Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction - both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for making such differentiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed cecum intubation rates amongst colonoscopies recorded in the Norwegian national quality register Gastronet by 35 endoscopists performing both clinical and screening colonoscopies. Colonoscopies were categorized into primary screening colonoscopy, work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives and clinical colonoscopy or surveillance. Cases with insufficient bowel preparation or mechanical obstruction were excluded. Endoscopists were categorized into "junior" and "senior" endoscopists depending on training and experience. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied. RESULTS: During a 2-year period, 10,267 colonoscopies were included (primary screening colonoscopy: 746; work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives: 2,604; clinical colonoscopy or surveillance: 6917). The crude CIR in clinical routine colonoscopy, primary screening colonoscopy and work-up colonoscopy was 97.1 %, 97.1 % and 98.6 %, respectively. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in CIR between the 3 groups. Poor bowel cleansing and female sex were independent predictors for intubation failure. CONCLUSION: Cecal intubation rate in clinical colonoscopies and colonoscopy screening are similar. There is no reason to differentiate between screening and clinical colonoscopy with regard to CIR.

Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway.

Background and aims Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important in healthcare. European guidelines have recommended inclusion of patient feedback to capture adverse events due to colonoscopy, but this is rarely implemented. Methods The Norwegian Quality Assurance network for endoscopy (Gastronet) collects patient-reported outcome for colonoscopies. Free-text comments on patient reports from January to December 2015 were characterized as positive or negative. All negative free-text comments were scrutinized for information that might suggest colonoscopy-related adverse events. We identified severe adverse events with and without admission to hospital. Results We included 16 552 outpatient colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals. A total of 11 248 procedures (68 %) were accompanied by a patient feedback report, of which 2628 (23 %) had free-text comments (2196 [20 %] characterized as positive and 432 [3.8 %] as negative). These negative free texts on patient reports revealed 15 post-colonoscopy hospital admissions due to adverse events that had not been registered in the colonoscopy report. This increased the number of hospital admissions caused by adverse events from 3 (0.03 %) to 18 (0.16 %). In addition, there were 14 patient reports of severe events without hospital admission. Therefore, a total of 29 severe adverse events reported by patients were missed by conventional documentation in the colonoscopy form. Conclusion It is feasible to implement patient feedback as routine reporting to capture the full picture of colonoscopy-related adverse events. Some patients experience significant complications that are not recorded through any registries. Patient feedback forms should be tailored to capture adverse events after colonoscopy that are otherwise not easily disclosed.

Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm. RESULTS: The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

An explorative study from the Norwegian Quality Register Gastronet comparing self-estimated versus registered quality in colonoscopy performance.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The value of a colonoscopy quality assurance (QA) register may be questioned if it brings no new information on which to act for quality improvement, e. g. if self-assessed quality of colonoscopy performance correlates perfectly with registered performance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this explorative study, 39 (33 Norwegian and 6 Swedish) out of 99 new endoscopists joining the Norwegian QA register Gastronet from 2008 to 2013 responded to an invitation to fill in a questionnaire for self-assessment of cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate for polyps ≥ 5 mm (PDR-5 mm), withdrawal time, total examination time, and rates for severely painful and pain-free colonoscopies before receiving their first-time feedback of actually registered results from Gastronet. A linear regression analysis was applied to explore the correlation between experience level and quality of estimation. RESULTS: We included 2654 colonoscopies in our study. Endoscopists underestimated their cecal intubation rate (estimated 88.8 %, registered 93.1 %, P < 0.001), total procedure time (estimated 31.7 minutes, registered 37.2 minutes, P = 0.014), withdrawal time (estimated 9.8 minutes, registered 14.4 minutes, P = 0.006) and the rate of pain-free procedures (estimated 18.3 %, registered 24.5 %, P = 0.001). Pre-study colonoscopy experience was not correlated with estimated quality for any of the indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from overestimation of severely painful examinations, endoscopists most often underestimated their colonoscopy performance. Self-assessed quality of colonoscopy performance may not be a satisfactory substitute for systematic registration of quality and not sufficiently valid to be acted upon.

[Pain in connection with colonoscopy in Norway]. / Smerter ved koloskopi.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopies are common examinations at Norwegian hospitals. In contrast to many other countries, the majority of colonoscopies in Norway are conducted without routine sedation or analgesia. We wanted to investigate whether current Norwegian practice offers adequate pain relief. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The material consists of prospectively recorded outpatient colonoscopies in the period January 2003-December 2011 performed at Norwegian hospitals in the quality assurance network for gastrointestinal endoscopy (Gastronet). We analysed demographic patient data and data from colonoscopies. Patients' experience of pain (none, slight, moderate or severe pain) in connection with the examination was established with the aid of a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: Data from 61,749 colonoscopies (55% on women) performed at 29 different hospitals were analysed. Colonoscopies were perceived as moderately or very painful by 33% of the patients (41% of the women, 24% of the men, p < 0.001). There were substantial differences between hospitals as to the percentage of colonoscopies that were perceived as moderately or very painful (from 9% to 43%, p < 0.001) and the use of sedatives and analgesics for the colonoscopies (from 1% to 92% of the examinations, p < 0.001). Only 23% of those who found the colonoscopy painful received analgesics. Pethidine was used in 95% of the cases in which analgesics were used during the examination. INTERPRETATION: Many patients find colonoscopies painful. Pain relief practice varies substantially between hospitals. Pethidine is an analgesic with a slow onset of action, and should perhaps be replaced with more rapidly acting opiates.

"Drop in" gastroscopy outpatient clinic--experience after 9 months.

BACKGROUND: Logistics handling referrals for gastroscopy may be more time consuming than the examination itself. For the patient, "drop in" gastroscopy may reduce uncertainty, inadequate therapy and time off work. METHODS: After an 8-9 month run-in period we asked patients, hospital staff and GPs to fill in a questionnaire to evaluate their experience with "drop in" gastroscopy and gastroscopy by appointment, respectively. The diagnostic gain was evaluated. RESULTS: 112 patients had "drop in" gastroscopy and 101 gastroscopy by appointment. The number of "drop in" patients varied between 3 and 12 per day (mean 6.5). Mean time from first GP consultation to gastroscopy was 3.6 weeks in the "drop in" group and 14 weeks in the appointment group. The half-yearly number of outpatient gastroscopies increased from 696 before introducing "drop in" to 1022 after (47% increase) and the proportion of examinations with pathological findings increased from 42% to 58%. Patients and GPs expressed great satisfaction with "drop in". Hospital staff also acclaimed although it caused more unpredictable working days with no additional staff. CONCLUSIONS: "Drop in" gastroscopy was introduced without increase in staff. The observed increase in gastroscopies was paralleled by a similar increase in pathological findings without any apparent disadvantages for other groups of patients. This should legitimise "drop in" outpatient gastroscopies, but it requires meticulous observation of possible unwanted effects when implemented.

Colonoscope with a sub-distal hyper-flaccid segment for improved insertion at colonoscopy: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: In sharp bends, particularly in the colonic flexures, the axial pushing force conveyed to the distal actively bending tip of the endoscope may cause impaction rather than progression. It is hypothesized that colonoscopes with a very flaccid segment immediately proximal to the distal bending tip might reduce this problem. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two prototype colonoscopes with a flaccid passively bending segment (either progressively graded or ungraded flaccidity) positioned immediately proximal to the distal actively bending tip was evaluated in a single-blinded randomized study. The primary end-point was patients' evaluation of pain. RESULTS: Altogether, 400 patients were randomized 1:1 to examination with a prototype (60 patients to endoscope with graded flaccidity; 141 to the endoscope with ungraded flaccidity) or a standard colonoscope. The groups were similar regarding age, sex and previous abdominal surgery. Severe pain was reported by 7% of patients in the prototype and 18% in the standard group (p = 0.001). There was a trend toward shorter cecal intubation time in the prototype group (mean 14.1 min, 95% CI 12.8-15.3) compared to the standard group (mean 15.5 min, 95% CI 14.3-16.7) (p = 0.12) and similar intubation rates (89% and 85%, respectively). Results for first (ungraded flaccidity) and second (graded flaccidity) generation prototypes collectively were similar to the second generation separately. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of an endoscope with a hyper-flaccid segment may facilitate negotiation of sharp bends and reduce pain without compromising cecal intubation rate or intubation time.

Quality assurance as an integrated part of the electronic medical record - a prototype applied for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Electronic medical records (EMRs) have not developed much beyond the days of typewritten journals when it comes to facilitating extraction of data for quality assurance (QA) and improvement of health-care performance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Based on 5 years' experience from the Norwegian Gastronet QA programme, we have developed a highly QA-profiled EMR for colonoscopy. We used a three-tier solution (client, server and database) written in the Java programming language using a number of open-source libraries. QA principles from the Norwegian paper-based Gastronet QA programme formed the basis for development of the ColoReg software. ColoReg is developed primarily for colonoscopy reporting in a screening trial, but may be used in routine clinical work. The QA module in ColoReg is well suited for intervention towards suboptimal performance in both settings. RESULTS: We have developed user-friendly software dominated by clickable boxes and curtain menus reducing free text to a minimum. The software gives warnings when illogical registrations are entered and reasons have to be given for divergence from software recommendations for work-up and surveillance. At any time, defined performance quality parameters are readily accessible in tabular form with the named, logged-in endoscopist being compared with all other anonymized endoscopists in the database. CONCLUSION: The ColoReg software is developed for use in an international, multicentre trial on colonoscopy screening. It is user-friendly and secures continuous QA of the endoscopist's performance. The principles used are applicable to development of EMRs in general.

Improvement in caecal intubation rate and pain reduction by using 3-dimensional magnetic imaging for unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized trial of patients referred for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Use of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) during colonoscopy has the potential to ease caecal intubation and patient discomfort and to reduce dependence on sedation and/or analgesics (SAs). However, pain reduction by using MEI has not been demonstrated so far, probably because of the liberal use of SAs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of MEI on caecal intubation and patient pain during unsedated colonoscopy performed by experienced and inexperienced colonoscopists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A consecutive series of outpatients referred for colonoscopy were randomly allocated to examination with (imager group) or without (standard group) the use of MEI. Patients agreeing to SAs being given only on demand were included in the study. End-points were caecal intubation and pain, the latter to be graded by category on a form to be completed on the day after the examination. RESULTS: The proportion of colonoscopies performed without SAs was similar when comparing imager and standard groups and experienced with inexperienced colonoscopists; altogether 367(88%) out of 419 colonoscopies. The caecal intubation rate was higher in the imager group (190/212 (90%)) than in the standard group (153/207(74%)) (p<0.001), both collectively and separately for experienced and inexperienced colonoscopists. A pain-reducing effect of MEI was shown only when performed by experienced colonoscopists, with severe pain in 10/137 patients (7.3%) in the imager group and 21/132 patients (16%) in the standard group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In colonoscopy without the routine use of SAs, MEI significantly improves the caecum intubation rate and reduces pain during the procedure.