Colonoscopy quality requisites for selecting surveillance intervals: A World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Recommendation. Issue 6 (26th July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jover, Rodrigo; Dekker, Evelien; Schoen, Robert E.; Hassan, Cesare; Pellise, Maria; Ladabaum, Uri
• Is Part Of: Digestive endoscopy. Volume 30:Issue 6(2018)
• Page Start: 750
• Page End: 759
• Publication Date: 2018-07-26
• Subjects: colonoscopy -- colorectal cancer -- prevention -- quality -- surveillance; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- diagnosis -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; 616.3
• DOI: 10.1111/den.13229
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0915-5635

Abstract

Abstract : Background and Aims: Different post‐polypectomy guidelines underscore the need for high‐quality baseline colonoscopy before appropriate surveillance recommendations can be made. Standards for colonoscopy practice have been advocated by gastrointestinal societies. Our aims were to define standards for the procedural practice of colonoscopy in this particular setting of surveillance and to generate a colonoscopy procedural quality checklist that could be implemented in clinical practice. Methods: This study was based on the Delphi process methodology. The baseline questionnaire included 12 domains and 56 individual statements. A total of three rounds were carried out between September 2015 and March 2016 until consensus or lack of consensus was reached. Results: In total, consensus was reached on 27 statements in nine domains. High levels of agreement and consensus were reached that: (i) colonoscopy should be considered complete only if the whole cecum has been inspected, including the ileocecal valve and the appendiceal orifice (agreement score 4.63; degree of consensus 82%); (ii) quality of the bowel preparation should always be reported (agreement score 4.9, degree of consensus 94%); and (iii) it is preferable to use a segmental validated scale (agreement score 4.36, degree of consensus 86%). Consensus was also reached regarding multiple statements related to documentation of polyps and their resection. Finally, a colonoscopy quality checklist was drafted. Conclusion: Consensus on different statements regarding quality of colonoscopy has been reached. Based on this consensus, we propose a colonoscopy quality checklist that would be helpful for post‐polypectomy surveillance recommendations.