The 'ins and outs' of colonoscopy at Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre, South Africa: A practice audit of the outpatient endoscopy unit
- PMID: 33403963
- DOI: 10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i12.14419
The 'ins and outs' of colonoscopy at Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre, South Africa: A practice audit of the outpatient endoscopy unit
Abstract
Background: In South Africa, there are no national guidelines for the conduct or quality assessment of colonoscopy, the gold standard for investigation and diagnosis of bowel pathology.
Objectives: To describe the clinical profile of patients and evaluate the practice of colonoscopy using procedural quality indicators at the Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre (WDGMC) outpatient endoscopy unit (OEU).
Methods: We conducted a prospective, clinical practice audit of colonoscopies performed on adults (≥18 years of age). A total of 1 643 patients were included in the study and variables that were collected enabled the assessment of adequacy of bowel preparation, length of withdrawal time and calculation of caecal intubation rate (CIR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We stratified PDR and ADR by sex, age, population group, withdrawal time and bowel preparation. CIR, PDR and ADR estimates were compared between patient groups by the χ2 test; Fisher's exact test was used for 2 × 2 tables. A p-value <0.05 was used. Benchmark recommendations by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)/American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) were used in this audit to assess individual endoscopist performance and that of the endoscopy unit as a whole.
Results: The mean age of patients was 55.7 (standard deviation (SD) 14.4; range 18 - 91) years, ~60% were female, and the majority (75.5%) were white. Of the outpatients, 77.6% had adequate bowel preparation (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥85%). The CIR was 97.0% overall, and screening colonoscopy was 96.3% (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥90% overall and ≥95% for screening colonoscopies). The median withdrawal time for negative-result screening colonoscopies was 5.7 minutes (interquartile range (IQR) 4.2 - 9.3; range 1.1 - 20.6) (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥ 6minutes), and PDR and ADR were 27.6% and 15.6%, respectively (ASGE/ACG benchmark ADR ≥25%). We demonstrated a 23.7% increase in PDR and 14.1% increase in ADR between scopes that had mean withdrawal times of ≥6 minutes and <6 minutes, respectively. Although the number of black Africans in the study was relatively small, our results showed that they have similar ADRs and PDRs to the white population group, contradicting popular belief.
Conclusions: The WDGMC OEU performed reasonably well against the international guidelines, despite some inadequacy in bowel preparation and lower than recommended median withdrawal times on negative-result colonoscopy. Annual auditing of clinical practice and availability of these data in the public domain will become standard of care, making this audit a baseline for longitudinal observation, assessing the impact of interventions, and contributing to the development of local guidelines.
Similar articles
-
Prevalence and characteristics of incidental colorectal polyps in patients undergoing colonoscopy at a South African tertiary institution.S Afr Med J. 2020 Nov 27;110(12):1191-1194. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i12.14582. S Afr Med J. 2020. PMID: 33403964
-
The conversion factor for predicting adenoma detection rate from polyp detection rate varies according to colonoscopy indication and patient sex.Eur J Cancer Prev. 2020 Jul;29(4):294-302. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000558. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2020. PMID: 32543806
-
Data quality and colonoscopy performance indicators in the prevalent round of a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening program.Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr;54(4):471-477. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2019.1597158. Epub 2019 Apr 12. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019. PMID: 30978128
-
Quality indicators for screening colonoscopy and colonoscopist performance and the subsequent risk of interval colorectal cancer: a systematic review.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019 Nov;17(11):2265-2300. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003927. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019. PMID: 31188154
-
Traditional and Novel Colonoscopy Quality Metrics: What's Important in 2025.Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2025 Aug 8;27(1):58. doi: 10.1007/s11894-025-01006-1. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2025. PMID: 40775559 Review.
Cited by
-
Self-adherence to post-colonoscopy consults in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy: Findings from a cross-sectional, quantitative survey at a South African quaternary hospital.PLoS One. 2023 Jul 18;18(7):e0288752. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288752. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 37463177 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical
Research Materials