The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea

Jae Ho Choi; Jae Myung Cha; Jin Young Yoon; Min Seob Kwak; Jung Won Jeon; Hyun Phil Shin

doi:10.5217/ir.2018.00060

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 17(1); 2019 > Article

Original Article The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea: Jae Ho Choi¹, Jae Myung Cha^2,, Jin Young Yoon^1,2, Min Seob Kwak², Jung Won Jeon², Hyun Phil Shin²; Intestinal Research 2019;17(1):119-126.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00060
Published online: October 10, 2018

¹Department of Medicine, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to Jae Myung Cha, Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, 892 Dongnam-ro, Gangdong-gu, Seoul 05278, Korea. Tel: +82-2-440-6113, Fax: +82-2-440-6295, E-mail: drcha@khu.ac.kr

• Received: April 23, 2018 • Revised: June 4, 2018 • Accepted: July 9, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

12,886 Views
172 Download
16 Web of Science
16 Crossref
16 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Little is known for the capacity and quality of colonoscopy, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea. This study aimed to investigate the present and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea.
Methods
We surveyed representative endoscopists of 72 endoscopy units from June to August 2015, using a 36-item questionnaire regarding colonoscopic capacity, quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines of each hospitals.
Results
Among the 62 respondents who answered the questionnaire, 51 respondents were analyzed after exclusion of 11 incomplete answers. Only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units can afford to perform additional colonoscopies in addition to current practice, and the potential maximum number of colonoscopies per week was only 42. The quality of colonoscopy was variable as reporting of quality indicators of colonoscopy were considerably variable (29.4%–94.1%) between endoscopy units. Furthermore, there are substantial gaps in the adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, as concordance rate for guideline recommendation was less than 50% in most scenarios.
Conclusions
The potential capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea was suboptimal. Considering suboptimal reporting of colonoscopic quality indicators and low adherence rate for colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, quality improvement of colonoscopy should be underlined in Korea.
Keywords: Colonoscopy; Colorectal neoplasms; Quality; Surveys and questionnaires; Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant public health problem, as its incidence has been increasing worldwide [1,2]. As most CRC develops from colorectal adenoma through the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, CRC screening has decreased CRC incidence and mortality through early detection and removal of colorectal adenoma [3,4]. Several Western countries such as Australia, Germany, Poland, Switzerland, and the United States use colonoscopy as primary CRC screening [5]. Recently, the adoption of colonoscopy as a primary CRC screening tool has been argued in Korea.

In Western countries, limited resources for colonoscopy have been an obstacle in expanding CRC screening program [6-8]. Until now, little is known for the the present and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guideline recommendations in Korea. A better understanding of these information may be the first step towards successful implementation of primary colonoscopy screening as well as identification of deficits in the current colonoscopic resources in Korea. Considering excellent accessibility of colonoscopy, low cost of colonoscopy, and the availability of experienced colonoscopists in Korea, the current Korea’s data may be different from those of Western countries.

In this context, we evaluated the present and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guideline recommendations in Korea.

METHODS

1. Study Subjects

This nationwide survey was conducted between June and August 2015. The survey items were designed to investigate the current and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guideline recommendations. In this survey, representative endoscopists of 72 hospitals nationwide were selected as potential respondents. Representative endoscopists were directors of endoscopy units or executive members of the Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID). If the respondents’ e-mail addresses were not valid, they were excluded from the study. Respondents who did not complete the questionnaire were also excluded from the analysis. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong (KHNMC IRB 2015-07-003). Informed consent was waived for this survey study.

2. Questionnaire

A 36-item survey was developed based on literature review [9,10] and semi-structured discussions with academic gastroenterologists and the governing board of KASID. The survey instrument included questions about (1) characterization of respondents and endoscopy units, (2) capacity for colonoscopy in the endoscopy unit, (3) sedation and reprocessing for colonoscopy, and (4) adherence to the colonoscopy surveillance guidelines by the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) [11]. We did a pilot test on 4 gastroenterology fellows at the Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, and answers from this group were used to revise the survey questionnaire. Reported completion times ranged from 15 to 20 minutes. A web link using the host SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com) was e-mailed to all potential respondents, and all responses were anonymous. There were no incentives and all respondents voluntary participated. The survey was designed not to move to the next item if the respondents failed to answer the previous item, in order to increase the completeness of the survey. We sent invitation e-mails to potential respondents once a week for three times. The survey website was closed after 8 weeks.

3. Definition of Terminology Used

The USMSTF guidelines’ recommended surveillance interval based on index colonoscopy findings are: 10-year intervals for no polyps or small hyperplastic polyps in the rectum or sigmoid colon; 5-year intervals for 1 to 2 tubular adenomas <10 mm; and 3-year intervals for high-risk adenomas, defined as adenoma with villous histology, high-grade dysplasia, ≥10 mm, or 3 or more adenomas [11]. For the self-reported adherence rate to CRC surveillance guideline recommendations, this guideline was used with the assumption that the baseline colonoscopy was complete and adequate and that all visible polyps were completely removed.

Indications for colonoscopy were divided into 3 groups: screening, surveillance, or diagnostic. “Screening colonoscopy” refers to the routine use of the procedure in order to detect a precursor lesion or early CRC in asymptomatic individuals. “Surveillance colonoscopy” refers to planned colonoscopy for patients previously diagnosed with colorectal polyp or CRC. “Diagnostic colonoscopy” is colonoscopy for patients with lower GI symptoms (such as abdominal pain, change in bowel habits, anemia, bleeding, tumor, intestinal obstruction, or weight loss) or a positive test result (such as fecal occult blood test, sigmoidoscopy, or double contrast barium enema).

4. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize socio-demographic characteristics. Categorical data were expressed as number (percentage), whereas continuous data were expressed as mean±SD. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS

We sent a web link e-mail to 72 representative physicians in hospitals nationwide, and 62 of them answered with a response rate of 86%. Overall, survey results from 51 of the total 62 respondents were analyzed after exclusion of 11 surveys with incomplete answers. The complete overall response rate was 71.0%.

1. Characteristics of Respondents And Endoscopy Units

The respondents included 39 men (76.5%) and 12 women (23.5%), with a mean age of 42.3±5.0 years (Table 1). All respondents were representative gastroenterologists performing colonoscopy at each endoscopy units. Fellowship period for colonoscopy training was 1.9±0.8 years, and 88.2% of respondents performed more than 30 colonoscopies per month. The endoscopy units were mostly in tertiary or training hospitals (82.4%) and the median number of examination rooms in the endoscopy unit was 6. The main specialty of working colonoscopists in each endoscopy units was gastroenterology (66.7%, 95% CI, 60.5%–72.9%).

We also investigated the characteristics of sedation used for colonoscopy. The most commonly used sedative agent was a benzodiazepine alone (51.0%), followed by a combination of benzodiazepine and propofol (45.1%) or other agents (4.0%). During conscious sedation, the staffs who were working in each examination room (62.7% were nursing staff and 29.4% were colonoscopists) directly monitored patients without other assistance. In only 1 endoscopy unit, an anesthesiologist monitoried patients (1%).

2. Colonoscopic Capacity

Table 2 shows the current and potential colonoscopic capacity that could be performed under current existing resources. There was a wide range of difference between each endoscopy unit’s capacity. The indications for colonoscopies were composed of screening (32.9%, 95% CI, 26.3%–35.9%), surveillance (33.0%, 95% CI, 28.3%–35.7%) and diagnostic (37.6%, 95% CI, 32.3%–41.5%). Under the present colonoscopic capacity, 84.4% of endoscopy units provided screening or surveillance colonoscopy within 1 month and 95.6% of endoscopy units provided diagnostic colonoscopy within 1 month.

Respondents estimated the potential maximum number of colonoscopies that could be performed at their endoscopy units in addition to those in current practice with the available resources (potential colonoscopic capacity). Only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units were able to perform more colonoscopies, and the potential maximum number of colonoscopies per week was only 42.0 cases (8 cases per working day). Three major limiting factors in the performance of more colonoscopies were insufficient nursing staff, insufficient procedure rooms and recovery areas, and insufficient number of physicians. In a separate survey question about the main strategies that would be considered in order to accommodate an increase in endoscopic demand, respondents were likely to recruit more physician staff (23.5%) or establish more procedure rooms and recovery areas (17.5%). However, 23.5% of respondents answered that they would not consider performing more colonoscopies.

3. Colonoscopy Qality

For quality indicators monitored in daily practice, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time more than 6 minutes, polyp detection rate (PDR) or adenoma detection rate (ADR), bowel preparation, procedure-related complications and patient compliance were surveyed (Table 3). The most frequently monitored indicator was cecal intubation rate (94.1%), followed by withdrawal time more than 6 minutes (76.5%), procedure-related complications (76.5%), bowel preparation (66.7%), PDR/ADR (56.9%), and patient satisfaction (29.4%). The reporting rate of quality indicators was considerably variable, ranging from 29.4% to 94.1% between endoscopy units. Three main causes of incomplete colonoscopies were poor bowel preparation (86.3%), technical difficulties (9.8%), and patient discomfort or pain (3.9%).

4. Adherence to Surveillance Guideline

Table 4 shows the self-reported adherence rate for surveillance guideline recommendations [11,12]. In most scenarios, there is a big gap between respondents’ answers and guideline recommendations on surveillance intervals. Concordance rate for guideline recommendation was less than 50% in most scenarios. Most colonoscopists favored shorter surveillance interval than recommended surveillance interval from guideline.

5. Attitude and Opinions on the Surveillance Guidelines

Table 5 shows the attitude and opinions on the surveillance guidelines. Only 54.9% of respondents were familiar with “colonoscopy surveillance guidelines.” With regard to the attitude toward the guidelines, 23.5% of respondents worried about the risk of a missed CRC from guideline adherence and 43.1% of them were exaggerating the benefit of repeat colonoscopy. Only few colonoscopists were either not familiar with the guidelines or did not know the guidelines well. However, 31.4% of respondents disagree with the guidelines and 41.2% of respondents complained of difficulty to keep guidelines.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study evaluating the colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guideline recommendations in Korea. For the potential colonoscopic capacity, only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units can afford to perform additional colonoscopies, and only 8 cases of colonoscopies per working day might be performed in addition to the current practice. Despite recent issues of qualified colonoscopy in Korea, monitoring and reporting of quality indicators of colonoscopy were suboptimal and considerably variable (29.4%–94.1%) between endoscopy units. Furthermore, there are substantial gaps in the adherence to guideline recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy as concordance rate for guideline recommendation was less than 50% in most scenarios.

During sedative colonoscopy in Korea, a benzodiazepine is most commonly used under monitoring by the staffs who were working in each examination room. Our finding was contrasted those of European studies [13-15], in which profofol were preferred to benzodiazepines. The major concerns regarding the risks of adverse events [16] with propofol use may prohibit its widespread use in Korea. Characteristics of sedation and monitoring during colonoscopy may be influenced by the safety concerns of patients and colonoscopists, reimbursement policies, and the variable health care systems of each country; therefore, further studies to optimize sedation and monitoring for colonoscopy are warranted in each country.

For the potential colonoscopic capacity, we assumed that many endoscopy units can afford to more colonoscopies in addition to current practice. It was surprising that only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units can afford to perform additional colonoscopies in addition to the current practice. Our survey results suggest that the potential colonoscopic capacity may not be able to adequately respond to the increasing demand of colonoscopy in Korea. Even though our survey results are subject to bias associated with self-reported data, it may suggest areas for further investigation as the colonoscopic capacity appropriate to meet the increasing demand of colonoscopy screening in Korea has not been fully established. In the United States, colonoscopic capacity limitation have been an obstacle in expanding colonoscopic procedures [17]. In the U.S. survey [18], only 63% of the volume of colonoscopies could be performed with their available resources in 2002. Considering only certain specialists are trained to perform colonoscopy and all positive CRC screening tests are typically followed by a colonoscopy, issues of colonoscopic capacity must be underlined in Korea.

To provide adequate colonoscopy screening, the issue of quality must be addressed. In our study, monitoring and reporting of quality indicators of colonoscopy were suboptimal and considerably variable between endoscopy units. In the United States and Europe, rates of reporting of colonoscopy quality indicators were likewise variable and suboptimal, either [19,20]. These common findings demonstrate the need for regular and efficient assessment of colonoscopic quality in clinical practice. In our survey, the most frequently monitored indicators are cecal intubation rate, followed by withdrawal time more than 6 minutes, procedure-related complications, bowel preparation, PDR/ADR, and patient satisfaction. Provider-oriented indicators, such as cecal intubation rate or withdrawal time, were relatively well monitored. However, patient-oriented indicators, such as patient satisfaction, was insufficiently monitored. Therefore, implementation of quality reporting in colonoscopy, especially for patient-oriented indicators, should be emphasized.

Our survey results show that there are substantial gaps in the adherence to guideline recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy in Korea, which was consistent with previous studies [21,22]. In our survey, most of the respondents favored shorter surveillance intervals than guideline recommendations in most scenarios, though overuse of surveillance colonoscopy leads to unnecessary costs and risks associated with unnecessary colonoscopy [23]. Over-recommendation of surveillance colonoscopy may be due to their concern about interval CRCs [24,25], lower colonoscopy costs, or lack of confidence in the guidelines [9,26,27]. In our study, the adherence rate was less for sessile serrated polyps, which were recently included in guideline recommendations. Therefore, efforts to increase the colonoscopist’s awareness and knowledge about the guidelines may be necessary. Because the potential barriers to guideline adherence were physician awareness, familiarity, and agreement [28], only 54.9% of familiarity for the guidelines and 68.6% of agreement rate with the guidelines should be improved for optimal guideline adherence. Although 62.7% of respondents thought that a guideline is a convenient source of advice, they had difficulty to keep that guidelines in their clinical practice because of many reasons, including a legal issue.

Our study has several strengths. First, we surveyed the nationwide endoscopy units and the overall response rate was high as 86%. Our high response rate was possible because representative physicians were all members of KASID, and contact information was provided by KASID. Furthermore, survey responses were monitored, and follow-up e-mails were sent weekly to non-participating respondents. Second, our survey results represent the current state of colonoscopies in Korea because respondents were the representative physicians of endoscopy units nationwide. Finally, the questionnaire was developed by academic and community gastroenterologists, and covered the topics of colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and guideline adherence. Our study results also need to be interpreted in the context of potential limitations. First, the generalization of this study may be limited due to selection bias because survey respondents were highly experienced gastroenterologists working at hospitals. In addition, the respondents’ answers may differ from that of non-respondents. Second, there may be a selection bias as all study respondents were gastroenterologists, however, they surveyed as a representative physician of endoscopy units, including non-gastroenterologists who perform colonoscopy. A larger survey including non-gastroenterologists and variable endoscopy settings may be warranted to overcome these limitations. Third, similar to most survey studies, this survey relied wholly on the knowledge and the answer of the respondents. Fourth, the definition of colonoscopic capacity is relatively subjective and may be compromised with the waiting time, however, we failed to find any objective definition. Finally, the respondents’ size was small. However, our respondents were representative physicians and were not selected by random methods. Therefore, our findings could be interpreted as nationwide Korean data, despite a small sample size.

In conclusion, the potential capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea was suboptimal. Considering suboptimal reporting of colonoscopic quality indicators and low adherence rate for colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, quality improvement of colonoscopy and a better adherence of colonoscopy surveillance guideline should be underlined in Korea.

NOTES

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

This study was supported by a grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (1720230).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Choi JH, conceptualization; Choi JH and Cha JM, writingoriginal draft; Yoon JY, formal analysis and project administration; Kwak MS, Jeon JW, Shin HP, writing-review and editing. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Respondents and Endoscopy Units

Characteristic	Data
Respondent
Age (yr)	42.3±5.0
Male sex	39 (76.5)
Fellowship period for colonoscopy (yr)	1.9±0.8
Working years after fellowship (yr)	7.0 (1–30)
Current colonoscopy volume ≥30 cases/mon	45 (88.2)
Endoscopy units
Clinical practice site
Tertiary or training hospital	42 (82.4)
Secondary hospital	5 (9.8)
Military or Veteran’s hospital	4 (7.8)
No. of examination rooms	6 (1–20)
Specialty of working colonoscopists, mean % (95% CI)
Gastroenterology	66.7 (60.5–72.9)
Internal medicine (excluding gastroenterology)	26.7 (21.1–32.3)
Others	6.6 (2.1–11.1)
Sedative colonoscopy
Sedative agents
Benzodiazepine alone	26 (51.0)
Combination of benzodiazepine/propofol	23 (45.1)
Propofol alone or etomidate alone	0
Others	2 (4.0)
Monitoring staff during conscious sedation
Nursing staff	32 (62.7)
Colonoscopists	15 (29.4)
Anesthesiologists	1 (2.0)
Others	3 (5.9)

Values are presented as mean±SD, number (%), or median (range).

Table 2.

Current and Potential Colonoscopic Capacity of Endoscopy Units

Endoscopic capacity	Data
Current colonoscopic capacity
Current colonoscopy volume
No. of colonoscopies per week	100 (7–600)
No. of colonoscopies per month	400 (25–2,000)
Proportion of colonoscopy by indications, mean % (95% CI)^a
Screening colonoscopy	32.9 (26.3–35.9)
Surveillance colonoscopy	33.0 (28.3–35.7)
Diagnostic colonoscopy	37.6 (32.3–41.5)
Endoscopy units with waiting time ≤1 mon^a
For screening colonoscopy	38 (84.4)
For surveillance colonoscopy	38 (84.4)
For diagnostic colonoscopy	43 (95.6)
Potential colonoscopic capacity^b
Endoscopy units with potential capacity	17 (33.3)
No. of potential capacity per week	42.0±50.5
Three major limiting factors to perform more colonoscopies
Insufficient nursing staff	17 (33.3)
Insufficient procedure rooms and recovery areas	10 (19.6)
Insufficient physicians	7 (13.7)
Major strategies taken to meet the increased demand
Increase physician staff	12 (23.5)
Not planning to perform more colonoscopies	12 (23.5)
Establish more procedure rooms and recovery areas	9 (17.5)

Values are median (range), number (%), or mean±SD.

^a Six respondents did not answer this item.

^b Potential colonoscopic capacity means potential maximum number of colonoscopies that could be performed at their endoscopy units in addition to those in current practice with the current available resources.

Table 3.

Colonoscopy Quality in Endoscopy Units (n=51)

Quality of endoscopy units	Data
Endoscopy units monitoring quality indicators
Cecal intubation rate	48 (94.1)
Colonoscopy withdrawal time (>6 min)	39 (76.5)
Polyp detection rate or adenoma detection rate	29 (56.9)
Adequate bowel preparation	34 (66.7)
Procedure-related complications (bleeding or perforation)	39 (76.5)
Patient satisfaction	15 (29.4)
Reasons of incomplete colonoscopies
Poor preparation	44 (86.3)
Technical difficulties	5 (9.8)
Patient pain or discomfort	2 (3.9)

Values are presented as number (%).

Table 4.

Self-Reported Adherence Rate for Guideline Recommendations^a

Scenario	Guideline concordance rate	Favor shorter interval FU	Favor longer interval FU
No. of polyps	6 (11.8)	45 (88.2)^b	0
Small (<10 mm) hyperplastic polyps in rectum or sigmoid colon	6 (11.8)	45 (88.2)^b	0
1–2 Small (<10 mm) TAs	27 (52.9)	24 (47.1)	0
3–10 TAs	7 (13.7)	44 (86.3)	0
One or more TAs ≥10 mm	24 (47.1)	27 (52.9)	0
One or more villous adenomas	25 (49.0)	26 (51.0)	0
Adenoma with high-grade dysplasia	19 (37.3)	32 (62.7)	0
SSP(s) <10 mm with no dysplasia	13 (25.5)	37 (72.5)	1 (2)
SSP(s) ≥10 mm	19 (37.3)	32 (62.7)	0
Traditional serrated adenoma	25 (49.0)	25 (49.0)	1 (2)

Values are presented as number (%).

^a Guideline recommendations were based on the 2012 guideline for post-polypectomy surveillance that was updated by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

^b Korean guidelines12 recommend 5-year (not 10-year) interval for these scenarios, which may justify a high rate of shorter intervals for these lesions.

In addition, Korean guidelines did not mentioned surveillance intervals for >10 adenomas, sessile serrated polyps <10 mm with no dysplasia and traditional serrated adenoma.

FU, follow-up; TA, tubular adenoma; SSP, sessile serrated polyp.

Table 5.

Familiarity and Attitude on the Colonoscopy Surveillance Guidelines

Familiarity and attitude	Agreement rate
Familiarity with “colonoscopy surveillance guidelines”
Very familiar or familiar	5 (9.8)
Unfamiliar or very unfamiliar	33 (54.9)
Attitude for the “colonoscopy surveillance guidelines”
It is a convenient source of advice.	32 (62.7)
Current research justifies for surveillance intervals.	25 (49.0)
It increases the risk of a missed colorectal cancer.	12 (23.5)
There are benefits of repeat colonoscopy not captured by it.	22 (43.1)
It is likely to be used in physician discipline.	30 (58.8)
Opinion about difference between real practice and guidelines
Physician does not know guidelines well.	2 (3.9)
Physician is not familiar with guidelines.	5 (9.8)
Physician disagrees with guidelines.	16 (31.4)
Physician has difficulty to keep guidelines.	21 (41.2)
Physician does not have motivation to keep guidelines.	7 (13.7)

Values are presented as number (%).

REFERENCES

1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:87–108.Article PubMed
2. Jung KW, Park S, Kong HJ, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality and survival in 2006-2007. J Korean Med Sci 2010;25:1113–1121.Article PubMed PMC
3. Burt RW. Colorectal cancer screening. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2010;26:466–470.Article PubMed
4. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy: the National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–1981.Article PubMed
5. Vleugels JL, van Lanschot MC, Dekker E. Colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy: putting it into perspective. Dig Endosc 2016;28:250–259.Article PubMed
6. Rex DK, Lieberman DA. Feasibility of colonoscopy screening: discussion of issues and recommendations regarding implementation. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:662–667.Article PubMed
7. Levin TR. Colonoscopy capacity: can we build it? Will they come? Gastroenterology 2004;127:1841–1844.Article PubMed
8. Brown ML, Klabunde CN, Mysliwiec P. Current capacity for endoscopic colorectal cancer screening in the United States: data from the National Cancer Institute Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices. Am J Med 2003;115:129–133.Article PubMed
9. Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN, Ransohoff DF. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:264–271.Article PubMed
10. Pickard M, Dewar EP, Kapadia RC, Khan RB, Hutchinson IF, Nejim A. Follow up of patients with colorectal polyps: are the BSG guidelines being adhered to? Colorectal Dis 2007;9:203–206.Article PubMed
11. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Levin TR. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012;143:844–857.Article PubMed
12. Yang DH, Hong SN, Kim YH, et al. Korean guidelines for postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance. Clin Endosc 2012;45:44–61.Article PubMed PMC
13. Lucendo AJ, González-Huix F, Tenias JM, et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation and monitoring practices in Spain: a nationwide survey in the year 2014. Endoscopy 2015;47:383–390.Article PubMed PDF
14. Repici A, Pagano N, Hassan C, et al. Balanced propofol sedation administered by nonanesthesiologists: the first Italian experience. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:3818–3823.Article PubMed PMC
15. Riphaus A, Geist F, Wehrmann T. Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practice in Germany: re-evaluation from the first nationwide survey 3 years after the implementation of an evidence and consent based national guideline. Z Gastroenterol 2013;51:1082–1088.Article PubMed PDF
16. Triantafillidis JK, Merikas E, Nikolakis D, Papalois AE. Sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy: current issues. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:463–481.Article PubMed PMC
17. Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB, et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States? Gastroenterology 2004;127:1661–1669.Article PubMed
18. Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology 2004;127:1670–1677.Article PubMed
19. Mehrotra A, Dellon ES, Schoen RE, et al. Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1233–1239.e14.Article PubMed
20. de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Cahen DL, et al. Quality evaluation of colonoscopy reporting and colonoscopy performance in daily clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:98–106.Article PubMed
21. Sohn DK, Colonoscopy Study Group of the Korean Society of Coloproctology. A survey of colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Coloproctol 2014;30:88–92.Article PubMed PMC
22. Kang MS, Park DI, Park JH, et al. A survey on the interval of post polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 2006;33:339–345.
23. Patel N, Tong L, Ahn C, Singal AG, Gupta S. Post-polypectomy guideline adherence: importance of belief in guidelines, not guideline knowledge or fear of missed cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:2937–2945.Article PubMed PMC
24. Hong SN, Yang DH, Kim YH, et al. A survey of post-polypectomy surveillance. Intest Res 2011;9:118–128.Article PDF
25. Tanaka S, Obata D, Chinzei R, et al. Surveillance after colorectal polypectomy; comparison between Japan and U.S. Kobe J Med Sci 2011;56:E204–E213.PubMed
26. Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J, Singh P, Chak A, Cooper GS. Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:654–659.Article PubMed
27. Saini SD, Kim HM, Schoenfeld P. Incidence of advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy in patients with a personal history of colon adenomas: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:614–626.Article PubMed
28. Ellett ML. A literature review of the safety and efficacy of using propofol for sedation in endoscopy. Gastroenterol Nurs 2010;33:111–117.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Trends in colorectal cancer incidence according to an increase in the number of colonoscopy cases in Korea
Ga Hee Kim, Yeong Chan Lee, Tae Jun Kim, Sung Noh Hong, Dong Kyung Chang, Young-Ho Kim, Dong-Hoon Yang, Chang Mo Moon, Kyunga Kim, Hyun Gun Kim, Eun-Ran Kim
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.2024; 16(1): 51. CrossRef
Factors Affecting Adherence to National Colorectal Cancer Screening: A 12-Year Longitudinal Study Using Multi-Institutional Pooled Data in Korea
Dae Sung Kim, Jeeyoung Hong, Kihyun Ryu, Sang Hyuk Lee, Hwanhyi Cho, Jehyeong Yu, Jieun Lee, Jong-Yeup Kim
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer
Joo Hye Song, Eun Ran Kim
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2024; 39(4): 547. CrossRef
Faecal immunochemical tests can improve colonoscopy triage in patients with iron deficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Jennifer Pham, Geraldine Laven-Law, Erin L. Symonds, Molla M. Wassie, Charles Cock, Jean M. Winter
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology.2024; 201: 104439. CrossRef
Comparison of Synergistic Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol Versus Midazolam and Pethidine in Colonoscopies: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study
Jae Woong Lim, Min Jae Kim, Gang Han Lee, Dae Sol Kim, Sang Hyuk Jung, Yu Yeon Kim, Jin Won Kim, Yohan Lee, Hyun Soo Kim, Seon Young Park, Dong Hyun Kim
Chonnam Medical Journal.2024; 60(3): 192. CrossRef
Overview of the National Cancer Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer in Korea over 14 Years (2004-2017)
Bomi Park, Eun Young Her, Kyeongmin Lee, Fatima Nari, Jae Kwan Jun, Kui Son Choi, Mina Suh
Cancer Research and Treatment.2023; 55(3): 910. CrossRef
Sessile serrated lesions in patients with adenoma on index colonoscopy do not increase metachronous advanced adenoma risk
Seung Wook Hong, Jeongseok Kim, Ji Young Lee, Jong‐Soo Lee, Hye‐Sook Chang, Hye Won Park, Gwang‐Un Kim, Jiyoung Yoon, Byong Duk Ye, Jeong‐Sik Byeon, Seung‐Jae Myung, Suk‐Kyun Yang, Jaewon Choe, Dong‐Hoon Yang
Digestive Endoscopy.2022; 34(4): 850. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study
Sung Noh Hong, Chang Kyun Lee, Jong Pil Im, Chang Hwan Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Young-Seok Cho, Sung-Ae Jung, Tae Il Kim, Yoon Tae Jeen
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2022; 95(3): 500. CrossRef
Effect of colorectal cancer screening on long‐term survival of colorectal cancer patients: Results of the Korea National Cancer Screening Program
Xuan Quy Luu, Kyeongmin Lee, Jae Kwan Jun, Mina Suh, Kyu‐Won Jung, Kui Son Choi
International Journal of Cancer.2022; 150(12): 1958. CrossRef
A Study on Differences between Professional Endoscopists and Gastroenterologists in Endoscopic Detection and Standard Pathological Biopsy of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Dong Yang, Yuqin Li, Haibo Sun, Chuan He, Geng Chen, Zhuo Zhao, Tongyu Tang, Amosy M'Koma
Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2022; 2022: 1. CrossRef
Risk of Metachronous Colorectal Advanced Neoplasia and Cancer in Patients With 3–4 Nonadvanced Adenomas at Index Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Suyeon Park, Seong Ran Jeon, Hyun Gun Kim, Yunho Jung, Min-Seob Kwak, Su Young Kim, Jong Wook Kim, Seung-Joo Nam, Eun Hye Oh, Seon-Young Park, Soo-Kyung Park, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Sun-Jin Boo, Dong Hoon Baek, Soon Man Yoon, Jaeyoung Chun, Jooyoung Lee, Miyoun
American Journal of Gastroenterology.2022; 117(4): 588. CrossRef
The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Jin Wook Lee, Hyo Jeong Lee, Dae Sung Kim, Jiyoung Yoon, Seung Wook Hong, Ha Won Hwang, Jong-Soo Lee, Gwang-Un Kim, Sinwon Lee, Jaewon Choe, Jin Hwa Park, Dong-Hoon Yang, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Gut and Liver.2022; 16(3): 404. CrossRef
Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality
Su Bee Park, Jae Myung Cha
Clinical Endoscopy.2022; 55(3): 332. CrossRef
Intentions to undergo primary screening with colonoscopy under the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea
Kyeongmin Lee, Haejoo Seo, Sunho Choe, Seung-Yong Jeong, Ji Won Park, Mina Suh, Aesun Shin, Kui Son Choi, Filipe Prazeres
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(2): e0247252. CrossRef
Colonoscopy quality in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities in Korea
Jae Gon Lee, Dong Soo Han, Young-Eun Joo, Dae-Seong Myung, Dong Il Park, Seul Ki Kim, Yunho Jung, Won Hyun Lee, Eun Soo Kim, Joon Seok Yoon, Chang Soo Eun
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine.2021; 36(Suppl 1): S35. CrossRef
Real-World National Colonoscopy Volume in Korea: A Nationwide Population-Based Study over 12 Years
Jae Myung Cha, Min Seob Kwak, Hyun-Soo Kim, Su Young Kim, Sohee Park, Geun U Park, Jung Kuk Lee, Soo Jin Kim, Hun Hee Lee, Joo Sung Kim, Won Ho Kim
Gut and Liver.2020; 14(3): 338. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea

Intest Res. 2019;17(1):119-126. Published online October 10, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00060

XML Download

The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea

Characteristic	Data
Respondent
Age (yr)	42.3±5.0
Male sex	39 (76.5)
Fellowship period for colonoscopy (yr)	1.9±0.8
Working years after fellowship (yr)	7.0 (1–30)
Current colonoscopy volume ≥30 cases/mon	45 (88.2)
Endoscopy units
Clinical practice site
Tertiary or training hospital	42 (82.4)
Secondary hospital	5 (9.8)
Military or Veteran’s hospital	4 (7.8)
No. of examination rooms	6 (1–20)
Specialty of working colonoscopists, mean % (95% CI)
Gastroenterology	66.7 (60.5–72.9)
Internal medicine (excluding gastroenterology)	26.7 (21.1–32.3)
Others	6.6 (2.1–11.1)
Sedative colonoscopy
Sedative agents
Benzodiazepine alone	26 (51.0)
Combination of benzodiazepine/propofol	23 (45.1)
Propofol alone or etomidate alone	0
Others	2 (4.0)
Monitoring staff during conscious sedation
Nursing staff	32 (62.7)
Colonoscopists	15 (29.4)
Anesthesiologists	1 (2.0)
Others	3 (5.9)

Endoscopic capacity	Data
Current colonoscopic capacity
Current colonoscopy volume
No. of colonoscopies per week	100 (7–600)
No. of colonoscopies per month	400 (25–2,000)
Proportion of colonoscopy by indications, mean % (95% CI)^a
Screening colonoscopy	32.9 (26.3–35.9)
Surveillance colonoscopy	33.0 (28.3–35.7)
Diagnostic colonoscopy	37.6 (32.3–41.5)
Endoscopy units with waiting time ≤1 mon^a
For screening colonoscopy	38 (84.4)
For surveillance colonoscopy	38 (84.4)
For diagnostic colonoscopy	43 (95.6)
Potential colonoscopic capacity^b
Endoscopy units with potential capacity	17 (33.3)
No. of potential capacity per week	42.0±50.5
Three major limiting factors to perform more colonoscopies
Insufficient nursing staff	17 (33.3)
Insufficient procedure rooms and recovery areas	10 (19.6)
Insufficient physicians	7 (13.7)
Major strategies taken to meet the increased demand
Increase physician staff	12 (23.5)
Not planning to perform more colonoscopies	12 (23.5)
Establish more procedure rooms and recovery areas	9 (17.5)

Quality of endoscopy units	Data
Endoscopy units monitoring quality indicators
Cecal intubation rate	48 (94.1)
Colonoscopy withdrawal time (>6 min)	39 (76.5)
Polyp detection rate or adenoma detection rate	29 (56.9)
Adequate bowel preparation	34 (66.7)
Procedure-related complications (bleeding or perforation)	39 (76.5)
Patient satisfaction	15 (29.4)
Reasons of incomplete colonoscopies
Poor preparation	44 (86.3)
Technical difficulties	5 (9.8)
Patient pain or discomfort	2 (3.9)

Scenario	Guideline concordance rate	Favor shorter interval FU	Favor longer interval FU
No. of polyps	6 (11.8)	45 (88.2)^b	0
Small (<10 mm) hyperplastic polyps in rectum or sigmoid colon	6 (11.8)	45 (88.2)^b	0
1–2 Small (<10 mm) TAs	27 (52.9)	24 (47.1)	0
3–10 TAs	7 (13.7)	44 (86.3)	0
One or more TAs ≥10 mm	24 (47.1)	27 (52.9)	0
One or more villous adenomas	25 (49.0)	26 (51.0)	0
Adenoma with high-grade dysplasia	19 (37.3)	32 (62.7)	0
SSP(s) <10 mm with no dysplasia	13 (25.5)	37 (72.5)	1 (2)
SSP(s) ≥10 mm	19 (37.3)	32 (62.7)	0
Traditional serrated adenoma	25 (49.0)	25 (49.0)	1 (2)

Familiarity and attitude	Agreement rate
Familiarity with “colonoscopy surveillance guidelines”
Very familiar or familiar	5 (9.8)
Unfamiliar or very unfamiliar	33 (54.9)
Attitude for the “colonoscopy surveillance guidelines”
It is a convenient source of advice.	32 (62.7)
Current research justifies for surveillance intervals.	25 (49.0)
It increases the risk of a missed colorectal cancer.	12 (23.5)
There are benefits of repeat colonoscopy not captured by it.	22 (43.1)
It is likely to be used in physician discipline.	30 (58.8)
Opinion about difference between real practice and guidelines
Physician does not know guidelines well.	2 (3.9)
Physician is not familiar with guidelines.	5 (9.8)
Physician disagrees with guidelines.	16 (31.4)
Physician has difficulty to keep guidelines.	21 (41.2)
Physician does not have motivation to keep guidelines.	7 (13.7)

Table 1. Characteristics of Respondents and Endoscopy Units

Values are presented as mean±SD, number (%), or median (range).

Table 2. Current and Potential Colonoscopic Capacity of Endoscopy Units

Values are median (range), number (%), or mean±SD.

Six respondents did not answer this item.

Potential colonoscopic capacity means potential maximum number of colonoscopies that could be performed at their endoscopy units in addition to those in current practice with the current available resources.

Table 3. Colonoscopy Quality in Endoscopy Units (n=51)

Values are presented as number (%).

Table 4. Self-Reported Adherence Rate for Guideline Recommendationsa

Values are presented as number (%).

Guideline recommendations were based on the 2012 guideline for post-polypectomy surveillance that was updated by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Korean guidelines12 recommend 5-year (not 10-year) interval for these scenarios, which may justify a high rate of shorter intervals for these lesions.

In addition, Korean guidelines did not mentioned surveillance intervals for >10 adenomas, sessile serrated polyps <10 mm with no dysplasia and traditional serrated adenoma.

FU, follow-up; TA, tubular adenoma; SSP, sessile serrated polyp.

Table 5. Familiarity and Attitude on the Colonoscopy Surveillance Guidelines