Factors Affecting Colonoscopy Comfort and Compliance: a Questionnaire Based Multicenter Study
|
|
- Norman Price
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Factors Affecting Colonoscopy Comfort and Compliance: a Questionnaire Based Multicenter Study A. VOIOSU 1, ALINA TANŢĂU 2, CRISTINA GARBULEŢ 1, M. TANŢĂU, B. MATEESCU 1, C. BĂICUŞ 1, R. VOIOSU 1, TH. VOIOSU 1 1 Colentina Universitary Hospital, Bucharest, Romania 2 Tanţău Medical Center, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Aims. Colonoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer-related mortality and incidence. However, many patients are reluctant to undergo colonoscopy or return for follow-up because of the investigation s cumbersome and unpleasant nature. We aimed to identify patient-related factors significantly influencing comfort and quality of colonoscopy analyzing responses to a selfadministered validated questionnaire. Methods. Patients undergoing colonoscopy under sedation in two high-volume endoscopy units were invited to answer a short prevalidated questionnaire regarding preprocedure anxiety, satisfaction with information provided, most worrisome aspect of the procedure and knowledge of the benefits of colonoscopy. Self-reported comfort during colonoscopy as graded on a 10 point visual analog scale was the main variable considered. Univariate analysis identified factors possibly associated with a higher degree of comfort during colonoscopy that were then tested through multivariate logistical regression. Results. 452 questionnaires were returned. Most patients reported an acceptable degree of discomfort during colonoscopy but 70.2% of the respondents considered the information provided prior to the procedure to be insufficient. On multivariate analysis older age, higher degree of satisfaction with information provided (p = 0.04), lower preprocedure anxiety levels (p < 0.01) and endoscopy center (p < 0.01) were shown to correlate with increased comfort during colonoscopy. Education level, previous colonoscopy, gender and bowel prep quality did not influence patient comfort. Conclusions. Patient comfort during colonoscopy is dependent on satisfaction with the information provided before the procedure. Higher availability of the physician and better interaction with the patient might decrease patient perceived burden of colonoscopy and lead to higher return rates in the screening and surveillance setting. Key words: colonoscopy; pain measurement; questionnaires; colorectal cancer; patient satisfaction. Colonoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer-related mortality and incidence [1]. However, many patients are reluctant to undergo colonoscopy or return for follow-up because of the investigation s cumbersome and unpleasant nature [2]. Studies have tried to address various aspects of the preparation and colonoscopy practices in order to improve acceptability and screening rates. While a good deal of literature is continuously being published on the topic of the optimal bowel prep [3 6] and insufflation technique [7 10], there are comparatively few studies dealing with patientoriented factors. The unpleasantness of the examination and inconvenience of the bowel preparation regimen are frequently invoked by patients when discussing the burden of colonoscopy [11]. It is probable that certain cultural and social individual factors such as education, expectations and anxiety concerning the procedure, shame and pain perception have a role in shaping a patient s experience of colonoscopy. Certain groups, including ours [12], have looked into different aspects of the colonoscopy experience [13 18] in an effort to better understand and improve the general population s low compliance to this screening practice. The use of the selfadministered questionnaire, although plagued by biases and reliability issues, is one of the best available tools in the study of cultural and social factors affecting colonoscopy screening rates. We aimed to identify both patient-related and procedure-dependent factors that are associated with increased colonoscopy-related comfort and satisfaction by studying postprocedure patient responses to a self-administered questionnaire. METHODS AND MATERIALS The study was conducted in two high-volume colonoscopy centers in Romania: a tertiary referral academic center ( Colentina Clinical Hospital, ROM. J. INTERN. MED., 2014, 52, 3,
2 152 A. Voiosu et al. 2 Bucuresti hereafter referred to as CH) and a private practice setting ( Dr Tantau Medical Center of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Digestive Endoscopy, Cluj hereafter referred to as TC). We asked all patients who had undergone colonoscopy at the 2 sites to complete a simple self-administered questionnaire after the procedure, when sedation wore off completely. Patients with stenosing colorectal tumors or who were examined under Proprofol sedation were excluded from the study. The study was approved by the local Ethics commitees for the two sites. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN AND CONTENTS The questionnaire contained simple singlechoice questions regarding personal education level, previous number of colonoscopies, degree of information about colonoscopy and its role in colorectal cancer prevention, level of anxiety preceding the investigation and the most worrisome aspect of the procedure. The main variable assessed was comfort during colonoscopy which the patient graded on a 10 grade visual analog scale with 10 representing extreme discomfort. This questionnaire was previously developed on a cohort of patients undergoing first colonoscopy in CH and the questions and answer options were adjusted to increase clarity of the formulation and consistency of responses after discussions with the patients who completed the forms. Questions from this initial survey form were also later used in a study we conducted on the influence of bowel prep regimen on patient satisfaction and quality of bowel cleansing [12]. Patients assessed the quality of information pertaining to colonoscopy offered before the procedure as insufficient, adequate or very satisfactory. This 3 point scale was further dichotomized for analysis into a low (insufficient information received) or high (adequate or better) degree of satisfaction with the procedure-related information offered. The level of anxiety before the procedure was described as insignificant, neutral, significant and highly significant and further stratified into low ( insignificant and neutral anxiety) or high ( significant and highly signifycant ) for statistical analysis. Patients were asked to state the single most worrisome aspect related to colonoscopy by choosing between fear of unfavorable results, pain, embarrassment, necessity of bowel prep, procedure-associated risks, duration and time lost due to the procedure, sedation or anesthesia related risks, others. They were also asked to specify if they were aware of the role of colonoscopy in the prevention of colorectal cancer by answering a yes or no question. The question and answer variants are presented in Table I. Table I Self-administered questionnaire form and responses according to center (CH Colentina Clinical Hospital, Bucuresti; TC Dr Tantau Medical Center of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Digestive Endoscopy, Cluj) Question How many colonoscopies have you previously had? Did you consider the information regarding the colonoscopy put at your disposal prior to the procedure to be: Which single aspect of the colonoscopy did you fear the most? How would you rate the degree of anxiety or fear you felt before the colonoscopy? Answer options None or more Very satisfactory Adequate Insufficient Necessity of bowel prep An unfavorable result Pain Embarrassment Procedure-related risks Duration and time lost Anesthesia or sedation related risks Other Very significant Significant Neutral Insignificant Yes Answer tally (CH/TC) 100/98 58/43 37/22 52/40 4/0 77/51 162/149 45/43 108/103 56/19 21/9 7/5 2/5 1/3 5/17 33/29 60/38 118/101 34/36 230/203 15/1 Were you aware that colonoscopy is important in detecting and preventing the development of colorectal cancer? No Please rate the discomfort experienced during colonoscopy on the scale from 1 to 10 provided (1 represents no discomfort and 10 - extreme discomfort)
3 3 Factors Affecting Colonoscopy Comfort and Compliance 153 COLONOSCOPY SETTING Bowel preparation was achieved by 4 liter split dose polyethylene glycol or sodium picosulphate/ magnesium citrate according to guidelines and the manufacturer s instruction. All endoscopies were performed less than 5 hours after completion of bowel preparation under Midazolam sedation. The two centers differed in insufflation technique available as air was employed for all procedures at CH while carbon dioxide was used at TC. Endoscopists recorded the indication for colonoscopy, quality of bowel preparation using a prevalidated 4 graded scale [12] (Table II), limit of examination, findings and procedure or sedation related complications. Patients with stenosing tumors were excluded from the final analysis. Table II Four-graded scale of bowel preparation quality used by the colonoscopist Grade Bowel cleanliness 1 Solid stool residue in large quantities throughout the colon making complete and correct examination of the mucosa impossible 2 Liquid and semisolid residue requiring an important amount of flushing and suctioning to achieve adequate visibility of the mucosa 3 Liquid residue requiring a moderate amount of suction to achieve good visibility 4 Little or no liquid residue, no supplimentary cleaning maneuvers required STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A) and the usual parameters of statistic significance (p < 0.05; 95% CI) were used. We used univariate analysis to select variables possibly associated with an increased level of comfort during colonoscopy as reported by patients on a 10 point visual analog scale and tested the findings through multivariate logistical regression. We then compared patient characteristics (age, sex, level of education, colonoscopy indication, bowel prep regimen) between the two services. RESULTS During the study period a total number of 452 questionnaires were returned at the two sites (248 from CH and 204 from TC). DEMOGRAPHICS Forty-six percent of respondents were male and the mean age was 56.3 years (SD = 15). A hundred ninety-eight subjects (43.8 %) were undergoing first colonoscopy while 252 (56.2 %) had at least one prior examination. Higher education was reported by 45.8% of respondents while 14.3% had attended general school and 40 % were high school graduates. The indication for colonoscopy was symptom oriented in 69.6% (iron-deficiency anemia 4.6%, hematochezia 20%, melena 0.2%, diarrhea 8.7%, constipation 6.2%, abdominal pain 14.2%, unexplained weight loss 3%, other 11.7%) and colorectal cancer screening or surveillance in 30.4% of cases. The main bowel prep regimen used was 4 liter polyethylene glycol (432 cases, 95.6%) while sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate was used for 20 patients (4.4%). The overall cecal intubation rate was 94.5%. Complications occurred in 3 cases and consisted of bleeding that was controlled endoscopically. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES The results of the questionnaire are presented in Table I. 70.2% of the respondents were dissatisfied with the information provided prior to the procedure, 28.9% considered it adequate while only 0.9% reported a high degree of satisfaction with the preprocedure instructional support offered. Anxiety before the procedure was described as insignificant by 15.6%, neutral by 48.8%, significant by 21.8% and highly significant by 13.8% of respondents. The main aspects patients reported fearing before the procedure were an unfavorable result (47%), the necessity for strict bowel prep (19.6%) and pain (16.7%) or embarrasssment (6.7%). Ninety-six percent of the patients reported knowledge of the role of colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer. PATIENT COMFORT DURING COLONOSCOPY Most patients reported an acceptable degree of discomfort during colonoscopy with a median value of 3 and interquartile range of 2 to 5 on the
4 154 A. Voiosu et al point visual analog scale. On univariate analysis better bowel cleansing was significantly associated with a lower level of discomfort during colonoscopy (p < Kruskall Wallis). Also, patients who considered themselves better informed about the procedure (p = 0.025, Mann Whitney) and reported lower procedure-related anxiety (p = 0.032) were more likely to have lower scores on the VAS scale indicating more comfort during the colonoscopy. Compared to patients investigated in the teaching hospital setting patients seen in the private practice reported lower levels of pain during colonoscopy (p < 0.01). The choice of bowel preparation regimen did not influence comfort levels as there were no differences between the split-dose 4 liter polyethylene glycol or sodium picosulphate/ magnesium citrate. On multivariate analysis age, satisfaction with information received regarding colonoscopy, preprocedure anxiety and endoscopy center were shown to correlate with comfort during colonoscopy. Patients who were more satisfied with the information offered before the procedure were more likely to report lower pain-scores on the VAS (p = 0.043). Lower self-reported anxiety levels (p = 0.006) and examinations completed in the private center (p < 0.001) were more likely to result in lower VAS scores. Age was also a significant factor, with older patients reporting less procedure associated discomfort (Table III). Table III Multivariate analysis using ordinal regression of factors influencing patient comfort on a 10-point VAS scale. Estimates are provided, with 95% confidence intervals and p values at a significant level of < 0.05 Variable Estimate (95% CI) p Value Age 0.22 ( 0.34, 0.10) < Gender ( 0.40, 0.32) 0.84 Bowel prep quality ( 0.13, 0.71) 0.18 Information level ( 0.78, 0.12) Anxiety level (0.14, 0.9) Center 2.25 (1.8, 2.68) < Examination of the data by endoscopy center resulted in significant differences in age, education level, bowel prep, and comfort with the private center having slightly younger patients, with higher education, better colon cleansing scores and less procedure-related discomfort. These results are presented in Table IV. There were no differences in the usual endoscopy quality indicators such as cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate or complications. Table IV Study population characteristics and comparisons between the study sites showing means and standard deviations for numerical variables, medians and interquartile range (IQR) for ordinal variables. Comfort during colonoscopy was assessed by the patient using a 10-point visual analog scale with 10 representing the worst pain. (CH Colentina Clinical Hospital, Bucuresti; TC Dr Tantau Medical Center of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Digestive Endoscopy, Cluj) * t-test Mann Whitney U Chi-Square Colentina Hospital Tantau Medical Clinic Total p value Number of questionnaires N/A Sex (male/female) 111/ / / Age (mean,sd) 58.2 (15) 53.8 (14) 56.3 (15) 0.003* Higher education(/total) 92/ / / Previous colonoscopy (/total) 147/ / / Cecal intubation rate 93% 96.6% 94.5% 0.79 Quality of bowel prep (median, IQR) 3 (2 3) 4 (3 4) 3 (3 4) < Procedure-related complications Comfort (median, IQR) 5 (2 7) 1 (1 2) 3 (1 5) < DISCUSSION The main finding of our study is that colonoscopy-associated comfort is significantly influenced by the patients satisfaction with information regarding colonoscopy made available prior to the procedure. Preprocedure anxiety levels as reported by the patients also seem to correlate with a higher burden of colonoscopy and higher scores on the visual analog scale of pain.
5 5 Factors Affecting Colonoscopy Comfort and Compliance 155 This conclusion is all the more important as an unacceptably high number of responses rated the information received prior to the procedure as inadequate. Seeing that the level of discomfort perceived by the patients is linked to their satisfaction with the preprocedure consult and interaction with the physician this indicates an acute need for improvement on behalf of the endoscopy centres. The fact that more than half of the patients had undergone a prior examination, most of them in another service, supports the applicability of this finding to other centres in Romania and underlines the importance of better communication between patient and physician before the colonoscopy. Satisfaction with the colonoscopy procedure also impacts return rates. While colonoscopy is the guideline-preferred colorectal cancer screening method studies show a low return rate after the index procedure [11, 19]. This may in part be due to an unfavourable first experience and thus all steps must be taken to minimize this risk and increase patient acceptability and comfort with the procedure. Our results also reveal a difference in patient overall satisfaction between the two centers, with patients examined at a private practice reporting lower pain scores on the VAS. The colonoscopies performed in a teaching center are by nature more likely to generate dissatisfaction as the procedure can be assisted by students or residents with the patient s approval. While the private practice setting is probably a more comfortable and satisfying environment for colonoscopy we cannot disregard the impact of the differences in bowel prep quality and insufflation technique. Patients examined in the TC center had better bowel prep scores and were examined using CO 2 insufflation. It is known that a cleaner colon takes less time and effort to examine and that additional maneuvers required to inspect an improperly prepared colon add to the patient s discomfort. As quality of bowel prep is dependent on the adherence to the regimen requirements this also points to the need for better communication between physician and patient. Insufflation technique has been proven to impact satisfaction and it surely is an important factor in determining the different levels of comfort reported. A difference between the quality of the endoscopists performance between the centers does not seem to be significant as the usual quality indicators such as cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and complication rate do not vary. We also confirmed that older age correlates with less discomfort during the investigation, but contrary to other reports our data does not show gender or bowel prep to influence comfort. The main limitation of our study is due to the expected unreliability of questionnaire-based reporting. While all diligence was used to provide a setting conducive to honest and precise responses the inherent biases of the questionnaire method such as social-desirability bias cannot be overlooked. Thus the responses may overestimate the comfort during the procedure in an attempt to please the physician. However, seeing that the reported satisfaction with the preprocedure consult is low, it stands to reason that the social-desirability bias is also low. We tried to minimize the effect of the recall bias specific to post-procedure appraisal by having the patients complete the survey before discharge and not at a later time. The importance of this study, to our knowledge the first in our country to address these issues, stems from its finding that comfort during colonoscopy is influenced by satisfaction with the information received beforehand, which is the responsibility of the medical team. Colonoscopy performance evaluations using the Global Rating Scale [20] such as the one reported by Sint Nicolaas et al. [21] are important in assessing the experience of patients undergoing colonoscopy in various settings but are also cumbersome and costly to employ. Simple survey-based evaluations can reveal systemic deficiencies and prompt necessary changes. Considering the higher than expected percentage of patients reporting what seem to be inadequate preprocedure consults, further studies aimed at patient-related comfort and satisfaction become mandatory. An essential component of any informed consent process spending an adequate amount of time on explaining the procedure, with all its steps and risks, might lead to a better doctorpatient rapport and thus to lower preprocedure anxiety, increased comfort during the procedure and higher colonoscopy return rates. Obiective. Colonoscopia de screening reduce incidenţa şi mortalitatea asociate cancerului colorectal. Totuşi, mulţi pacienţi refuză colonoscopia sau nu se întorc la reevaluare din cauza aspectului neplăcut şi dificil de suportat al
6 156 A. Voiosu et al. 6 investigaţiei. Am încercat să identificăm factorii dependenţi de pacient care influenţează semnificativ confortul şi calitatea colonoscopiei analizând răspunsurile la un chestionar validat autoadministrat. Metode. Pacienţii care au fost investigaţi colonoscopic în două mari centre de endoscopie au fost invitaţi să completeze un scurt chestionar prevalidat privind anxietatea preprocedurală, satisfacţia cu informaţia oferită înainte de procedură, aspectul cel mai neplăcut al investigaţiei şi gradul de cunoştiinţe despre beneficiile colonoscopiei. Variabila principală considerată a fost gradul de confort din timpul procedurii, evaluat pe o scală vizual analog de 10 puncte. Analiza univariată a identificat factorii posibil asociaţi cu un grad ridicat de confort în timpul colonoscopiei, aceştia fiind apoi evaluaţi prin analiză multivariată folosind regresie logistică. Rezultate. 452 chestionare au fost returnate. Cei mai mulţi pacienţi au raportat un grad acceptabil de disconfort în timpul colonoscopiei dar 70,2% dintre respondenţi au considerat că informaţiile oferite înainte de procedură nu au fost suficiente. La analiza multivariată vârsta avansată, gradul mai mare de satisfacţie privind informaţia disponibilă (p = 0,04), nivelurile scăzute de anxietate preprocedurală (p < 0,01) şi centrul endoscopic (p < 0,01) s-au demonstrat a se corela cu confortul crescut în timpul colonoscopiei. Nivelul de educaţie, o colonoscopie anterioară în antecedente, sexul şi calitatea pregătirii colonice nu au influenţat confortul pacienţilor. Concluzii. Confortul pacienţilor în timpul colonoscopiei este dependent de gradul de satisfacţie privind informaţia pusă la dispoziţie înainte de procedură. Disponibilitatea doctorului şi interacţiunea mai bună cu pacientul pot îmbunătăţi percepţia acestuia asupra colonoscopiei şi pot contribui la acceptarea mai facilă a acestei proceduri ca instrument de screening şi urmărire periodică. Corresponding author: Th. VOIOSU, Colentina Clinical Hospital, 19 21, Şos. Ştefan cel Mare, Bucharest, Romania Tel/fax: theodor.voiosu@gmail.com REFERENCES 1. ZAUBER AG, WINAWER SJ, O BRIEN MJ, et al., Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N. Engl. J. Med Feb. 23; 366(8): SENORE C, EDERLE A, FANTIN A, et al., Acceptability and side-effects of colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy in a screening setting. J. Med. Screen. 2011; 18(3): KATZ PO, REX DK, EPSTEIN M, et al., A dual-action, low-volume bowel cleanser administered the day before colonoscopy: results from the SEE CLEAR II study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2013; 108(3): HASSAN C, BRETTHAUER M, KAMINSKI MF, et al., Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: JULURI R, ECKERT G, IMPERIALE TF, Polyethylene glycol vs. sodium phosphate for bowel preparation: a treatment arm metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011; 11: RENAUT AJ, RANIGA S, FRIZELLE FA, PERRY RE, GUILFORD L, A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and acceptability of phospo-soda buffered saline (Fleet) with sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate (Picoprep) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis. 2008; 10: WU J, HU B, The role of carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2012; 44(2): CHEN PJ, LI CH, HUANG TY, et al., Carbon dioxide insufflation does not reduce pain scores during colonoscope insertion in unsedated patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013; 77(1): BRETTHAUER M, THIIS-EVENSEN E, HUPPERTZ-HAUSS G, et al., NORCCAP (Norwegian colorectal cancer prevention): a randomised trial to assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide versus air insufflation in colonoscopy. Gut. 2002; 50(5): BASSAN MS, HOLT B, MOSS A, WILLIAMS SJ, SONSON R, BOURKE MJ, Carbon dioxide insufflation reduces number of postprocedure admissions after endoscopic resection of large colonic lesions: a prospective cohort study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013; 77(1): 90 5.
7 7 Factors Affecting Colonoscopy Comfort and Compliance DE WIJKERSLOOTH TR, DE HAAN MC, STOOP EM, et al., Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(12): VOIOSU T, RATIU I, VOIOSU A, et al., Time for individualized colonoscopy bowel-prep regimens? A randomized controlled trial comparing sodium picosulphate and magnesium citrate versus 4-liter split-dose polyethylene glycol. J. Gastrointestin. Liver Dis. 2013; 22(2): PRAKASH SR, VERMA S, MCGOWAN J, et al., Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using an educational video. Can. J. Gastroenterol. 2013; 27(12): ROSTOM A, ROSS ED, DUBÉ C, et al., Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013; 77(2): DENTERS MJ, SCHREUDER M, DEPLA AC, et al., Patients' perception of colonoscopy: patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome experience the largest burden. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013; 25(8): LAWRANCE IC, WILLERT RP, MURRAY K, A validated bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire and assessment of three commonly used bowel-cleansing agents. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2013; 58(4): STOOP EM, DE WIJKERSLOOTH TR, BOSSUYT PM, et al., Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial. Br. J. Cancer. 2012; 107(7): CHUNG SH, PARK SJ, HONG JS, et al., Comparison of double pants with single pants on satisfaction with colonoscopy. World J. Gastroenterol. 2013; 19(26): KHALID-DE BAKKER CA, JONKERS DM, HAMEETEMAN W, et al., Opportunistic screening of hospital staff using primary colonoscopy: participation, discomfort and willingness to repeat the procedure. Digestion 2011; 84(4): Endoscopy Rating Scale (UK). Available from: SINT NICOLAAS J, DE JONGE V, KORFAGE IJ, et al., Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale. Endoscopy. 2012; 44(5): Received August 4, 2014
효과적인대장정결법 김태준 삼성서울병원소화기내과
효과적인대장정결법 김태준 삼성서울병원소화기내과 부적절한장정결 Efficacy blurring - 긴검사시간 - 낮은맹장도달율 & 선종발견율 Risk intensification - 시술관련합병증증가 Waste of cost - 검사반복 - 내시경의사의 workload 증가 Patient dissatisfaction 장정결에따른선종발견율차이 Multi-centers
More informationPolyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation
E230 Polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate for colonoscopy preparation Authors Kristian Leitao 1, Tore Grimstad 1, Michael Bretthauer 2, Øyvind Holme 3,5, Vemund Paulsen 2, Lars Karlsen
More informationHamideh Salimzadeh, PhD Assistant Professor, Digestive Diseases Research Center,Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Shariati Hospital, North
Hamideh Salimzadeh, PhD Assistant Professor, Digestive Diseases Research Center,Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Shariati Hospital, North Kargar Avenue 14666 Tehran, Iran. Tel: +98-21-82415415 Fax:
More informationImproving you ADR. Robert Enns Colonoscopy Education Day October 2018
Improving you ADR Robert Enns Colonoscopy Education Day October 2018 ADR Applying to CSP Assume 50% ADR in FIT positive patients Out of 40 patients only 20 will have polyps Out of 20 likely 15 will be
More informationColorectal Cancer Screening
Recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Colorectal Cancer Screening Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Levin TR, Lieberman D, Robertson
More informationPolyp detection rates as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
Polyp detection rates as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy Authors G. Hoff 1, 2, 3,E.Botteri 2,O.Høie 4,K.Garborg 3, 5,H.Wiig 6,G.Huppertz-Hauss 7,V.Moritz 7, M. Bretthauer 3,
More informationColorectal Cancer Screening: Colonoscopy, Potential and Pitfalls. Disclosures: None. CRC: still a major public health problem
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Colonoscopy, Potential and Pitfalls Disclosures: None Jonathan P. Terdiman, M.D. Professor of Clinical Medicine University of California, San Francisco CRC: still a major public
More informationIs the level of cleanliness using segmental Boston bowel preparation scale associated with a higher adenoma detection rate?
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Annals of Gastroenterology (208) 3, 27-223 Is the level of cleanliness using segmental Boston bowel preparation scale associated with a higher adenoma detection rate? Abimbola Adike a,
More informationComparison of rectal suction versus rectal tube insertion for reducing abdominal symptoms immediately after unsedated colonoscopy
E725 Comparison of rectal suction versus rectal tube insertion for reducing abdoal symptoms immediately after unsedated colonoscopy Authors Institution Tso-Tsai Liu, Chih-Hsun Yi, Wei-Yi Lei, Hao-Chun
More informationColonoscopy is the preferred procedure for the investigation of large bowel and
Original Article Comparison of two different methods of colon cleansing for afternoon-colonoscopy Kobra Baghbani (MD) 1 Javad Shokry-Shirvani (MD) * 1 Hassan Taheri (MD) 1 1. Department of Internal Medicine,
More informationColonoscopy Quality Data
Colonoscopy Quality Data www.dhsgi.com Introduction Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States, in men and women combined. In 2016, there are expected to
More informationSize of colorectal polyps determines time taken to remove them endoscopically
Original article Size of colorectal polyps determines time taken to remove them endoscopically Authors Heechan Kang 1, Mo Hameed Thoufeeq 2 Institutions 1 Department of Medicine, Peterborough Hospitals
More informationPerformance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative
Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative Name: Institution: Michal F. Kaminski, MD, PhD Dept. of
More informationResearch Article Effect of Physician-Delivered Patient Education on the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Screening Colonoscopy
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Gastroenterology Research and Practice Volume 2013, Article ID 570180, 5 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/570180 Research Article Effect of Physician-Delivered Patient
More informationResearch paper 37. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2015, 24: Keywords: carbon dioxide, cecal intubation, colonoscopy, screening
Research paper 37 Carbon dioxide insufflation during screening unsedated colonoscopy: a randomised clinical trial Miroslaw Szura, Radoslaw Pach, Andrzej Matyja and Jan Kulig One of the methods used to
More informationLow-volume polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: a meta-analysis
Original article Annals of Gastroenterology (2013) 26, 319-324 Low-volume polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: a meta-analysis Robert E. Clark, Jonathan D. Godfrey,
More informationColon Cancer Screening and Surveillance. Louis V. Antignano, M.D. Wilson Gastroenterology October 11, 2011
Colon Cancer Screening and Surveillance Louis V. Antignano, M.D. Wilson Gastroenterology October 11, 2011 Colorectal Cancer Preventable cancer Number 2 cancer killer in the USA Often curable if detected
More informationQuality in Endoscopy: Can We Do Better?
Quality in Endoscopy: Can We Do Better? Erik Rahimi, MD Assistant Professor Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition UT Health Science Center at Houston McGovern Medical School Ertan Digestive
More informationBenchmarking For Colonoscopy. Technology and Technique to Improve Adenoma Detection
Benchmarking For Colonoscopy Technology and Technique to Improve Adenoma Detection Objectives 1. Review the latest data on performance characteristics and efficacy for colon cancer prevention 2. Highlight
More informationTips to Improve ADRs during Colonoscopy
Tips to Improve ADRs during Colonoscopy Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FACG GI Section Chief, Minneapolis VAMC Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Outline Why is quality important? Fundamentals of high-quality
More informationWater exchange versus carbon dioxide insufflation in unsedated colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
19 Original article Water exchange versus carbon dioxide insufflation in unsedated colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial Authors Kjetil Garborg 1,, Michal F. Kaminski 3, Wolfgang Lindenburger,
More informationCapsule endoscopy screening. Carlo SENORE
Capsule endoscopy screening Carlo SENORE Possible conflicts of interest Medtronics provides CCE-2 devices to conduct a multicenter independent, non profit study, aimed to assess CCE-2 diagnostic accuracy
More informationMerit-based Incentive Payment system (MIPS) 2018 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) Measure Specifications
Merit-based Incentive Payment system (MIPS) 2018 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) Measure Specifications This document contains a listing of the clinical quality measures which the New Hampshire
More informationQuality Measures In Colonoscopy: Why Should I Care?
Quality Measures In Colonoscopy: Why Should I Care? David Greenwald, MD, FASGE Professor of Clinical Medicine Albert Einstein College of Medicine Montefiore Medical Center Bronx, New York ACG/ASGE Best
More informationWhat Questions Should You Ask?
? Your Doctor Has Ordered a Colonoscopy. What Questions Should You sk? From the merican College of Gastroenterology www.acg.gi.org Normal colon Is the doctor performing your colonoscopy a Gastroenterologist?
More informationCecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy
Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters
More informationC olorectal adenomas are reputed to be precancerous
568 COLORECTAL CANCER Incidence and recurrence rates of colorectal adenomas estimated by annually repeated colonoscopies on asymptomatic Japanese Y Yamaji, T Mitsushima, H Ikuma, H Watabe, M Okamoto, T
More informationScreening for Colon Cancer: How best and how effective? Richard Rosenberg, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Columbia University Medical Center
Screening for Colon Cancer: How best and how effective? Richard Rosenberg, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine Columbia University Medical Center Colorectal Cancer Overview Joint Guideline: American Cancer
More informationResearch Article Development of Polyps and Cancer in Patients with a Negative Colonoscopy: A Follow-Up Study of More Than 20 Years
ISRN Gastroenterology, Article ID 261302, 4 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/261302 Research Article Development of Polyps and Cancer in Patients with a Negative Colonoscopy: A Follow-Up Study of More
More informationUpdates in Colorectal Cancer Screening & Prevention
Updates in Colorectal Cancer Screening & Prevention Swati G. Patel, MD MS Assistant Professor of Medicine Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Clinic University
More informationDigestive Health Southwest Endoscopy 2016 Quality Report
Digestive Health 2016 Quality Report Our 2016 our quality and value management program focused on one primary area of interest: Performing high quality colonoscopy High quality Colonoscopy We selected
More informationMonitoring of colonoscopy quality indicators in an academic endoscopy facility reveals adherence to international recommendations
Original Article on Quality in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Page 1 of 9 Monitoring of colonoscopy quality indicators in an academic endoscopy facility reveals adherence to international recommendations Stefanos
More informationType of intervention Screening. Economic study type Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Prospective, randomized, single-blind comparison of two preparations for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy Bini E J, Unger J S, Rieber J M, Rosenberg J, Trujillo K, Weinshel E H Record Status This is a
More informationColon Polyps: Detection, Inspection and Characteristics
Colon Polyps: Detection, Inspection and Characteristics Stephen Kim, M.D. Assistant Professor of Medicine Interventional Endoscopy Services UCLA Division of Digestive Diseases September 29, 2018 1 Disclosures
More informationTechnology and Interventions to Improve ADR
Technology and Interventions to Improve ADR Aasma Shaukat, MD MPH, FACG GI Section Chief, Minneapolis VAMC Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Outline Why is quality important? Fundamentals of
More informationE907. Background and study aims Quality of inspection during
Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic
More informationTitle Description Type / Priority
Merit-based Incentive Payment system (MIPS) 2019 Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) Measure Specifications Summary Listing of QCDR measures supported by the NHCR Measure # NHCR4 NHCR5 GIQIC12 GIQIC15
More informationSupporting Information 2. ESGE QIC Lower GI Delphi voting process: Round 1 Working Group chair: Michal F. Kaminski, Poland
Supporting Information 2. ESGE QIC Lower GI Delphi voting process: Round 1 Working chair: Michal F. Kaminski, Poland Population Interventions Comparator Outcome Additional evidence 1.1 Rate of adequate
More informationColonoscopy Preparation. Dean N. Silas, M.D. Advocate Lutheran General Hospital
Colonoscopy Preparation Dean N. Silas, M.D. Advocate Lutheran General Hospital Disclosure NO relevant financial conflicts of interest I will be mentioning off-label uses of medications For clarity I will
More informationEarly detection and screening for colorectal neoplasia
Early detection and screening for colorectal neoplasia Robert S. Bresalier Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. The University of Texas. MD Anderson Cancer Center. Houston, Texas U.S.A.
More informationGIQIC18 Appropriate follow-up interval of not less than 5 years for colonoscopies with findings of 1-2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm
GI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd. (GIQuIC) 1 Following is an overview of the clinical quality measures in GIQuIC that can be reported to CMS for the Quality performance category of the Merit-Based
More informationINTRODUCTION. rior with respect to compliance, satisfaction, and safety. (Gut Liver 2015;9: )
Gut and Liver, Vol. 9, No. 4, July 2015, pp. 494-501 ORiginal Article Sodium Picosulfate with Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Plus Laxative Is a Good Alternative to Conventional Large Volume Polyethylene Glycol
More informationEXPERT WORKING GROUP Surveillance after neoplasia removal. Meeting Chicago, May 5th 2017 Chair: Rodrigo Jover Uri Ladabaum
EXPERT WORKING GROUP Surveillance after neoplasia removal Meeting Chicago, May 5th 2017 Chair: Rodrigo Jover Uri Ladabaum AIM To improve the quality of the evidences we have regarding post- polypectomy
More informationAccepted Manuscript. En bloc resection for mm polyps to reduce post-colonoscopy cancer and surveillance. C. Hassan, M. Rutter, A.
Accepted Manuscript En bloc resection for 10-20 mm polyps to reduce post-colonoscopy cancer and surveillance C. Hassan, M. Rutter, A. Repici PII: S1542-3565(19)30412-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2019.04.022
More informationGastrointestinal Endoscopy Safer
Making Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Safer Sanjay Ramrakha MBBS FRACGP FACEM A thesis submitted in accordance with the total requirements for admission to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Year of Submission:
More informationDebate: General surveillance/screening for colon cancer in a resource constrained environment is imperative
Debate: General surveillance/screening for colon cancer in a resource constrained environment is imperative Dr. Meryl Oyomno Department of surgery, University of Pretoria INTRODUCTION Screening is the
More informationCitation for published version (APA): Wijkerslooth de Weerdesteyn, T. R. (2013). Population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy de Wijkerslooth, T.R. Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Wijkerslooth de Weerdesteyn,
More informationglycol and sodium phosphate bowel cleansing solutions for colonoscopy
The Ulster Medical Journal, Volume 68, No. 2, pp. 68-72, November 1999. A prospective randomised study comparing polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate bowel cleansing solutions for colonoscopy J Lee,
More informationColonoscopic Withdrawal Times and Adenoma Detection during Screening Colonoscopy
original article Colonoscopic Withdrawal Times and Adenoma Detection during Screening Colonoscopy Robert L. Barclay, M.D., Joseph J. Vicari, M.D., Andrea S. Doughty, Ph.D., John F. Johanson, M.D., and
More informationThe Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research
ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Clinical Endoscopy The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research Edwin J. Lai, MD, Audrey H. Calderwood, MD, Gheorghe Doros, PhD,
More informationProspective analysis of factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in actual clinical practice
ORIGINAL ARTICLE pissn 1598-9100 eissn 2288-1956 https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.16.2.293 Intest Res 2018;16(2):293-298 Prospective analysis of factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation for
More informationPredicting Colonoscopy Time: A Quality Improvement Initiative
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Clin Endosc 2016;49:555-559 https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2015.110 Print ISSN 2234-2400 On-line ISSN 2234-2443 Open Access Predicting Colonoscopy Time: A Quality Improvement Initiative Deepanshu
More informationInterview with Prof. Guido Costamagna
Interview with Prof. Guido Costamagna Extraxts of his curriculum vitae: Full Professor of Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy Director, Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Policlinico A. Gemelli,
More informationCRC Risk Factors. U.S. Adherence Rates Cancer Screening. Genetic Model of Colorectal Cancer. Epidemiology and Clinical Consequences of CRC
10:45 11:45 am Guide to Colorectal Cancer Screening SPEAKER Howard Manten M.D. Presenter Disclosure Information The following relationships exist related to this presentation: Howard Manten MD: No financial
More informationMeasure #425: Photodocumentation of Cecal Intubation National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care
Measure #425: Photodocumentation of Cecal Intubation National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care 2016 PQRS OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: CLAIMS, REGISTRY DESCRIPTION: The rate of screening
More informationColon Cancer Screening. Layth Al-Jashaami, MD GI Fellow, PGY 4
Colon Cancer Screening Layth Al-Jashaami, MD GI Fellow, PGY 4 -Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and lethal cancer. -It has the highest incidence among GI cancers in the US, estimated to be newly diagnosed
More information50 세미만인구에서용종절제술로제거된대장선종의특성 : 대한장연구학회전향적다기관공동연구
50 세미만인구에서용종절제술로제거된대장선종의특성 : 대한장연구학회전향적다기관공동연구 The Characteristics of Colorectal Adenoma with Colonoscopic Polypectomy in Population under 50 Years Old: The KASID Prospective Multicenter Study Hyun Joo
More informationChoice of sedation and its impact on adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopies
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Annals of Gastroenterology (2016) 29, 1-6 Choice of sedation and its impact on adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopies Rahman Nakshabendi a, Andrew C. Berry b, Juan C. Munoz
More informationRetroflexion and prevention of right-sided colon cancer following colonoscopy: How I approach it
Retroflexion and prevention of right-sided colon cancer following colonoscopy: How I approach it Douglas K Rex 1 MD, MACG 1. Indiana University School of Medicine Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology
More informationSupplementary Appendix
Supplementary Appendix This appendix has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work. Supplement to: Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators
More informationColonoscopy performance is stable during the course of an extended three-session working day
E494 Colonoscopy performance is stable during the course of an extended three-session working day Authors Sreedhar Subramanian 1, Eftychia E. Psarelli 2, Paul Collins 1, Neil Haslam 1, Paul O Toole 1,
More informationColorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance
1 Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Jeffrey Lee MD, MAS Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine University of California, San Francisco jeff.lee@ucsf.edu Objectives Review the various colorectal
More informationwho where symptoms? colon cancer facts affected? what
who Over 130,000 new cases diagnosed each year is Greater than 50,000 deaths annually attributable to colon cancer Second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Equal risk in men and women Women over
More informationDevices To Improve Colon Polyp Detection
Devices To Improve Colon Polyp Detection ACG/VGS Regional Postgraduate Course Sep 10-11, 2016 Williamsburg, VA VIVEK KAUL, MD, FACG Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine Chief, Division of Gastroenterology
More informationMeasuring the quality of colonoscopy: Where are we now and where are we going?
Measuring the quality of colonoscopy: Where are we now and where are we going? Timothy D. Imler, MD Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
More informationColorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Douglas K. Rex, MD, MACG 1, C. Richard Boland, MD 2, Jason A. Dominitz,
More informationAccepted Manuscript. Hyperosmotic low-volume bowel preparations: Is NER1006 safe? Douglas K. Rex, MD
Accepted Manuscript Hyperosmotic low-volume bowel preparations: Is NER1006 safe? Douglas K. Rex, MD PII: S0016-5107(18)33271-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.11.009 Reference: YMGE 11335 To appear
More informationQuality Indicators in Colonoscopy
Symposium Symposium III - Lower GI : Quality Colonoscopy Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy Kyu Chan Huh Department of Internal medicine, Konyang University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea Introduction
More informationColonoscopy Preparation. Daniel Sussman, MD 19 February 2010 SGNA Course
Colonoscopy Preparation Daniel Sussman, MD 19 February 2010 SGNA Course Objectives Importance of preparation Types of preps Comparative evidence behind prep choice Efficacy Tolerability Safety profiles
More informationThe current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea
ORIGINAL ARTICLE pissn 1598-9100 eissn 2288-1956 https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00060 Intest Res 2019;17(1):119-126 The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea Jae Ho Choi 1, Jae Myung Cha
More informationColorectal Cancer Screening: Cost-Effectiveness and Adverse events October, 2005
Colorectal Cancer Screening: Cost-Effectiveness and Adverse events October, 2005 David Lieberman MD Chief, Division of Gastroenterology Oregon Health and Science University Portland VAMC Portland, Oregon
More informationGeneral and Colonoscopy Data Collection Form
Identifier: Sociodemographic Information Type: Zip Code: Inpatient Outpatient Birth Date: m m d d y y y y Gender: Height: (inches) Male Female Ethnicity: Weight: (pounds) African American White, Non-Hispanic
More informationMeasure #425: Photodocumentation of Cecal Intubation National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care
Measure #425: Photodocumentation of Cecal Intubation National Quality Strategy Domain: Effective Clinical Care 2017 OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES: REGISTRY ONLY MEASURE TYPE: Process DESCRIPTION: The
More informationEasy Access Colonoscopy. The Oregon Clinic Gastroenterology Portland Division
Easy Access Colonoscopy The Oregon Clinic Gastroenterology Portland Division From Reynolds D, 2004. Why a colonoscopy? Colon cancer is 2 nd leading cause of death in US and is preventable ~ 56,000 deaths
More informationBackground: The value of narrow band imaging (NBI) for detecting serrated lesions is
Narrow-band imaging versus white light for the detection of proximal colon serrated lesions: a randomized, controlled trial Douglas K. Rex, Ryan Clodfelter, Farrah Rahmani, Hala Fatima, Toyia N. James-Stevenson,
More informationColon Cancer Detection by Rendezvous Colonoscopy : Successful Removal of Stuck Colon Capsule by Conventional Colonoscopy
19 Colon Cancer Detection by Rendezvous Colonoscopy : Successful Removal of Stuck Colon Capsule by Conventional Colonoscopy István Rácz Márta Jánoki Hussam Saleh Department of Gastroenterology, Petz Aladár
More informationVariation in Detection of Adenomas and Polyps by Colonoscopy and Change Over Time With a Performance Improvement Program
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY 2009;7:1335 1340 Variation in Detection of Adenomas and Polyps by Colonoscopy and Change Over Time With a Performance Improvement Program AASMA SHAUKAT,*, CRISTINA
More informationImplementation of a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy increases the neoplasia detection rate: a prospective study
E68 Implementation of a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy increases the neoplasia detection rate: a prospective study Authors Institution Bibliography DOI http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1055/s-0041-107800
More informationCitation for published version (APA): Wijkerslooth de Weerdesteyn, T. R. (2013). Population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy de Wijkerslooth, T.R. Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Wijkerslooth de Weerdesteyn,
More informationGI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd. (GIQuIC) QCDR Non-PQRS Measure Specifications
GI Quality Improvement Consortium, Ltd. (GIQuIC) 1 Following is an overview of the clinical quality measures in GIQuIC that can be reported to CMS for the Physician Quality Report System (PQRS) via GIQuIC
More informationImproving Your Adenoma Detection Rate
Improving Your Adenoma Detection Rate JILL TINMOUTH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO JERRY MCGRATH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND FEB. 11 2017 X CanMEDS Roles Covered
More informationRisk assessment tools for the symptomatic population Graham Radford-Smith Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Royal Brisbane and Women s
Risk assessment tools for the symptomatic population Graham Radford-Smith Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Royal Brisbane and Women s Hospital GI inflammation IBD Group QIMR Berghofer Medical
More informationGuidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Screening and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Screening and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer David A. Lieberman, 1 Douglas K. Rex, 2 Sidney J. Winawer,
More information2. Describe pros/cons of screening interventions (including colonoscopy, CT colography, fecal tests)
Learning Objectives 1. Review principles of colon adenoma/cancer biology that permit successful prevention regimes 2. Describe pros/cons of screening interventions (including colonoscopy, CT colography,
More informationSCREENING FOR BOWEL CANCER USING FLEXIBLE SIGMOIDOSCOPY REVIEW APPRAISAL CRITERIA FOR THE UK NATIONAL SCREENING COMMITTEE
SCREENING FOR BOWEL CANCER USING FLEXIBLE SIGMOIDOSCOPY REVIEW APPRAISAL CRITERIA FOR THE UK NATIONAL SCREENING COMMITTEE The Condition 1. The condition should be an important health problem Colorectal
More informationADR AT A GLANCE. Facts to Know about the Adenoma Detection Rate
ADR AT A GLANCE 14846 Facts to Know about the Adenoma Detection Rate TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction INTRODUCTION 3 Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is defined as the percentage of average-risk patients age
More informationColorectal cancer screening A puzzle of tests and strategies
Colorectal cancer screening A puzzle of tests and strategies A. Van Gossum, MD, PhD Head of the Clinic of Intestinal Diseases and Nutritional Support Department of Gastroenterology Hôpital Erasme ULB -
More informationColorectal Cancer Screening: A Clinical Update
11:05 11:45am Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Clinical Update SPEAKER Kevin A. Ghassemi, MD Presenter Disclosure Information The following relationships exist related to this presentation: Kevin A. Ghassemi,
More information(516) Old Country Road, Suite 520 Fax: Mineola, NY Follow RefluxLI
COLONOSCOPY May Save Your Life! Colonoscopy can be a lifesaving procedure that can remove precancerous polyps, detect causes of bleeding and anemia, evaluate colitis and infections of the bowel, and assess
More informationVariable Endoscopist performance in proximal and distal adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study
James et al. BMC Gastroenterology (2018) 18:73 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-018-0800-4 RESEARCH ARTICLE Variable Endoscopist performance in proximal and distal adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a
More informationFlexible Sigmoidoscopy Information and Preparation
Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Information and Preparation Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Information and Preparation **If for any reason you need to cancel your scheduled appointment Barrie Endoscopy requires a minimum
More informationColonoscopy Key Performance Indicators in a Rural General Australian Hospital
ISPUB.COM The Internet Journal of Gastroenterology Volume 12 Number 1 Colonoscopy Key Performance Indicators in a Rural General Australian Hospital A Martin, G Purcell, J Roberts-Thomson, D Brockwell Citation
More informationQuality of and compliance with colonoscopy in Lynch Syndrome surveillance: are we getting it right?
Quality of and compliance with colonoscopy in Lynch Syndrome surveillance: are we getting it right? Hartery K 1, Sukha A 1, Thomas-Gibson S 1, Thomas H 1,2, Latchford A 1,2. 1 Wolfson Endoscopy Unit, St.
More informationTitle: Authors: Journal:
IMPORTANT COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This electronic article is provided to you by courtesy of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The document is provided for personal usage only. Further reproduction and/or distribution
More informationEDWARD J. SHARE, M.D. COLONOSCOPY SCREENING
EDWARD J. SHARE, M.D. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL OFFICE TOWERS 8631 W. THIRD ST. SUITE 1015E LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90048 PHONE 310-652-4472 FAX 310-358-2266 GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY COLONOSCOPY SCREENING
More informationAlberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (ACRCSP) Post Polypectomy Surveillance Guidelines
Alberta Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (ACRCSP) Post Polypectomy Surveillance Guidelines June 2013 ACRCSP Post Polypectomy Surveillance Guidelines - 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background... 3 Terms, Definitions
More informationAugust 21, National Quality Forum th St, NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C Re: Colonoscopy Quality Index (NQF# C 2056)
August 21, 2012 National Quality Forum 1030 15th St, NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20005 Re: Colonoscopy Quality Index (NQF# C 2056) The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), American Gastroenterological
More informationTHE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL
THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL Vol 120 No 1258 ISSN 1175 8716 A survey of colonoscopy capacity in New Zealand s public hospitals Andrew Yeoman, Susan Parry Abstract Aims Population screening for colorectal
More information