PTH-010 Cecal withdrawal time: assessing standards of colonoscopy in district general hospital
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Introduction</h3> The British Society of Gastroenterology, the UK Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland have developed quality assurance measures and key performance indicators for the delivery of colonoscopy within the UK. However, studies have suggested that high variations in the quality of colonoscopy among different endoscopists are reflected in surrogate measures such as adenoma detection, cecal intubation rates, withdrawal times, and incidence of complications. This documents identifies the unacceptable variation in practice and measures adopted to improve quality of care. <h3>Method</h3> A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted of cecal withdrawal time at Glangwili General Hospital, Carmarthem for patients who presented for colonoscopy between August 2017 to January 2018. Diagnostic procedures were included in the study comprising two cycles 8 months apart. Patients with history of colonic surgery were eliminated. Same endoscopy nurse manually collected the data from 5 different endoscopist using stopwatch without them knowing. Both the cycles were 3 months apart during which different measures were taken to improve withdrawal time including sending individual feedback to endoscopists, one to one discussions between endoscopy consultant lead and involved endoscopist and keeping a timer in endoscopy room to keep tract of time. <h3>Results</h3> We reviewed 10 colonoscopies performed by each endoscopist in each cycle of audit and mean cecal withdrawal time is shown below. After taking appropriate measure to improve quality of care following results were obtained. Following graph shows variation in mean withdrawal time between two cycles compared against set standards. Below shows the comparison of 1 st and 2nd cycle showing rectal retroflexion performed and imaging of cecal landmarks recording done by each endoscopist <h3>Conclusion</h3> Practice among endoscopists varied with majority providing good standard of care. Weak points identified during 1 st stem of audit cycle and changes implemented lead to improvement in quality of care but still there is further room for improvement. Regular audits are important to make sure that colonoscopy practice meets key performance indicators outlined by JAG and BSG in order to increase polyp detection rate. <h3>References</h3> 1. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy -the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2. Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program – Endoscopy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».