Year 2018 / Volume 110 / Number 5
Review
Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

316-326

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5408/2017

Antonio Sánchez del Río on behalf of Grupo de Trabajo de “Indicadores de calidad en endoscopia” de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD)*,

* Grupo de Trabajo de “Indicadores de calidad en endoscopia” de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD): Antonio Sánchez del Río, Shirley Pérez Romero, Julio López-Picazo, Fernando Alberca de las Parras, Javier Júdez, Joaquín León Molina

Abstract
The aim of the project this paper is part of was to propose quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. In this second issue, procedures and indicators are suggested regarding colonoscopy. First, a diagram charting the previous and subsequent steps of colonoscopy was designed. A group of experts in health care quality and/or endoscopy, under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), performed a qualitative review of the literature regarding colonoscopy-related quality indicators. Subsequently, using a paired-analysis method, the aforementioned literature was selected and analyzed. A total of 13 specific indicators were found aside of the common markers elsewhere described, ten of which are process-related (one pre-procedure, seven procedure, and two post-procedure markers) while the remaining three are outcome-related. Quality of evidence was assessed for each one of them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) classification.
Share Button
New comment
Comments
No comments for this article
References
1. Arcelay A. Adaptación de un modelo de calidad total a las instituciones sanitarias españolas. Rev Calid Asist. 2000;15:184–92.
2. Donavedian A. La calidad de la asistencia. ¿Cómo podría ser evaluada? JANO. 1989;864:103–10.
3. López-Picazo J, Alberca de las Parras F, Sánchez del Río A et al. Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy: introduction to structure, process, and outcome common indicators. Rev Española Enfermedades Dig [Internet]. 2017;109(6):435–50.
4. Petersen BT. Quality assurance for endoscopists. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2011;25(3):349–60.
5. Rees CJ, Bevan R, Zimmermann-Fraedrich K et al. Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators. Gut [Internet]. 2016;gutjnl-2016-312043.
6. Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut [Internet]. 2016;65(12):1923–9.
7. Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy [Internet]. 2012;44 Suppl 3(S 03):SE151-63.
8. Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau J-MM et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45(10):842–51.
9. Lieberman D a, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology [Internet]. 2012 Sep [cited 2015 Mar 1];143(3):844–57.
10. Rutter MD, Chattree A, Barbour JA et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Gut [Internet]. 2015;(Agree Ii):1–27.
11. Gupta S, Miskovic D, Bhandari P et al. A novel method for determining the difficulty of colonoscopic polypectomy. Frontline Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2013;4(4):244–8.
12. Sánchez del Río A, Campo R, Llach J et al. Variation among endoscopy units in the achievement of the standards of colonoscopic performance indicators. Hepatogastroenterology [Internet]. [cited 2017 Mar 9];55(86–87):1594–9.
13. Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A et al. Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men. Gastroenterology [Internet]. 2015;150(2):396–405
14. Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2014 Nov 19 [cited 2017 Mar 4];109(11):1714–23; quiz 1724.
15. Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(4):781–94.
16. Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - 2013_bowel_preparation_for_colonoscopy.pdf. 2013;(3):142–50.
17. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: Recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet]. 2015;80(4):543–62.
18. Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C et al. Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology [Internet]. 2015;149(1):79–88.
19. Connor a., Tolan D, Hughes S et al. Consensus guidelines for the safe prescription and administration of oral bowel-cleansing agents. Gut. 2012;61(11):1525–32.
20. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet]. 2015 Jan [cited 2015 Apr 6];81(1):31–53.
21. Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy : position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( ESGE ). 2012;957–68.
22. Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A et al. Validated Scales for Colon Cleansing: A Systematic Review. Am J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2016;111(2):197–204.
23. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;Mar; 69(3 Pt 2): 620–625. Doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057
24. Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(1):65–72.
25. Sánchez del Río A, Baudet JS, Naranjo Rodríguez A et al. Desarrollo y validación de indicadores y estándares de calidad en colonoscopia. Med Clin (Barc). 2010;134(2):49–56.
26. Coriat R, Lecler A, Lamarque D et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: A prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units. PLoS One. 2012;7(4).
27. Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R et al. Factors Associated With Incomplete Colonoscopy: A Population-Based Study. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(7):2297–303.
28. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut [Internet]. 2013;62(2):242–9.
29. Valori R, Rey J-F, Atkin W 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(S 03):SE88-SE105.
30. Jover R, Herraiz M, Alarcón O et al. Clinical practice Guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy. 2012;44(4):444–51.
31. Rey J-F, Lambert R. ESGE Recommendations for Quality Control in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Guidelines for Image Documentation in Upper and Lower GI Endoscopy. Endoscopy [Internet]. 2001;33(10):901–3.
32. Steele RJ, Pox C, Kuipers EJ et al. International Agency for Research on C. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition Management of lesions detected in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy [Internet]. 2012;44 Suppl 3:SE140-50.
33. Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, Lederle FA, Kim AS, Rank JM, et al. Longer Withdrawal Time Is Associated With a Reduced Incidence of Interval Cancer After Screening Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology [Internet]. 2015;149(4):952–7.
34. Hilsden RJ, Dube C, Heitman SJ et al. The association of colonoscopy quality indicators with the detection of screen-relevant lesions, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers in an asymptomatic Canadian colorectal cancer screening population. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet]. 2015;82(5):887–94.
35. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):31–53.
36. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a Time-Dependent Colonoscopic Withdrawal Protocol on Adenoma Detection During Screening Colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol [Internet]. 2008 Oct [cited 2017 Mar 4];6(10):1091–8.
37. Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy - A nationwide analysis. Endoscopy. 2012;44(5):476–81.
38. Gellad ZF, Weiss DG, Ahnen DJ et al. Colonoscopy withdrawal time and risk of neoplasia at 5 years: results from VA Cooperative Studies Program 380. Am J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2010 Aug [cited 2014 Dec 21];105(8):1746–52.
39. Lieberman D a, Faigel DO, Logan JR et al. Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet]. 2009 Mar [cited 2014 Dec 21];69(3 Pt 2):645–53.
40. Nayor J, Saltzman JR, Campbell EJ et al. Impact of physician compliance with colonoscopy surveillance guidelines on interval colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet]. 2017;85(6):1263–70.
41. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1095–105.
42. Morris EJA, Rutter MD, Finan PJ et al. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut [Internet]. 2014;64(8):1248–56.
43. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z et al. Rates of New or Missed Colorectal Cancers After Colonoscopy and Their Risk Factors: A Population-Based Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(1):96–102.
44. Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM et al . Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2011 Jan 4 [cited 2017 Aug 9];154(1):22–30.
45. Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH et al. Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Interval Colorectal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Gastroenterol [Internet]. 2014 Sep 24 [cited 2017 Aug 9];109(9):1375–89.
46. Samadder NJ, Curtin K, Tuohy TMF et al. Characteristics of missed or interval colorectal cancer and patient survival: A population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(4).
47. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: a new health system for the 21st Century. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001
48. Jain D, Momeni M, Krishnaiah M et al. Importance of reporting segmental bowel preparation scores during colonoscopy in clinical practice. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;.
49. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med [Internet]. 2014;370(14):1298–306.
50. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(19):1795–803.
51. Denis B, Sauleau EA, Gendre I et al. The mean number of adenomas per procedure should become the gold standard to measure the neoplasia yield of colonoscopy: A population-based cohort study. Dig Liver Dis [Internet]. 2014;46(2):176–81.
52. Wang HS, Pisegna J, Modi R et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet]. 2013;77(1):71–8.
Related articles

Digestive Diseases Image

Underwater polypectomy at the appendiceal orifice in a patient on anticoagulation

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2023.9842/2023

Letter

An uncommon colonic polyp

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9160/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Intestinal obstruction due to bariolith impaction

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9084/2022

Letter

Anorectal malignant melanoma, a diagnostic challenge

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9068/2022

Letter

Lead ingestion, medical emergency and action plan

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9048/2022

Letter

Endoscopic findings of radiation ileitis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9036/2022

Letter

Endoscopic imaging of pneumatosis intestinalis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8972/2022

Editorial

Colonoscopy — When quality matters

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8942/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Colonic Kaposi’s sarcoma as the first clinical manifestation of undiagnosed HIV

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8717/2022

Letter

Gastrointestinal lymphoma, a rare endoscopic lesion

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8555/2021

Letter

Cecal MALT lymphoma: a challenging diagnosis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8526/2021

Letter

Surprises in cecal intubation: foreign bodies in the colon

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8155/2021

Digestive Diseases Image

Phlebosclerotic colitis: an unusual cause of abdominal pain and hematochezia

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7358/2020

Special Article

Quality indicators in enteroscopy. Enteroscopy procedure

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.6946/2020

Case Report

Primary colon mantle lymphoma: a misleading macroscopic appearance!

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6405/2019

Digestive Diseases Image

Colorectal penetration by two intrauterine devices

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.5974/2018

Editorial

Colorectal cancer screening and survival

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5870/2018

Letter

Bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis after colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5658/2018

Letter to the Editor

A rare complication after colonoscopy: a splenic rupture

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5362/2017

Letter to the Editor

Acute appendicitis after a colonic endoscopic submucosal resection

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5307/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

Contribution of the virtual colonoscopy in a case of intestinal intussusception

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5261/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

A bull horn fragment found on colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5020/2017

Editorial

Issue pending: minimizing anxiety before colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4756/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Intrauterine device in the rectal cavity

Letter to the Editor

Primary chancre in the rectum: an underdiagnosed cause of rectal ulcer

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4457/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis

Letter to the Editor

Splenic rupture after colorectal cancer screening

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2015.3714/2015

Citation tools
Sánchez del Río A. Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure. 5408/2017


Download to a citation manager

Download the citation for this article by clicking on one of the following citation managers:

Metrics
This article has received 1684 visits.
This article has been downloaded 1237 times.

Statistics from Dimensions


Statistics from Plum Analytics

Publication history

Received: 30/11/2017

Accepted: 03/02/2018

Online First: 16/04/2018

Published: 27/04/2018

Article revision time: 54 days

Article Online First time: 137 days

Article editing time: 148 days


Share
This article has been rated by 2 readers.
Reader rating:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology is the official organ of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Cookie policy Privacy Policy Legal Notice © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology