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
. 2017 Apr;5(3):309-334.
doi: 10.1177/2050640617700014. Epub 2017 Mar 16.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

Michal F Kaminski  1   2   3   4 , Siwan Thomas-Gibson  5 , Marek Bugajski  1   2 , Michael Bretthauer  3   4 , Colin J Rees  6 , Evelien Dekker  7 , Geir Hoff  3   8   9 , Rodrigo Jover  10 , Stepan Suchanek  11 , Monika Ferlitsch  12 , John Anderson  13 , Thomas Roesch  14 , Rolf Hultcranz  15 , Istvan Racz  16 , Ernst J Kuipers  17 , Kjetil Garborg  3 , James E East  18 , Maciej Rupinski  1   2 , Birgitte Seip  19 , Cathy Bennett  20 , Carlo Senore  21 , Silvia Minozzi  21 , Raf Bisschops  22 , Dirk Domagk  23 , Roland Valori  24 , Cristiano Spada  25 , Cesare Hassan  26 , Mario Dinis-Ribeiro  27   28 , Matthew D Rutter  29   30
Affiliations
Review

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

Michal F Kaminski et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Apr.

Abstract

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Keywords: Colonoscopy; patient safety; performance measures; quality; quality indicators.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The domains and performance measures chosen by the working group (N/A = not available).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R, et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality improvement initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 81–89. - PubMed
    1. Minoli G, Meucci G, Prada A, et al. Quality assurance and colonoscopy. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 522–527. - PubMed
    1. Ball JE, Osbourne J, Jowett S, et al. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004; 329: 665–667. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296–1308. - PubMed
    1. Valori R, Rey JF, Atkin WS, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition. Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44(Suppl 3): SE88–SE105. - PubMed