Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

Michal F. Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J. Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J. Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E. East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D. Rutter

doi:10.1055/s-0043-103411

Endoscopy, Table of Contents

Endoscopy 2017; 49(04): 378-397
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-103411

Guideline

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

Authors

Michal F. Kaminski

¹Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland

²Department of Gastroenterological Oncology and Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland

³Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
Siwan Thomas-Gibson

⁴Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark’s Hospital, Harrow, and Imperial College, London, UK
Marek Bugajski

¹Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland

²Department of Gastroenterological Oncology and Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
Michael Bretthauer

³Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

⁵Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
Colin J. Rees

⁶South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Tyneside, United Kingdom
Evelien Dekker

⁷Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Geir Hoff

³Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

⁸Department of Research and Development, Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway

⁹Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
Rodrigo Jover

¹⁰Unidad de Gastroenterologia, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
Stepan Suchanek

¹¹Department of Internal Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Monika Ferlitsch

¹²Department of Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
John Anderson

¹³Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham General Hospital, Gloucestershire, UK
Thomas Roesch

¹⁴Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
Rolf Hultcranz

¹⁵Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
Istvan Racz

¹⁶Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Petz Aladar County and Teaching Hospital, Györ, Hungary
Ernst J. Kuipers

¹⁷Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Kjetil Garborg

³Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
James E. East

¹⁸Translational Gastroenterology Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Maciej Rupinski

¹Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland

²Department of Gastroenterological Oncology and Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
Birgitte Seip

¹⁹Department of Gastroenterology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway
Cathy Bennett

²⁰Centre for Technology Enabled Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
Carlo Senore

²¹CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
Silvia Minozzi

²¹CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
Raf Bisschops

²²Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Domagk

²³Department of Internal Medicine, Joseph’s Hospital, Warendorf, Germany
Roland Valori

²⁴Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, UK
Cristiano Spada

²⁵Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Agostino Gemelli University Hospital, Rome, Italy
Cesare Hassan

²⁶Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
Mario Dinis-Ribeiro

²⁷Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal

²⁸Servicio de Gastroenterologia, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Porto, Portugal
Matthew D. Rutter

²⁹Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, UK

³⁰School of Medicine, Durham University, UK

Abstract

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level:

1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set).

Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Full Text

References

References
1 Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R. et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 81-89
2 Minoli G, Meucci G, Prada A. et al. Quality assurance and colonoscopy. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 522-527
3 Ball JE, Osbourne J, Jowett S. et al. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004; 329: 665-667
4 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S. et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
5 Valori R, Rey JF, Atkin WS. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE88-SE105
6 Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957-968
7 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873-885
8 Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E. et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 843-864
9 Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E. et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 629-656
10 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926
11 Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A. et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376-380
12 Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E. et al. Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 172-176
13 Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142-150
14 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ. et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
15 Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR. et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696-1700
16 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
17 Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
18 Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH. et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 346-352
19 Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A. et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197-204 (quiz 205)
20 Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A. et al. Quantification of adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 396-405 (quiz e14–e15)
21 Calderwood AH, Logan JR, Zurfluh M. et al. Validity of a web-based educational program to disseminate a standardized bowel preparation rating scale. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014; 48: 856-861
22 Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Loberg M. et al. Population-based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 894-902
23 Calderwood AH, Schroy 3rd PC, Lieberman DA. et al. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 269-276
24 Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR. et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 952-957
25 Zorzi M, Valiante F, Germana B. et al. Comparison between different colon cleansing products for screening colonoscopy. A noninferiority trial in population-based screening programs in Italy. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 223-231
26 Radaelli F, Paggi S, Hassan C. et al. Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme. Gut 2017; 66: 270-277
27 Whitson MJ, Bodian CA, Aisenberg J. et al. Is production pressure jeopardizing the quality of colonoscopy? A survey of U.S. endoscopists' practices and perceptions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 641-648
28 Condiotte AM, Robertson DJ, Blodgett C. et al. “Running late” and adenoma detection – is there an association?. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 232-237
29 Jain D, Goyal A, Zavala S. Predicting colonoscopy time: a quality improvement initiative. Clin Endosc 2016; 49: 555-559
30 Moritz V, Holme O, Leblanc M. et al. An explorative study from the Norwegian Quality Register Gastronet comparing self-estimated versus registered quality in colonoscopy performance. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E326-E332
31 Hassan C, Di Giulio E, Marmo R. et al. Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2011; 20: 279-286
32 Gimeno Garcia AZ, Gonzalez Y, Quintero E. et al. Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 32-37
33 Mangualde J, Cremers MI, Vieira AM. et al. Appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy in a non-academic hospital. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 3: 195-200
34 Carrion S, Marin I, Lorenzo-Zuniga V. et al. [Appropriateness of colonoscopy indications according to the new EPAGE II criteria]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 33: 484-489
35 Appropriate use of gastrointestinal endoscopy. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 831-837
36 Juillerat P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Vader JP. et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 240-246
37 Eskeland SL, Dalen E, Sponheim J. et al. European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II guidelines help in selecting and prioritizing patients referred to colonoscopy - -a quality control study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 492-500
38 Thoufeeq MH, Rembacken BJ. Meticulous cecal image documentation at colonoscopy is associated with improved polyp detection. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E629-E633
39 Neilson LJ, Bevan R, Panter S. et al. Terminal ileal intubation and biopsy in routine colonoscopy practice. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 9: 567-574
40 Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS. et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65-72
41 Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
42 Belderbos TD, Grobbee EJ, van Oijen MG. et al. Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 703-709
43 Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F. et al. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy). Gut 2000;
44 Jover R, Zapater P, Polania E. et al. Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 381-389 e1
45 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT. et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
46 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. NEJM 2010; 362: 1795-1803
47 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. NEJM 2014; 370: 1298-1306
48 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J. et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
49 Rogal SS, Pinsky PF, Schoen RE. Relationship between detection of adenomas by flexible sigmoidoscopy and interval distal colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 73-78
50 Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R. et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut 2016; 65: 616-624
51 Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Kretschmann J. et al. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German screening colonoscopy program. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 356-366 e1
52 Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN. et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219-226 (quiz 227)
53 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 656-665
54 Kaminski MF, Rupinski M, Wieszczy P. et al. Effect of adenoma detection rate improvement on the risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: S189
55 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Kolacz A. et al. Comparison of quality measures for detection of neoplasia at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2016; 83: AB527
56 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS. et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. NEJM 2006; 355: 2533-2541
57 Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK. et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy - a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476-481
58 Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ. et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20-26
59 Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N. et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892-1898
60 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091-1098
61 Vavricka SR, Sulz MC, Degen L. et al. Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal time significantly improves the adenoma detection rate and the performance of endoscopists. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 256-262
62 Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR. et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128-134
63 Rutter MD, Chilton A, Patnick J. Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal times remains important. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 73
64 Patel NC, Islam RS, Wu Q. et al. Measurement of polypectomy rate by using administrative claims data with validation against the adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 390-394
65 Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 576-582
66 Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A. et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 493-497
67 Atia MA, Patel NC, Ratuapli SK. et al. Nonneoplastic polypectomy during screening colonoscopy: the impact on polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and overall cost. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 370-375.e1
68 Boroff ES, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG. et al. Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 993-999
69 Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ. et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949-956
70 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963
71 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80 e1
72 Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H. et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 741-747
73 Lee CK, Shim JJ, Jang JY. Cold snare polypectomy vs. cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1593-1600
74 Britto-Arias M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P. et al. Forceps versus snare polypectomies in colorectal cancer screening: are we adhering to the guidelines?. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 898-902
75 Din S, Ball AJ, Taylor E. et al. Polypectomy practices of sub-centimeter polyps in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 3224-3230
76 Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI. et al. Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: S3-S47
77 Lambert R, Kudo SE, Vieth M. et al. Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1182-1199
78 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1909-1918
79 Wang R, Wang Y, Li D. et al. Application of carbon nanoparticles to mark locations for re-inspection after colonic polypectomy. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 1530-1533
80 Park JW, Sohn DK, Hong CW. et al. The usefulness of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing using a saline test injection method with prepackaged sterile India ink for localization in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 501-505
81 Bartels SA, van der Zaag ES, Dekker E. et al. The effect of colonoscopic tattooing on lymph node retrieval and sentinel lymph node mapping. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 793-800
82 Kang J, Park HS, Kim IK. et al. Effect of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing on lymph node harvest in T1 colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30: 1349-1355
83 Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
84 Zafar A, Mustafa M, Chapman M. Colorectal polyps: when should we tattoo?. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 3264-3266
85 Kaminski MF, Hassan C, Bisschops R. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 435-457
86 Deenadayalu VP, Rex DK. Colon polyp retrieval after cold snaring. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 253-256
87 Ye F, Feng Y, Lin J. Retrieval of colorectal polyps following snare polypectomy: Experience of the multiple-suction technique in 602 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 431-436
88 Fernandes C, Pinho R, Ribeiro I. et al. Risk factors for polyp retrieval failure in colonoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: 387-392
89 Komeda Y, Suzuki N, Sarah M. et al. Factors associated with failed polyp retrieval at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 395-400
90 Belderbos TD, van Oijen MG, Moons LM. et al. The “golden retriever” study: improving polyp retrieval rates by providing education and competitive feedback. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 596-601
91 van Doorn SC, Hazewinkel Y, East JE. et al. Polyp morphology: an interobserver evaluation for the Paris classification among international experts. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 180-187
92 Aziz Aadam A, Wani S, Kahi C. et al. Physician assessment and management of complex colon polyps: a multicenter video-based survey study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1312-1324
93 Soetikno R, Friedland S, Kaltenbach T. et al. Nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 566-576 (quiz 588–589)
94 Fisher DA, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T. et al. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 745-752
95 Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C. et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 880-886
96 Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ. et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1899-1906 1906.e1
97 Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB. et al. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 849-857 w152
98 Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A. et al. Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 813-818
99 Sarkar S, Geraghty J, Moore AR. et al. A multicentre study to determine the incidence, demographics, aetiology and outcomes of 6-day emergency readmission following day-case endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1438-1446
100 Saraste D, Martling A, Nilsson PJ. et al. Complications after colonoscopy and surgery in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. J Med Screen 2016; 23: 135-140
101 Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L. et al. Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 166-173
102 Ko CW, Dominitz JA. Complications of colonoscopy: magnitude and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2010; 20: 659-671
103 Reumkens A, Rondagh EJ, Bakker CM. et al. Post-colonoscopy complications: a systematic review, time trends, and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1092-1101
104 Tapper EB, Leffler DA. The Morbidity and Mortality Conference in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: an important cornerstone of patient safety and optimal care. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 19-23
105 McLachlan SA, Clements A, Austoker J. Patients' experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context--a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86: 137-146
106 Denters MJ, Schreuder M, Depla AC. et al. Patients' perception of colonoscopy: patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome experience the largest burden. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25: 964-972
107 Pylvanainen K, Kairaluoma M, Mecklin JP. Compliance and satisfaction with long-term surveillance in Finnish HNPCC families. Fam Cancer 2006; 5: 175-178
108 Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S. et al. Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 639-646
109 Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM. et al. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 888-894 (quiz e18)
110 Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, Korfage IJ. et al. Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 462-472
111 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Lalor EA. et al. A prospective audit of patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale: a cohort of 1,187 patients. Can J Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 607-613
112 Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G. et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481-487
113 Holme O, de Lange T, Stallemo A. et al. Routine vs. on-demand analgesia in colonoscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 823-828
114 Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Holme O. et al. Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 110-120
115 Kaminski MF, Kraszewska E, Rupinski M. et al. Design of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program: a randomized health services study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1144-1150
116 Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S. et al. Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 362-369
117 Ghanouni A, Plumb A, Hewitson P. et al. Patients' experience of colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 232-240
118 Rostom A, Ross ED, Dube C. et al. Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 255-261
119 Skovlund E, Flaten O. Response measures in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 1995; 15: 519-522 ; discussion 450–451
120 Skovlund E, Bretthauer M, Grotmol T. et al. Sensitivity of pain rating scales in an endoscopy trial. Clin J Pain 2005; 21: 292-296
121 Breivik EK, Bjornsson GA, Skovlund E. A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data. Clin J Pain 2000; 16: 22-28
122 Cottet V, Jooste V, Fournel I. et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study. Gut 2012; 61: 1180-1186
123 Martinez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA. et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 832-841
124 Loberg M, Kalager M, Holme O. et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal. NEJM 2014; 371: 799-807
125 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE151-SE163
126 Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842-851
127 van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW. et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584-1592
128 Schreuders E, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V. et al. The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 33-38
129 Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN. et al. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 264-271
130 Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J. et al. Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 654-659
131 Rees C, Ngu WS, Regula J. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy – Establishing the key unanswered research questions within gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 1-11
132 Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams OD. et al. Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285: 2871-2879