Search

Background and study aims  Quality in colonoscopy has been promoted in last decade with definition of different quality indicators (QI) as benchmarks. Currently, automatized monitoring systems are lacking, especially for merging pathologic and endoscopic data, which limits quality monitoring implementation in daily practice. We describe an adapted endoscopy reporting system that allows continuous QI recording, with automatic pathological data inclusion. Material and methods  We locally adapted a reporting system for colonoscopy by adding and structuring in a dedicated tab selected key QI. Endoscopic data from a reporting system and pathological results were extracted and merged in a separate database. During the initial period of use, performing physicians were encouraged to complete the dedicated tab on a voluntary basis. In a second stage, completing of the tab was made mandatory. The completeness of QI recording was evaluated across both periods. Performance measures for all endoscopists were compared to global results for the department and published targets. Results  During the second semester of 2017, a total of 1827 colonoscopies were performed with a QI tab completed in 100 % of cases. Among key QI, the cecal intubation rate was 93.8 %, the rate of colonoscopies with adequate preparation was 90.7 %, and the adenoma detection rate was 29.8 % considering all colonoscopies, irrespective of indication; 28.8 % considering screening procedures; and 36.6 % in colonoscopies performed in people older than age 50 years. Conclusion  This study shows that quality monitoring for colonoscopy can be easily implemented with limited human resources by adapting a reporting system and linking it to a pathology database., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims  Patients with painful chronic pancreatitis (CP) and distal main pancreatic duct (MPD) stricture are considered candidates for treatment using a single plastic stent insertion. Multiple side-by-side stents have been proposed as an alternative treatment but comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this retrospective study is to assess differences in characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with CP and MPD strictures treated with a different number of stents during the stenting period. Patients and methods  Patients with painful CP and distal MPD obstruction requiring endoscopic treatment (01.2004 - 12.2012) were considered. The study population was divided in three groups: Patients treated with (A) exclusively one stent; (B) one or two stents; and (C) exclusively two stents during the stenting period. Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes were retrospectively assessed. Results  Among 284 patients, 85 were selected according to inclusion criteria (Group A: 18, Group B: 35, Group C: 32). Median follow-up duration was 84 months. The median number of endoscopic procedures needed was higher for group B [3 (A) vs. 3 (C) vs. 4 (B), P  = 0.001]. Regarding outcome, successful endoscopic treatment was lower in Group C (50 % vs. 88.2 % and 74.2 % for groups A and B, respectively; P  = 0.02). This difference was attributed to better clinical outcome in Group A compared to Group C patients [OR(95%CI): 7.50 (1.46 - 38.70); P  = 0.04]. Moreover, group C patients experienced higher levels of pain at the end of follow-up period [median Izbicki Score 0 (group A) vs. 0 (group B) vs. 6 (group C), P  = 0.03]. Conclusions  In patients with painful CP and distal MPD obstruction, treatment with a single stent is associated with better clinical outcome compared to treatment with exclusively two stents during the stenting period., Competing Interests: Competing interests None