Prospective audit of quality of colonoscopy in a surgical coloproctology unit

• Published in: The surgeon (Edinburgh) Vol. 2; no. 2; pp. 107 - 111
• Main Authors: Varma, J.S., Fasih, T., Tabaqchali, M.A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Edinburgh Elsevier Ltd 01-04-2004; Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biological and medical sciences; bowel preparation; Clinical Competence; Colonoscopy; Conscious Sedation; Digestive system. Abdomen; Endoscopy; Female; General aspects; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Medical Audit; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Patient Satisfaction; patient tolerance; Prospective Studies; bowel preparation; patient tolerance; Colonoscopy; Medicine; Prospective; Audit; Treatment; Surgery; Quality; Endoscopy
• DOI: 10.1016/S1479-666X(04)80054-4
• EISSN: 2405-5840
• ISSN: 1479-666X

Obj\ective: The aim of this study was to prospectively audit the quality of colonoscopy and patient acceptance in a Surgical Coloproctology Unit over a one-year period. Patients and Methods: 202 consecutive colonoscopies were evaluated over a 12-month period performed by a Consultant, Specialist Registrars and Research fellows. Data where recorded for adequacy of bowel preparation, completion rate, adequacy of sedation, patient tolerance and duration of the procedure. Adequacy of bowel preparation was monitored by scoring bowel content and the percentage of bowel wall visualised. Patients completed a questionnaire to express their sedation satisfaction, discomfort during the procedure and overall satisfaction. Results: The success rate of bowel preparation was 94%. Completion rate was 90% in intended full colonoscopies by the Consultant and Registrars and 74% by more junior grade endoscopists (overall 86%). The mean dose of midazolam and pethidine was higher in patients with unsatisfactory sedation than those with satisfactory sedation. The pain score was higher when trainees performed the procedure than when performed by the Consultant. Fourteen patients refused to undergo the procedure again due to procedure discomfort (n=7), inadequate sedation (n=2) and bowel preparation discomfort (n=5). Conclusion: A high completion rate was achieved, compared with published results. However, further improvements are possible especially by improving the performance of junior endoscopists and by ensuring optimal bowel preparation. Patients' tolerance of colonoscopy was highly acceptable but may also be improved by the same methods