• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

十年的结肠镜检查审计——能学到什么?

Colonoscopy audit over 10 years--what can be learnt?

作者信息

Fraser Alan G, Gamble Greg D, Rose Toby R, Dunn John P

出版信息

N Z Med J. 2013 Sep 13;126(1382):25-35.

PMID:24154767
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The goals of colonoscopy are changing over time and it is important to regularly determine if endoscopists are achieving key performance indicators.

METHODS

Data on key performance indicators were recorded independently by nursing staff for all colonoscopies performed during a 10-year period. The results were discussed at regular meetings and feedback given to endoscopists.

RESULTS

Audit data was recorded for 67,570 procedures. The key performance indicators (time to caecum, withdrawal time, adjusted caecal intubation rate and polyp detection rate) all improved over the audit period (p<0.0001 for trend). For each endoscopist the mean withdrawal time was highly variable ranging from 3.1 mins (95%CI 3.0; 3.1) to 11.2 mins (11.0; 11.3). For each endoscopist mean polyp detection rate varied from 29% (CI 26, 31%) to 69% (CI 68, 70%). There was a significant correlation between mean withdrawal time and mean polyp detection rate for each endoscopist (r=0.42; p=0.03). The polyp detection rate improved from 29% in 1999 to 49% in 2010. The proportion of procedures with more than 2 polyps increased from 22% in 2001 to 33% in 2010. There was a significant association of patient discomfort with time to caecum and also to level of consciousness, p<0.0001. There was a significant decrease in the proportion with significant discomfort over the audit period, p<0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy audit as a routine process with data collection by endoscopy nurses over several years may be able to improve key performance indicators by the process of regular feedback to endoscopists. Audit should be encouraged as a routine process rather than simply as a research tool for a limited period.

摘要

引言

结肠镜检查的目标随时间而变化,定期确定内镜医师是否达到关键绩效指标很重要。

方法

护理人员独立记录了10年期间所有结肠镜检查的关键绩效指标数据。定期会议上讨论结果并向内镜医师提供反馈。

结果

记录了67570例检查的审核数据。关键绩效指标(到达盲肠时间、退镜时间、调整后的盲肠插管率和息肉检出率)在审核期间均有所改善(趋势p<0.0001)。对于每位内镜医师,平均退镜时间差异很大,范围从3.1分钟(95%CI 3.0;3.1)到11.2分钟(11.0;11.3)。对于每位内镜医师,平均息肉检出率从29%(CI 26,31%)到69%(CI 68,70%)不等。每位内镜医师的平均退镜时间与平均息肉检出率之间存在显著相关性(r=0.42;p=0.03)。息肉检出率从1999年的29%提高到2010年的49%。有2个以上息肉的检查比例从2001年的22%增加到2010年的33%。患者不适与到达盲肠时间以及意识水平显著相关,p<0.0001。在审核期间,有明显不适的比例显著下降,p<0.0001。

结论

作为一项由内镜护士多年收集数据的常规流程,结肠镜检查审核通过定期向内镜医师反馈的过程,可能会改善关键绩效指标。应鼓励将审核作为常规流程,而不仅仅是在有限时期内作为研究工具。

相似文献

1
Colonoscopy audit over 10 years--what can be learnt?十年的结肠镜检查审计——能学到什么?
N Z Med J. 2013 Sep 13;126(1382):25-35.
2
[Quality indicators for colonoscopy: differences in polyp detection between endoscopists at one hospital].[结肠镜检查的质量指标:一家医院内镜医师之间息肉检出率的差异]
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(24):A4219.
3
Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time.内镜医师退镜速度对息肉检出率的影响:对优化结肠镜检查退镜时间的启示
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006 Sep 15;24(6):965-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03080.x.
4
Effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement program on colonoscopy practice.持续质量改进计划对结肠镜检查实践的有效性。
Endoscopy. 2007 Apr;39(4):314-8. doi: 10.1055/s-2006-945196. Epub 2007 Feb 1.
5
Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection.全院范围内结肠镜检查退镜时间≥7分钟的政策对息肉检出的影响。
Gastroenterology. 2008 Dec;135(6):1892-8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.024. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
6
Quality of colonoscopy performance among gastroenterology and surgical trainees: a need for common training standards for all trainees?胃肠病学和外科培训生的结肠镜检查表现质量:是否需要为所有培训生制定共同的培训标准?
Endoscopy. 2011 Nov;43(11):935-40. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1256633. Epub 2011 Oct 13.
7
Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators.结肠镜检查的技术性能:镇静/镇痛及其他质量指标的关键作用。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 May;103(5):1122-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01778.x. Epub 2008 Apr 28.
8
Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy.结肠镜检查质量指标的时间趋势。
United European Gastroenterol J. 2016 Feb;4(1):110-20. doi: 10.1177/2050640615570147. Epub 2015 Feb 5.
9
Withdrawal times and associated factors in colonoscopy: a quality assurance multicenter assessment.结肠镜检查的退出时间及其相关因素:一项质量保证多中心评估。
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2010 Apr;44(4):e80-6. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181bf9b02.
10
The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK.全国结肠镜检查审计:对英国结肠镜检查质量和安全性的全国性评估。
Gut. 2013 Feb;62(2):242-9. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301848. Epub 2012 Jun 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Improved detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is maintained with continuous audit of colonoscopy.连续的结肠镜检查审核可提高腺瘤和无蒂锯齿状息肉的检出率。
BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul;7(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000425.
2
A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.结肠镜检查报告质量的综述。
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:9423142. doi: 10.1155/2016/9423142. Epub 2016 Apr 26.