Colonoscopy quality measures: Experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

Gut

Volumn 61, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1050-1057

  Lee, Thomas J W ^a,b,c   Rutter, Matthew D ^a,c,d   Blanks, Roger G ^e   Moss, Sue M ^f   Goddard, Andrew F ^g   Chilton, Andrew ^h   Nickerson, Claire ⁱ   McNally, Richard J Q ^b   Patnick, Julietta ⁱ   Rees, Colin J ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH TEES   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c SOUTH TYNESIDE DISTRICT HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^g DERBY CITY GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^h KETTERING GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUMAZENIL; NALOXONE; NITROUS OXIDE PLUS OXYGEN; PROPOFOL; SCOPOLAMINE BUTYL BROMIDE;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL ADENOMA; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCUBATION TIME; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; OCCULT BLOOD TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; SEX DIFFERENCE; SIGMOIDOSCOPY;

ADENOMA; AGED; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OCCULT BLOOD; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 84861574329     PISSN: 00175749     EISSN: 14683288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300651     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Benson VS, Patnick J, Davies AK, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of 35 initiatives in 17 countries. Int J Cancer 2008;122:1357-67. (Pubitemid 351287237)
2. Bretagne JF, Hamonic S, Piette C, et al. Variations between endoscopists in rates of detection of colorectal neoplasia and their impact on a regional screening programme based on colonoscopy after fecal occult blood testing. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:335-41.
3. Atkin W, Rogers P, Cardwell C, et al. Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastroenterology 2004;126:1247-56. (Pubitemid 38552789)
4. Mandel JS, Church TR, Bond JH, et al. The effect of fecal occult blood screening on the incidence of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1603-7. (Pubitemid 32162983)
5. Kronberg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal occult blood test. Lancet 1996;348:1467-71. (Pubitemid 26400241)
6. UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Group. Results of the first round of a demonstration of a pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2004;329:133-5.
7. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska W, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795-803.
8. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1296-308. (Pubitemid 34664769)
9. Segnan N, Patnick J, von Karsa L, eds. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. First edn. Luxemburg: Publishing office of the European Union; 2011.
10. Millan MS, Gross P, Manilich E, et al. Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Col Rectum 2008;51:1217-20.
11. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004;53:277-83. (Pubitemid 38125519)
12. National Patient Safety Agency. Rapid Response Report- Reducing risk of overdose with midazolam injection in adults. 9 December 2008. NPSA/2008/RRR011. http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/resources/?entryid45=59896&p=6.
13. Bell GD, McCloy RF, Charlton JE, et al. Recommendations for standards of sedation and patient monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 1991;32:725-6.
14. JAG. DOPS Forms. http://www.thejag.org.uk/TrainingforEndoscopists/ DOPSForms.aspx.
15. Chilton A, Rutter MD. BCSP Quality Assurance Guidelines for Colonoscopy. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, 2011. http://www.cancerscreening. nhs.uk/bowel/publications/nhsbcsp06.html.
16. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446-54.
17. Rex DK. Colonoscopy: a review of its yield for cancers and adenomas by indication. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:353-65.
18. Johnson DA, Gurney MS, Volpe RJ, et al. A prospective study of colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with an age related risk. Am J Gastroenterol 1990;85:969-74. (Pubitemid 20235793)
19. Weller D, Coleman D, Robertson R, et al. The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer 2007;97:1601-5. (Pubitemid 350249359)
20. Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E, et al. Colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1863-72. 21. http://www.endoaudit.com (accessed 10 Jul 2011).
21. Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, et al. Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:307-14. (Pubitemid 41115140)
22. Panteris V, Haringsma J, Kuipers EJ. Colonoscopy perforation rate, mechanisms and outcome: from diagnostic to therapeutic colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2009;41:941-51.
23. Crispin A, Birkner B, Munte A, et al. Process quality and incidence of acute complications in a series of more than 230 000 outpatient colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2009;41:1018-25.
24. Ellis IO, Coleman D, Wells C, et al. Impact of a national external quality assessment scheme for breast pathology in the UK. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:138-45. (Pubitemid 43235576)