Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2012;7(4):e33957.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033957. Epub 2012 Apr 11.

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

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

Romain Coriat et al. PLoS One. 2012.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall detection rate in fair and insufficient preparation.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Endoscopic lesions detection rate: Hyperplastic polyps (a), Adenomas (b), Advanced adenomas (c), and Neoplastic lesions (d).

References

    1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer Statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010 - PubMed
    1. Cooper GS. Colonoscopy: a tarnished gold standard? Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2588–2590. - PubMed
    1. Lieberman D. A call to action–measuring the quality of colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2588–2589. - PubMed
    1. Rex DK. Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2866–2877. - PubMed
    1. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Vinden C, Li C, He J, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:452–456. - PubMed

Publication types