Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21258663›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie2011

Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program--Endoscopy.

David Armstrong, Roger Hollingworth, Donald Macintosh, Ying Chen, Sandra Daniels, Stuart Gittens, Ronald Bridges, Paul Sinclair, Catherine Dubé

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2012
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016
    Review
  6. Quality indicators for colonoscopy: The road forward.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014
    Article
  7. Article
  8. The endoscopy Global Rating Scale-Canada: development and implementation of a quality improvement tool.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2013
    Article
  9. Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2013
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Practice audit in gastroenterology--the route to improving quality and safety.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

David ArmstrongDivision of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton. armstro@mcmaster.ca
Roger Hollingworth
Donald Macintosh
Ying Chen
Sandra Daniels
Stuart Gittens
Ronald Bridges
Paul Sinclair
Catherine Dubé

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice.

objectiveTo evaluate a colonoscopists' practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback.

methodsA prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smartphones with automated data upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates.

resultsOver a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference -11.3% [95% CI -2.8% to -19.9%]; P=0.01). DISCUSSION: Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations.

conclusionReal-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.

Indexed as

Quality Assurance, Health CareAdolescentAdultCanadaColonic PolypsColonoscopyFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMedical AuditPoint-of-Care SystemsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prospective StudiesQuality Indicators, Health CareYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21258663
PMCPMC3027329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.