RESUMO
Fundamento y objetivos: Antes de iniciar programas de cribado de cáncer colorrectal es necesario evaluar la calidad de la colonoscopia. Nos propusimos desarrollar un grupo de indicadores de calidad en colonoscopia fácilmente aplicables y determinar la variabilidad de su cumplimiento. Pacientes y método: A partir de la bibliografía se elaboraron 21 indicadores potenciales de calidad que se sometieron a un proceso de selección en el que se determinó su validez facial, de contenido, fiabilidad y viabilidad de su medición. Se estimó la variabilidad del cumplimiento de los indicadores mediante el coeficiente de variación (CV) y del cumplimiento de estándares mediante la ji al cuadrado. Resultados: Seis indicadores superaron el proceso de selección: consentimiento informado, medicación administrada, colonoscopia completa, complicaciones, pólipos extirpados y recuperados y detección de adenomas de colon en mayores de 50 años. Se incluyeron un total de 1.928 colonoscopias procedentes de 8 centros hospitalarios. Cada centro incluyó el mismo número de colonoscopias seleccionadas mediante muestreo aleatorizado simple con sustitución. Existía una importante variabilidad en el cumplimiento de algunos indicadores y estándares: medicación administrada (CV del 43%; p<0,01), registro de complicaciones (CV del 37%; p<0,01), todos los pólipos extirpados y recuperados (CV del 12%; p<0,01) y detección de adenomas en pacientes de más de 50 años (CV del 2%; p<0,01).Conclusiones: Hemos validado 6 indicadores de calidad en colonoscopia fácilmente medibles. Existe una importante variabilidad en el cumplimiento de algunos indicadores y estándares, lo que aconseja el desarrollo de programas de mejora de la calidad en colonoscopia antes de la implantación del cribado de cáncer colorrectal (AU)
Background and objectives: Before starting programs for colorectal cancer screening it is necessary to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy. Our objectives were to develop a group of quality indicators of colonoscopy easily applicable and to determine the variability of their achievement. Patients and methods: After reviewing the bibliography we prepared 21 potential indicators of quality that were submitted to a process of selection in which we measured their facial validity, content validity, reliability and viability of their measurement. We estimated the variability of their achievement by means of the coefficient of variability (CV) and the variability of the achievement of the standards by means of ÷2. Results: Six indicators overcome the selection process: informed consent, medication administered, completed colonoscopy, complications, every polyp removed and recovered, and adenoma detection rate in patients older than 50 years. 1928 colonoscopies were included from eight endoscopy units. Every unit included the same number of colonoscopies selected by means of simple random sampling with substitution. There was an important variability in the achievement of some indicators and standards: medication administered (CV 43%, p<0.01), complications registered (CV 37%, p<0.01), every polyp removed and recovered (CV 12%, p<0.01) and adenoma detection rate in older than fifty years (CV 2%, p<0.01). Conclusions: We have validated six quality indicators for colonoscopy which are easily measurable. An important variability exists in the achievement of some indicators and standards. Our data highlight the importance of the development of continuous quality improvement programmes for colonoscopy before starting colorectal cancer screening (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Colonoscopia/normas , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Before starting programs for colorectal cancer screening it is necessary to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy. Our objectives were to develop a group of quality indicators of colonoscopy easily applicable and to determine the variability of their achievement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After reviewing the bibliography we prepared 21 potential indicators of quality that were submitted to a process of selection in which we measured their facial validity, content validity, reliability and viability of their measurement. We estimated the variability of their achievement by means of the coefficient of variability (CV) and the variability of the achievement of the standards by means of chi(2). RESULTS: Six indicators overcome the selection process: informed consent, medication administered, completed colonoscopy, complications, every polyp removed and recovered, and adenoma detection rate in patients older than 50 years. 1928 colonoscopies were included from eight endoscopy units. Every unit included the same number of colonoscopies selected by means of simple random sampling with substitution. There was an important variability in the achievement of some indicators and standards: medication administered (CV 43%, p<0.01), complications registered (CV 37%, p<0.01), every polyp removed and recovered (CV 12%, p<0.01) and adenoma detection rate in older than fifty years (CV 2%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We have validated six quality indicators for colonoscopy which are easily measurable. An important variability exists in the achievement of some indicators and standards. Our data highlight the importance of the development of continuous quality improvement programmes for colonoscopy before starting colorectal cancer screening.
Assuntos
Colonoscopia/normas , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos TestesRESUMO
No disponible
