Performance Measures for Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

Overview

Journal United European Gastroenterol J

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2017 May 17

PMID 28507745

Citations 70

Authors

Michal F Kaminski

Siwan Thomas-Gibson

Marek Bugajski

Michael Bretthauer

Colin J Rees

Evelien Dekker

Geir Hoff

Rodrigo Jover

Stepan Suchanek

Monika Ferlitsch

John Anderson

Thomas Roesch

Rolf Hultcranz

Istvan Racz

Ernst J Kuipers

Kjetil Garborg

James E East

Maciej Rupinski

Birgitte Seip

Cathy Bennett

Carlo Senore

Silvia Minozzi

Raf Bisschops

Dirk Domagk

Roland Valori

Cristiano Spada

Cesare Hassan

Mario Dinis-Ribeiro

Matthew D Rutter

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); complication rate (minimum standard not set); patient experience (minimum standard not set); appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Citing Articles

Real-world effectiveness and safety of 1L polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in patients aged 80 years or older.

Machlab S, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Pantaleon M, Sabado F, Arieira C, Perez Arellano E Endosc Int Open. 2025; 13:a25259938.

PMID: 40018074 PMC: 11866040. DOI: 10.1055/a-2525-9938.

Improvement in adenoma detection rate by artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: Multicenter quasi-randomized controlled trial.

Lagstrom R, Brauner K, Bielik J, Rosen A, Crone J, Gogenur I Endosc Int Open. 2025; 13:a25215169.

PMID: 40018072 PMC: 11866038. DOI: 10.1055/a-2521-5169.

The results of the same day and appointment colonoscopy in inadequate bowel cleansing; a randomized controlled trial.

Ozsoy U, Yildirim M, Daldal E, Koca B, Saglam A, Gul S Turk J Surg. 2025; 41(1):61-68.

PMID: 40012320 PMC: 11878186. DOI: 10.47717/turkjsurg.2025.6541.

International Validation of a Novel PEACE Scale to Improve the Quality of Upper Gastrointestinal Mucosal Inspection During Endoscopy.

Romanczyk M, Desai M, Kaminski M, Abe S, Alkandari A, Beyna T Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2025; 16(1):e00786.

PMID: 39853720 PMC: 11756887. DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000786.

Adenoma Detection Rates by Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk.

Pilonis N, Spychalski P, Kalager M, Loberg M, Wieszczy P, Didkowska J JAMA. 2024; 333(5):400-407.

PMID: 39680377 PMC: 11795324. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.22975.

References

Schreuders E, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, van Kooten H, Soo I, Sadowski D . The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013; 27(1):33-8. PMC: 3545624. DOI: 10.1155/2013/279897. View

Soetikno R, Friedland S, Kaltenbach T, Chayama K, Tanaka S . Nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms. Gastroenterology. 2006; 130(2):566-76. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.12.006. View

Wernli K, Brenner A, Rutter C, Inadomi J . Risks Associated With Anesthesia Services During Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2015; 150(4):888-94. PMC: 4887133. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.018. View

Sarkar S, Geraghty J, Moore A, Lal S, Ramesh J, Bodger K . A multicentre study to determine the incidence, demographics, aetiology and outcomes of 6-day emergency readmission following day-case endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 24(12):1438-46. DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3283582db0. View

Mysliwiec P, Brown M, Klabunde C, Ransohoff D . Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141(4):264-71. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00006. View

Jover R, Zapater P, Polania E, Bujanda L, Lanas A, Hermo J . Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 77(3):381-389.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.09.027. View

Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, Korfage I, Ter Borg F, Brouwer J, Cahen D . Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale. Endoscopy. 2012; 44(5):462-72. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291663. View

Britto-Arias M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P, Gessl I, Sallinger D, Bannert C . Forceps versus snare polypectomies in colorectal cancer screening: are we adhering to the guidelines?. Endoscopy. 2015; 47(10):898-902. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1392328. View

Calderwood A, Jacobson B . Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72(4):686-92. PMC: 2951305. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068. View

10.

Rex D, Petrini J, Baron T, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal S . Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(4):873-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x. View

11.

Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, Drossel R, Mayr M . Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry. Endoscopy. 2013; 45(10):813-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1344583. View

12.

Park J, Sohn D, Hong C, Han K, Choi D, Chang H . The usefulness of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing using a saline test injection method with prepackaged sterile India ink for localization in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2007; 22(2):501-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9495-2. View

13.

Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E, Kaminski M, Rosch T, Hultcrantz R . Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement. United European Gastroenterol J. 2016; 4(2):172-6. PMC: 4804380. DOI: 10.1177/2050640616629079. View

14.

van Rijn J, Reitsma J, Stoker J, Bossuyt P, van Deventer S, Dekker E . Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(2):343-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x. View

15.

van Heijningen E, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg E, Goede S, Dekker E, Lesterhuis W . Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut. 2015; 64(10):1584-92. PMC: 4602240. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306453. View

16.

Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen J, Fujii H, Fujii T, Kashida H . Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 68(4 Suppl):S3-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.07.052. View

17.

Rabeneck L, Paszat L, Hilsden R, Saskin R, Leddin D, Grunfeld E . Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology. 2008; 135(6):1899-1906, 1906.e1. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.058. View

18.

Martinez M, Baron J, Lieberman D, Schatzkin A, Lanza E, Winawer S . A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology. 2009; 136(3):832-41. PMC: 3685417. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.007. View

19.

Shaukat A, Rector T, Church T, Lederle F, Kim A, Rank J . Longer Withdrawal Time Is Associated With a Reduced Incidence of Interval Cancer After Screening Colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2015; 149(4):952-7. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.06.044. View

20.

Juillerat P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Vader J, Arditi C, Schussele Filliettaz S, Dubois R . Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications. Endoscopy. 2009; 41(3):240-6. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1119643. View