ArticleHealth science reports2025
A Comparison of the Australian Colonoscopy Care Standards to Current Clinical Practice.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. The Colonoscopy Clinical Care Standards were introduced by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare to provide a national consensus on the benchmarks required for colonoscopy care in Australia. Despite these new guidelines being implemented, it is still unknown if they have been successfully adopted by hospitals in Australia. Methods: This mixed-methods study of outpatient colonoscopies from January to May 2022 compared the current clinical practice to the Colonoscopy Clinical Care Standards using quantitative and qualitative data. Thus, taking the first step to address this gap. Results: In this single-center study of adults (≥18 years of age) attending for an outpatient colonoscopy, there were 99 patients included with a mean age of 56 ± 15.2 years, and the majority of participants were female (56.6%). Only 21% of colonoscopies were considered "on time" for their corresponding triage category. An easily accessible documentation of informed consent for colonoscopy was available in 86% of cases. Bowel preparation was adequate in 88% of patients. Withdrawal time was reported in 14 patients and total procedure time was available for the majority ( Discussion: This study has identified a number of areas that could be improved including documentation and availability, specifically of informed consent, discussion of risks and benefits, withdrawal time, timely colonoscopy, and adequate bowel preparation. In conclusion, recommendations would increase compliance with the Colonoscopy Clinical Care Standards, improve patient care and engage in best practice and can also be extrapolated to other healthcare providers.
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.