous quality improvement.<h4>Methods</h4>In ten endoscopy units in France, 200 patients per centre undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. An evaluatio ...[more]

PMID: 22509267

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although colonoscopy is the accepted standard for detection of colorectal adenomas and cancers, many adenomas and some cancers are missed. To avoid interval colorectal cancer, the adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy needs to be reduced by improvement of colonoscopy technique and imaging capability. We aimed to compare the adenoma miss rates of full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopy with those of standard forward-viewing colonoscopy.We did an international, multicentre, randomised trial at three sites in Israel, one site in the Netherlands, and two sites in the USA between Feb 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. Patients aged 18-70 years referred for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or diagnostic assessment underwent same-day, back-to-back tandem colonoscopy with standard forward-viewing colonoscope and the full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscope. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with block size of 20, to which procedure was done first. The endoscopist was masked to group allocation until immediately before the start of colonoscopy examinations; patients were not masked. The primary endpoint was adenoma miss rates. We did per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01549535.197 participants were enrolled. 185 participants were included in the per-protocol analyses: 88 (48%) were randomly assigned to receive standard forward-viewing colonoscopy first, and 97 (52%) to receive full-spectrum endoscopy colonoscopy first. By per-lesion analysis, the adenoma miss rate was significantly lower in patients in the full-spectrum endoscopy group than in those in the standard forward-viewing procedure group: five (7%) of 67 vs 20 (41%) of 49 adenomas were missed (p<0·0001). Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy missed 20 adenomas in 15 patients; of those, three (15%) were advanced adenomas. Full-spectrum endoscopy missed five adenomas in five patients in whom an adenoma had already been detected with first-pass standard forward-viewing colonoscopy; none of these missed adenomas were advanced. One patient was admitted to hospital for colitis detected at colonoscopy, whereas five minor adverse events were reported including vomiting, diarrhoea, cystitis, gastroenteritis, and bleeding.Full-spectrum endoscopy represents a technology advancement for colonoscopy and could improve the efficacy of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.EndoChoice.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:A consensus study from 2017 developed 15 response-specific quality indicators (QIs) for physician-staffed emergency medical services (P-EMS). The aim of this study was to test these QIs for important characteristics in a real clinical setting. These characteristics were feasibility, rankability, variability, actionability and documentation. We further aimed to propose benchmarks for future quality measurements in P-EMS. DESIGN:In this prospective observational study, physician-staffed helicopter emergency services registered data for the 15 QIs. The feasibility of the QIs was assessed based on the comments of the recording physicians. The other four QI characteristics were assessed by the authors. Benchmarks were proposed based on the quartiles in the dataset. SETTING:Nordic physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services. PARTICIPANTS:16 physician-staffed helicopter emergency services in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. RESULTS:The dataset consists of 5638 requests to the participating P-EMSs. There were 2814 requests resulting in completed responses with patient contact. All QIs were feasible to obtain. The variability of 14 out of 15 QIs was adequate. Rankability was adequate for all QIs. Actionability was assessed as being adequate for 10 QIs. Documentation was adequate for 14 QIs. Benchmarks for all QIs were proposed. CONCLUSIONS:All 15 QIs seem possible to use in everyday quality measurement and improvement. However, it seems reasonable to not analyse the QI 'Adverse Events' with a strictly quantitative approach because of a low rate of adverse events. Rather, this QI should be used to identify adverse events so that they can be analysed as sentinel events. The actionability of the QIs 'Able to respond immediately when alarmed', 'Time to arrival of P-EMS', 'Time to preferred destination', 'Provision of advanced treatment' and 'Significant logistical contribution' was assessed as being poor. Benchmarks for the QIs and a total quality score are proposed for future quality measurements.

Project description:IntroductionQuality of emergency department (ED) care affects patient outcomes substantially. Quality indicators (QIs) for ED care are a major challenge due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, health care structures and processes in Germany. Although a number of quality measures are already in use, there is a paucity of data on the importance of these QIs on medium-term and long-term outcomes. The evaluation of outcome relevance of quality indicators in the emergency department study (ENQuIRE) aims to identify and investigate the relevance of QIs in the ED on patient outcomes in a 12-month follow-up.Methods and analysisThe study is a prospective non-interventional multicentre cohort study conducted in 15 EDs throughout Germany. Included are all patients in 2019, who were ≥18 years of age, insured at the Techniker Krankenkasse (statutory health insurance (SHI)) and gave their written informed consent to the study.The primary objective of the study is to assess the effect of selected quality measures on patient outcome. The data collected for this purpose comprise medical records from the ED treatment, discharge (claims) data from hospitalised patients, a patient questionnaire to be answered 6-8 weeks after emergency admission, and outcome measures in a 12-month follow-up obtained as claims data from the SHI.Descriptive and analytical statistics will be applied to provide summaries about the characteristics of QIs and associations between quality measures and patient outcomes.Ethics and disseminationApproval of the leading ethics committee at the Medical Faculty of the University of Magdeburg (reference number 163/18 from 19 November 2018) has been obtained and adapted by responsible local ethics committees.The findings of this work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations as conference contributions (abstracts, poster or oral presentations).Moreover, results will be discussed with clinical experts and medical associations before being proposed for implementation into the quality management of EDs.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00015203); Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units.

Background and aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets