TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of feedback and monitoring on colonoscopy withdrawal times and polyp detection rates
AU - Nielsen, Amalie Bach
AU - Nielsen, Ole Haagen
AU - Hendel, Jakob
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Background: Previous studies have shown colonoscopy withdrawal time (WT) to be a reliable surrogate indicator for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colonoscopy. Our aim was to assess the impact of feedback and monitoring of WT on PDR in routine colonoscopies with long-Term follow-up. Materials and methods: A total of 307 colonoscopies were performed in three separate clinical scenarios. First, PDR and WT were recorded without the staff being aware of the specific objective of the study. Before the second scenario, the staff was given interventional information and feedback on WTs and PDRs from the first scenario and was encouraged to aim for a minimum WT of 8 min. Retention of knowledge gained was reassessed in the third scenario 1 year later. Results: The PDR in the first two scenarios differed significantly ( p<0.01), with a more than 90% increase in PDR after intervention from 22% to 42% (95% CI 1.44 to 4.95), although the mean WT did not change (6.8 vs 7.2 min; p>0.05). The increase in PDR between the first and second scenarios was retained in the third follow-up scenario 1 year later where the WT of both polyp-positive and polyp-negative colonoscopies was found to be longer. Conclusions: PDR almost doubled from the first to the second scenario of a real-life colonoscopy setting, indicating that awareness of WT is crucial. The knowledge gained from this intervention in routine practice was even retained after a year.
AB - Background: Previous studies have shown colonoscopy withdrawal time (WT) to be a reliable surrogate indicator for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colonoscopy. Our aim was to assess the impact of feedback and monitoring of WT on PDR in routine colonoscopies with long-Term follow-up. Materials and methods: A total of 307 colonoscopies were performed in three separate clinical scenarios. First, PDR and WT were recorded without the staff being aware of the specific objective of the study. Before the second scenario, the staff was given interventional information and feedback on WTs and PDRs from the first scenario and was encouraged to aim for a minimum WT of 8 min. Retention of knowledge gained was reassessed in the third scenario 1 year later. Results: The PDR in the first two scenarios differed significantly ( p<0.01), with a more than 90% increase in PDR after intervention from 22% to 42% (95% CI 1.44 to 4.95), although the mean WT did not change (6.8 vs 7.2 min; p>0.05). The increase in PDR between the first and second scenarios was retained in the third follow-up scenario 1 year later where the WT of both polyp-positive and polyp-negative colonoscopies was found to be longer. Conclusions: PDR almost doubled from the first to the second scenario of a real-life colonoscopy setting, indicating that awareness of WT is crucial. The knowledge gained from this intervention in routine practice was even retained after a year.
U2 - 10.1136/bmjgast-2017-000142
DO - 10.1136/bmjgast-2017-000142
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85038626706
SN - 2054-4774
VL - 4
JO - BMJ Open Gastroenterology
JF - BMJ Open Gastroenterology
M1 - e000142
ER -