Background: The provision of high-quality colonoscopy can be assessed by evaluating technical aspects of the procedure and, at individual center level, by comparing structural indicators and institutional policies for managing peri-procedural issues with guideline recommendations. Aim: To assess the colonoscopy quality (CQ) in Italy at center level. Methods: Gastroenterologists participating in a nationwide colonoscopy education initiative provided information on structural indicators of their centers and on institutional policies by answering 10 multiple-choice clinical scenarios. Practice variation across centers and compliance with guidelines were analyzed. Results: Data from 282 Italian centers were evaluated. Overall, a significant proportion of centers did not meet CQ standards as concerns endoscopy facilities and equipments (e.g., dedicated recovery room, dirty-to-clean path, reporting software). CQ assurance programs were implemented in only 25% of centers. Concerning peri-procedural issues, main discrepancies with guidelines were recorded in the underuse of split-dose preparation (routinely adopted by 18% of centers), the routine request of coagulation tests prior to colonoscopy (30%), the routine interruption of aspirin for polypectomy (18%), and the adoption of 3-year surveillance for low-risk adenoma (49%). Conclusions: Present survey shows a significant variation in the CQ of endoscopy centers in Italy on many items of colonoscopy practice that should be targeted for future interventions.

Paggi, S., Amato, A., Anderloni, A., Annese, V., Barresi, L., Buda, A., et al. (2016). Pre- and post-procedural quality indicators for colonoscopy: A nationwide survey. DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, 48(7), 759-764 [10.1016/j.dld.2016.03.017].

Pre- and post-procedural quality indicators for colonoscopy: A nationwide survey

FUCCIO, LORENZO;
2016

Abstract

Background: The provision of high-quality colonoscopy can be assessed by evaluating technical aspects of the procedure and, at individual center level, by comparing structural indicators and institutional policies for managing peri-procedural issues with guideline recommendations. Aim: To assess the colonoscopy quality (CQ) in Italy at center level. Methods: Gastroenterologists participating in a nationwide colonoscopy education initiative provided information on structural indicators of their centers and on institutional policies by answering 10 multiple-choice clinical scenarios. Practice variation across centers and compliance with guidelines were analyzed. Results: Data from 282 Italian centers were evaluated. Overall, a significant proportion of centers did not meet CQ standards as concerns endoscopy facilities and equipments (e.g., dedicated recovery room, dirty-to-clean path, reporting software). CQ assurance programs were implemented in only 25% of centers. Concerning peri-procedural issues, main discrepancies with guidelines were recorded in the underuse of split-dose preparation (routinely adopted by 18% of centers), the routine request of coagulation tests prior to colonoscopy (30%), the routine interruption of aspirin for polypectomy (18%), and the adoption of 3-year surveillance for low-risk adenoma (49%). Conclusions: Present survey shows a significant variation in the CQ of endoscopy centers in Italy on many items of colonoscopy practice that should be targeted for future interventions.
2016
Paggi, S., Amato, A., Anderloni, A., Annese, V., Barresi, L., Buda, A., et al. (2016). Pre- and post-procedural quality indicators for colonoscopy: A nationwide survey. DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, 48(7), 759-764 [10.1016/j.dld.2016.03.017].
Paggi, Silvia; Amato, Arnaldo; Anderloni, Andrea; Annese, Vito; Barresi, Luca; Buda, Andrea; Cesaro, Paola; Di Giulio, Emilio; Gullotti, Giuseppe; Fab...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/561344
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact