ArticleCanadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie2011
Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program--Endoscopy.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Colonoscopy quality assurance in Ontario: Systematic review and clinical practice guideline.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014Guideline
- Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2012Guideline
- Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Trial
- Resident Practice Audit in Gastroenterology (RPAGE): an innovative approach to trainee evaluation and professional development in medicine.Canadian medical education journal · 2019Article
- A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Review
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy: The road forward.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014Article
- Diagnostic image quality in gynaecological ultrasound: Who should measure it, what should we measure and how?Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2014Article
- The endoscopy Global Rating Scale-Canada: development and implementation of a quality improvement tool.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2013Article
- Patient-identified quality indicators for colonoscopy services.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2013Article
- Observational
- Practice audit in gastroenterology--the route to improving quality and safety.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.