Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Healthcare professionals are required to conduct quality control of endoscopy procedures, and yet there is no standardised method for assessing quality. The topic of the present study was to validate the applicability of the procedure in daily practice, giving physicians the ability to define areas for continuous quality improvement. METHODS: In ten endoscopy units in France, 200 patients per centre undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. An evaluation was carried out based on a prospectively developed checklist of 10 quality-control indicators including five dependent upon and five independent of the colonoscopy procedure. RESULTS: Of the 2000 procedures, 30% were done at general hospitals, 20% at university hospitals, and 50% in private practices. The colonoscopies were carried out for a valid indication for 95.9% (range 92.5-100). Colon preparation was insufficient in 3.7% (range 1-10.5). Colonoscopies were successful in 95.3% (range 81-99). Adenoma detection rate was 0.31 (range 0.17-0.45) in successful colonoscopies. CONCLUSION: This tool for evaluating the quality of colonoscopy procedures in healthcare units is based on standard endoscopy and patient criteria. It is an easy and feasible procedure giving the ability to detect suboptimal practice and differences between endoscopy-units. It will enable individual units to assess the quality of their colonoscopy techniques.

Risk factors for advanced adenomas amongst small and diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective monocenter study.

BACKGROUND: The management of colorectal polyps <10mm in diameter is controversial. Our aim was to evaluate the rate and risk factors for advanced adenomas and high grade neoplasia amongst small (6-9 mm) and diminutive (1-5mm) colorectal polyps. METHODS: Endoscopic and pathological reports of colonoscopies performed in our centre were collected prospectively. Advanced adenoma was defined by presence of a villous component and/or high grade dysplasia; high grade neoplasia by presence of high grade dysplasia and/or intramucosal carcinoma. RESULTS: 1468 patients were included (53.1% male, mean age 59.5±14 years); 414 polyps <10mm were detected, 9.9% advanced adenomas and 1.7% high grade neoplasia. Amongst small polyps, 25 (35.2%) were advanced adenomas, mainly due to villous features, and 3 (4.2%) were high grade neoplasia. Polyp size was associated with advanced adenomas (odds ratio=8.47). CONCLUSION: The rate of advanced adenomas amongst small polyps was 35%, mainly due to the presence of villous features. Polyp size was identified as a risk factor of advanced adenoma amongst polyps <10mm. Given these results, we believe that polypectomy should be warranted for patients presenting with small polyps at computed tomography colonography.

[Appropiateness of colonoscopy in a gastrointestinal unit in 2001: a prospective study using criteria established by a European panel of experts]. / Pertinence des indications de la coloscopie dans un service de gastroentérologie de l'AP-HP en 2001. Application de critères établis par un panel d'experts européens.

UNLABELLED: Criteria for appropriateness of colonoscopy have been elaborated by an European Panel (EPAGE). OBJECTIVES: 1) To assess the feasibility of EPAGE criteria in clinical practice, 2) to assess colonoscopy appropriateness using EPAGE criteria, 3) to compare colonoscopy appropriateness and findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred and six consecutive examinations were included. The referral indication was judged using a scoring system on the basis of the EPAGE criteria. RESULTS: Appropriateness could be assessed in 94% of the colonoscopies. Fifty-four percent were appropriate, 40% equivocal, and 6% inappropriate. Rate of abnormal colonoscopy was not different between the 3 groups, however endoscopic findings were more severe when the indication was appropriate. In the appropriate group, adenomatous polyps were more frequent (24%) than in the two other groups (13% and 12%; P<0.05) and tended to be larger in size. In the inappropriate group, patients were significantly younger, and no cancer was found. There were 5 colonic cancers in the inappropriate group and 12 in the appropriate group. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy is generally not overused according to EPAGE guidelines. However, on an individual basis it could be rather difficult to determine colonoscopy appropriateness using a scoring system. Indeed, a third of the indications was judged equivocal and the endoscopic findings were no different whether indication was appropriate or equivocal.