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
Review
. 2013 Sep;42(3):599-618.
doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.05.005.

Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation

Audrey H Calderwood  1 , Brian C Jacobson
Affiliations
Review

Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation

Audrey H Calderwood et al. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013 Sep.

Abstract

Colonoscopy is an excellent area for quality improvement because it is high volume, has significant associated risk and expense, and there is evidence that variability in its performance affects outcomes. The best end point for validation of quality metrics in colonoscopy is colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but a more readily accessible metric is the adenoma detection rate. Fourteen quality metrics were proposed in 2006, and these are described in this article. Implementation of quality improvement initiatives involves rapid assessments and changes on an iterative basis, and can be done at the individual, group, or facility level.

Keywords: Colonoscopy; Metrics; Quality; Quality improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A sample report on the adenoma detection rate for an individual site generated within the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd Registry (GIQuIC). The metric for the individual site is compared to all sites within GIQuIC and national benchmarks are indicated. Used with permission from The GI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd, 2013.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A sample report on appropriate endoscopic examination intervals for an individual site generated within the AGA Digestive Health Outcomes Registry (AGA Registry). Used with permission from the American Gastroenterology Association, 2013.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Schematic of the Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycle, a simple and powerful scientific method for quality improvement whereby a team plans a test or observation, carries it out on a small scale, studies the results, and refines the change.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dulai GS, Farmer MM, Ganz PA, et al. Primary care provider perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in a managed care setting. Cancer. 2004;100:1843–52. - PubMed
    1. America CoQoHCi, Medicine Io. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. The National Academies Press; 2000. - PubMed
    1. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part II: lower gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:741–54. - PubMed
    1. Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1670–7. - PubMed
    1. Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA, et al. Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:757–66. - PubMed

MeSH terms