Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy

  • Endoscopy (P Siersema, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion Statement

Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed endoscopic procedures. It is the gold standard examination for work-up of colonic symptoms, for follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening tests and for detection and removal of neoplastic polyps. Colonoscopy is a complex and invasive procedure with a potential not only for colorectal cancer prevention, but also for serious complications. Numerous factors may affect the balance of benefit versus harm of colonoscopy, including the performance of the endoscopist. These factors are commonly called quality indicators. As an increasing number of countries are recommending the general population to undergo colorectal cancer screening, the quality of colonoscopy should be considered a public health concern. Key quality indicators have been identified, and several professional organizations have issued recommendation statements to promote high-quality colonoscopy. To achieve high quality, these key quality indicators must be monitored, results must be analysed, and measures must be undertaken to correct substandard performance. High-quality training in colonoscopy and polypectomy should be a quality assurance priority.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, Wooldrage K, Hart AR, Northover JM, et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9726):1624–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2345–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L, Risio M, Sciallero S, Zappa M, et al. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian randomized controlled trial—SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(17):1310–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernan MA, Aas E, et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(6):606–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Altenhofen L, Haug U. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(2):89–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, Kliewer EV, Mahmud SM, Bernstein CN. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(4):1128–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(19):1795–803. This study was the first to show an inverse association between an endoscopists individual adenoma detection rate and the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. •• Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1298–306. This study confirmed an inverse association between adenoma detection rate and the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer and death

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R, Domagk D, Valori R, Kaminski MF, et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy. 2016;48(1):81–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, 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(6):1296–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(1):72–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD, Baragwanath P, Pullan R, Feeney M, et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut. 2016;65(12):1923–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. •• Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, Bretthauer M, Rees CJ, Dekker E, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy. 2017;49(4):378–97. This new guideline highlights a subset of key quality indicators for colonoscopy that were identified through a rigorous process to have the best evidence-based impact on outcomes and should be applicable to all colonoscopy services

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A, Barkun AN. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(2):197–204. quiz 5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):686–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(2):269–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C, Restellini S, Kherad O, Vanasse A. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(1):79–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. •• Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Loberg M, Zauber AG, Regula J, Kuipers EJ, et al. Population-based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(7):894–902. This article describes the baseline results of an ongoing, large, international, population based trial on screening colonoscopy. Results include yield of neoplasia, variability in endoscopist performance and patients’ experience

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Rabeneck L. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(1):65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Othman MO, Bradley AG, Choudhary A, Hoffman RM, Roy PK. Variable stiffness colonoscope versus regular adult colonoscope: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy. 2009;41(1):17–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mark-Christensen A, Brandsborg S, Iversen LH. Magnetic endoscopic imaging as an adjuvant to elective colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy. 2015;47(3):251–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F, Otte J, Rabenstein T, Zolk O. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;5:CD009863.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bick BL, Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Regional center for complex colonoscopy: yield of neoplasia in patients with prior incomplete colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(6):1239–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, Kern SE, Preisinger AC, Leppert M, et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(9):525–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kahi CJ, Anderson JC, Waxman I, Kessler WR, Imperiale TF, Li X, et al. High-definition chromocolonoscopy vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy for average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(6):1301–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jover R, Zapater P, Bujanda L, Hernandez V, Cubiella J, Pellise M, et al. Endoscopist characteristics that influence the quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2016;48(3):241–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. •• Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R, Kraszewska E, Rupinski M, Pachlewski J, et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut. 2016;65(4):616–24. This large trial showed that training endoscopy center leaders resulted in significant and sustained improvements in adenoma detection rates on the individual and centre levels

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI, Fujii H, Fujii T, Kashida H, et al. Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(4 Suppl):S3–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C, Bhandari P, Dumonceau JM, Paspatis G, et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2017;49(3):270–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Raad D, Tripathi P, Cooper G, Falck-Ytter Y. Role of the cold biopsy technique in diminutive and small colonic polyp removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(3):508–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Komeda Y, Kashida H, Sakurai T, Tribonias G, Okamoto K, Kono M, et al. Removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized clinical trial between cold snare polypectomy and hot forceps biopsy. World journal of gastroenterology : WJG. 2017;23(2):328–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Matsuura N, Takeuchi Y, Yamashina T, Ito T, Aoi K, Nagai K, et al. Incomplete resection rate of cold snare polypectomy: a prospective single-arm observational study. Endoscopy. 2017;49(3):251–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, Tanaka N, Sano K, Graham DY. Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(3):417–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Makino T, Horiuchi A, Kajiyama M, Tanaka N, Sano K, Maetani I. Delayed bleeding following cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps in patients taking antithrombotic agents. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;

  35. Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP, Anderson P, Rothstein RI, Gordon SR, et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(1):74–80. e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T, Repici A, Vieth M, De Ceglie A, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47(9):829–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rutter MD, Nickerson C, Rees CJ, Patnick J, Blanks RG. Risk factors for adverse events related to polypectomy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Endoscopy. 2014;46(2):90–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Segnan N, Patnick J, Karsa LV. European Commission. Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection., International Agency for Research on Cancer. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. 1. ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2010. lx, p. p. 386

  39. Garborg K, Kaminski MF, Lindenburger W, Wiig H, Hasund A, Wronska E, et al. Water exchange versus carbon dioxide insufflation in unsedated colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2015;47(3):192–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Levin TR, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(3):844–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, Regula J, Brandao C, Chaussade S, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45(10):842–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW, Goede SL, Dekker E, Lesterhuis W, et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut. 2015;64(10):1584–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ, Barry EL, Bostick RM, Burke CA, et al. Factors associated with shorter colonoscopy surveillance intervals for patients with low-risk colorectal adenomas and effects on outcome. Gastroenterology. 2017.

  44. Jover R, Bretthauer M, Dekker E, Holme O, Kaminski MF, Loberg M, et al. Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials. Endoscopy. 2016;48(6):571–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Aabakken L, Barkun AN, Cotton PB, Fedorov E, Fujino MA, Ivanova E, et al. Standardized endoscopic reporting. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29(2):234–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. van Doorn SC, van Vliet J, Fockens P, Dekker E. A novel colonoscopy reporting system enabling quality assurance. Endoscopy. 2014;46(3):181–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G, Kittang E, Stallemo A, Hoie O, et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006;41(4):481–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E, Kaminski MF, Rosch T, Hultcrantz R, et al. Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement for reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2016;48(3):291–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Standards for training in endoscopy. Statement of the Committee on Bronchoesophagology, American College of Chest Physicians. Chest. 1976;69(5):665–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Haycock A, Koch AD, Familiari P, van Delft F, Dekker E, Petruzziello L, et al. Training and transfer of colonoscopy skills: a multinational, randomized, blinded, controlled trial of simulator versus bedside training. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(2):298–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Koch AD, Ekkelenkamp VE, Haringsma J, Schoon EJ, de Man RA, Kuipers EJ. Simulated colonoscopy training leads to improved performance during patient-based assessment. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(3):630–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, Donnelly MT, Williams JG, Swarbrick ET. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. 2013;62(2):242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Morris EJ, Rutter MD, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, Valori R. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut. 2015;64(8):1248–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ussui V, Coe S, Rizk C, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(4):489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(2):219–26. quiz 27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA, Batts KP, Burke CA, Burt RW, et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(9):1315–29. quiz 4, 30

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. East JE, Atkin WS, Bateman AC, Clark SK, Dolwani S, Ket SN, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut. 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Transplantation Medicine and KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, P.B. 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway

    Kjetil Garborg MD PhD & Michael Bretthauer MD PhD

  2. Department of Health Management and Health Economy, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Kjetil Garborg MD PhD & Michael Bretthauer MD PhD

  3. Section for Bowel Cancer Screening, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway

    Thomas de Lange MD PhD

Authors
  1. Kjetil Garborg MD PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas de Lange MD PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Bretthauer MD PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kjetil Garborg MD PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Kjetil Garborg declares that he has no conflict of interest. Thomas de Lange declares that he has no conflict of interest. Michael Bretthauer declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki Declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Endoscopy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garborg, K., de Lange, T. & Bretthauer, M. Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy. Curr Treat Options Gastro 15, 416–428 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-017-0140-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-017-0140-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation