Avoiding and defending malpractice suits for postcolonoscopy cancer: advice from an expert witness

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Medical malpractice and gastrointestinal endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Medical liability is a perennial issue that most physicians will face at some point in their careers. Gastroenterologists routinely perform endoscopic procedures to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of their patients. Advances in endoscopic techniques and technology have accelerated movement of the field into a more surgical realm. These developments warrant consideration of pitfalls that may expose gastroenterologists to liability. This review will explore trends in malpractice facing gastroenterologists and offer strategies to deliver high quality and safe patient care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite being a procedure-oriented subspeciality, only a minority of malpractice claims against gastroenterologists are related to procedures. Diagnostic error is among the most prevalent reason for lawsuits. The consequences of malpractice are costly due litigation and indemnity as well as the increase in defensive medical practice. Improving diagnostic quality, optimizing informed consent, and enhancing patient-physician communication are important elements of risk mitigation.

SUMMARY

Understanding the important role that diagnosis plays in medical liability allows physicians to better evaluate risk and apply deliberate decision-making in order to practice confidently.

Lessons learned: Preventable misses and near-misses of endoscopic procedures

Endoscopy is a complex procedure that requires advanced training and a highly skilled practitioner. The advances in the field of endoscopy have made it an invaluable diagnostic tool, but the procedure remains provider dependent. The quality of endoscopy may vary from provider to provider and, as a result, is not perfect. Consequently, 11.3% of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms are missed on the initial upper endoscopy and 2.1%-5.9% of colorectal polyps or cancers are missed on colonoscopy. Pathology is overlooked if endoscopic exam is not done carefully, bypassing proper visualization of the scope’s entry and exit points or, if exam is not taken to completion, not visualizing the most distal bowel segments. We hope to shed light on this issue, establish areas of weakness, and propose possible solutions and preventative measures.

Medical professional liability in gastroenterology: definitions, trends, risk factors, provider behaviors, and implications

Introduction: Medical professional liability (MPL) is a notable concern for many clinicians, especially in procedure-intensive specialties such as gastroenterology (GI). Comprehensive understanding of the basis for MPL claims can improve gastroenterologists' practice, lower MPL risk, and improve the overall patient care experience. This is particularly relevant in the setting of the increasing average compensation per paid GI-related MPL claim, and evolving healthcare delivery patterns and regulations.Areas Covered: MPL claims are generally grounded in the concept of negligence, a broad term that may apply to situations involving medical errors, ameliorable adverse events, inadequate informed consent and/or refusal, and numerous others. Though often not directly discussed in GI training or thereafter, there are various mechanisms and behaviors that can alter (decrease or increase) MPL risk. Additional dimensions of MPL include telemedicine, social media, and vicarious liability. We discuss these topics as well as takeaways to mitigate risk, thus reducing unnecessary clinician anxiety, promoting professional development, and optimizing healthcare outcomes.Expert Opinion: MPL risk is modifiable. Strong provider-patient relationships, through effective communication, patient reassurance, and enhanced informed consent, decrease risk, as does thorough documentation. Conversely, provider 'defensive' mechanisms intended to decrease MPL risk, including assurance and avoidance behaviors, may paradoxically increase it.

Quality Control in the Slovenian National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess the impact of an internal quality indicator (QI) audit on the quality level of colonoscopies in the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program (NCCSP).

DESIGN

Sixty-eight colonoscopists from 29 endoscopic centres participated in the NCCSP from April 2009 to January 2015. Controlled QIs were the percentage of total colonoscopies, adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean adenoma per procedure (MAP), mean adenoma per positive procedure (MAP+), right-sided ADR, sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate, and patient responses to post-procedural questionnaires. A group of 3 expert endoscopists from the NCCSP Council performed 91 inspections and provided education.

RESULTS

A total of 891.364 (58.2%) Slovenian citizens participated in the first 3 screening rounds of the NCCSP. Among 46.552 (6%) positive individuals, 42.866 (92.1%) underwent first colonoscopies. Total colonoscopies were performed in 98% of endoscopies (p = 0.459 between cycles), mean ADR was 51.8% (p = 0.872 between cycles), mean percentage of adenoma in the right colon was 37.5% (p = 0.227 between cycles), mean MAP was 1.1 (p = 0.981 between cycles), mean MAP+ was 2.0 (p = 0.824 between cycles), and mean SSL detection rate was 3% (p < 0.001). We observed great difference in QIs between endoscopists and a significant increase in MAP, ADR in the right colon, and SSL per endoscopist during the 6-year period. Due to quality underperformance, 3 endoscopic centres (10.3%) and 13 endoscopists (19.1%) were excluded from the program.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of the NCCSP is related to the quality of colonoscopies performed. To ensure the proper quality level, regular audit and permanent education are needed.

Colorectal Cancer Litigation: 1988-2018

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) malpractice suits over the past 20 years in the United States and evaluate the most common allegations, lawsuit outcomes, indemnity payment amounts, patient outcomes, and physician characteristics.

METHODS

The malpractice section of VerdictSearch, a legal database, was queried for cases in which CRC was a principle component of the lawsuit. Legal notes were used to characterize plaintiff allegations, verdict, financial compensation, and case year. Clinical history for each case were analyzed for patient demographics, medical outcomes, and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 240 CRC-related malpractice cases (1988-2018) were collected, resulting in defense (n = 101, 42.1%), plaintiff (n = 37, 15.4%), or settlement (n = 96, 40%) verdict. The primary defendants were often primary care physicians (n = 61, 25.4%) and gastroenterologists (n = 55, 22.9%). Most common plaintiff allegations are failure to perform diagnostic colonoscopy for patients with symptoms (n = 67, 27.9%), failure to perform screening colonoscopy according to screening guidelines (n = 46, 19.2%), or failure to detect CRC with colonoscopy (n = 45, 18.7%). A common alleged error in diagnosis before the median year of 2005 was failure to detect CRC by the noncolonoscopic methods (<2005: n = 22, 24.2%; >2005: n = 3, 3.09%).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff-alleged errors in diagnosis are consistently the most common reason for CRC malpractice litigation in the past 20 years, whereas specific diagnostic allegations (i.e., failure to screen vs failure to detect) and methods used for surveillance may vary over time. It is important to identify such pitfalls in CRC screening and explore areas for improvement to maximize patient care and satisfaction and reduce physician malpractice litigations.

Polyp detection at colonoscopy: Endoscopist and technical factors

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) has emerged as the most important quality measure in colonoscopy, as it predicts the risk of interval cancer after colonoscopy. Measuring and improving ADR is the central focus of the current quality movement in colonoscopy. High ADRs can be achieved by a colonoscopist with a thorough understanding of the wide range of endoscopic appearances of precancerous lesions in the colorectum, effective bowel preparation, and meticulous technique using high definition colonoscopes. The knowledgeable and effective examiner needs no adjunctive devices or techniques to achieve master level ADRs. However, measurement reveals that many colonoscopists have ADRs that are below recommended minimum thresholds or below master levels. These colonoscopists, and even master level performers, can choose from a variety of adjunctive tools to improve ADR. This review describes these tools according to whether they are non-device methods (e.g. double right colon examination, patient position change, water exchange), mucosal exposure devices (wide angle colonoscopy, fold flattening devices), and lesion highlighting techniques (e.g. chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy).

Optimal Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy in the Elderly Patient

Colonoscopy is an important diagnostic and screening tool for colorectal cancer detection and prevention, and adequate bowel preparation is critical for successful colonoscopy. Complications related to colonoscopy, either directly or indirectly related to the procedure, are increased in elderly patients, and the risks and benefits of colonoscopy procedures need to be carefully considered in these patients. Recent studies have shown that 4 L polyethylene glycol with a split preparation is safe and effective for elderly patients, and is the preferred preparation for patients with medical comorbidities. Preparations containing sodium phosphate are generally not recommended for the elderly because of increased renal complications. In addition, a low-residue diet may aid in tolerance and willingness to undergo the procedure compared with a clear liquid diet, with comparable bowel preparation adequacy. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparations include poor adherence to split preparation instructions or volume of solution ingested, and certain patient-related medications and comorbidities, such as diabetes, elevated body mass index, and antidepressant or narcotic use. Methods for achieving safe and adequate bowel preparations in the elderly include clear instructions, reminder calls, and case management for potential confounding patient-related factors.

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in Sweden: room for quality improvement

OBJECTIVE

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), a cancer occurring within a short interval of a colonoscopy, might be partly explained as missed or incompletely resected lesions. Associated risk factors are age, sex, comorbidity, cancer location, and colonoscopy volume. There is a gap in the knowledge of prevalence of PCCRC and the impact of different risk factors in Sweden.

METHODS

This is a retrospective population-based observational cohort study of the colonoscopies performed on adults during the years 2001-2010 that were identified from Swedish health registers. The rate of PCCRC (diagnosed 6-36 months after the first colonoscopy) was defined as the number of PCCRCs divided by the number of colorectal cancers (CRC) in the interval of 0-36 months. Univariate and multivariate Poisson regression analyses examined associations with PCCRC.

RESULTS

There were 289 729 colonoscopies performed on 249 079 individuals included in the study. There were 16 319 individuals with a colorectal cancer diagnosis 0-36 months after a colonoscopy. Of these, 1286 (7.9%) were PCCRCs. In the multivariate analysis, young age (18-30 years) and former polyp diagnosis had the highest risks [relative risk (RR)=3.3; 95% confidence interval: 2.1-5.2 and RR=3.1; 95% confidence interval: 2.7-3.6]. The impact of other risk factors, such as female sex, comorbidity, right sided colorectal cancer location, and time period, was consistent with the finding in other studies.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of PCCRC in Sweden seems to be relatively high, indicating that there is room for improvement in colonoscopy quality. The high RR of PCCRC in the youngest age group, even though there were only a few cases, has not been described in other studies.

Clinical and Molecular Characteristics of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy provides incomplete protection from colorectal cancer (CRC), but determinants of post-colonoscopy CRC are not well understood. We compared clinical features and molecular characteristics of CRCs diagnosed at different time intervals after a previous colonoscopy.

METHODS

We performed a population-based, cross-sectional study of incident CRC cases in Denmark (2007-2011), categorized as post-colonoscopy or detected during diagnostic colonoscopy (in patients with no prior colonoscopy). We compared prevalence of proximal location and DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) in CRC tumors, relative to time since previous colonoscopy, using logistic regression and cubic splines to assess temporal variation.

RESULTS

Of 10,365 incident CRCs, 725 occurred after colonoscopy examinations (7.0%). These were more often located in the proximal colon (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.90-2.89) and were more likely to have dMMR (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.59), but were less likely to be metastatic at presentation (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89) compared with CRCs diagnosed in patients with no prior colonoscopy. The highest proportions of proximal and/or dMMR tumors were observed in CRCs diagnosed 3-6 years after colonoscopy, but these features were still more frequent among cancers diagnosed up to 10 years after colonoscopy. The relative excess of dMMR tumors was most pronounced in distal cancers. In an analysis of 85 cases detected after colonoscopy, we found BRAF mutations in 23% of tumors and that 7% of cases had features of Lynch syndrome. Colonoscopy exams were incomplete in a higher proportion of cases diagnosed within <1 year (in 38%) than in those diagnosed within 1-10 years after colonoscopy (16%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a study of incident CRC cases in Denmark, we observed that tumors found in patients who have undergone colonoscopy are more often proximal and have dMMR compared to CRCs detected in patients without previous colonoscopies. The excess of right-sided tumors and the modest independent effects of dMMR reinforce the importance of proper colonoscopic examination of the proximal large bowel.

Time to Put Managing Endoscopic Complications Into the Curriculum

Proper management of complications is critical to ensure the best outcome for both the patient and the physician. The physician's response to the error or complication, promptly informing the patient and the family, and expressing empathy at the situation, ensuring transparency and excellent post-complication care, is a critical determinant of the patient's understanding of the complication, perception of the physician, and, often, the decision to sue. Articles outlining best practice approach to various legal and risk management issues may aid physicians to acquire useful skills to help their patients.

Implementation of a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy increases the neoplasia detection rate: a prospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopists worldwide have been encouraged to report quality indicators in order to evaluate their performance. We aimed to determine whether a program to improve the quality of colonoscopy results in better rates of neoplasia detection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a prospective study set in a private endoscopy center. From May 2009 to March 2010, we evaluated 1573 consecutive colonoscopies (group 1). After the implementation of a quality program, from February 2011 to January 2012, we prospectively evaluated 1583 colonoscopies (group 2). Our quality-enhancing intervention consisted of instructing both patients and endoscopists. We measured the cecal intubation rate and the neoplasia detection rate. Overall neoplasias, high-risk adenomas, carcinomas, right colon adenomas, and adenomas detected in screening studies were analyzed.

RESULTS

Cecal intubation was documented in 1384 cases from group 1 (88 %) and 1534 from group 2 (96.9 %) (P < 0.0001). The neoplasia detection rates in groups 1 and 2 were, respectively: neoplasias 288 (18.3 %) and 427 (27 %) (P < 0.0001), high-risk adenomas 76 (4.8 %) and 142 (9 %) (P < 0.0001), carcinomas 16 (1 %) and 21 (1.3 %) (P = 0.52), right colon adenomas 112 (7.1 %) and 154 (9.7 %) (P = 0.01), and adenomas 141 (16.5 %) and 233 (28 %) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a quality program improves the neoplasia detection rate. Because of the small number of cancerous lesions found in both groups, we were unable to identify differences in the carcinoma detection rate.

The Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting in Usual Practice: Are Endoscopists Reporting Key Data Elements?

Background. High quality reporting of endoscopic procedures is critical to the implementation of colonoscopy quality assurance programs. Objective. The aim of our research was to (1) determine the quality of colonoscopy (CS) reporting in "usual practice," (2) identify factors associated with good quality reporting, and (3) compare CS reporting in open-access and non-open-access procedures. Methods. 557 CS reports were randomly selected and assigned a score based on the number of mandatory data elements included in the report. Reports documenting greater than 70% of the mandatory data elements were considered to be of good quality. Physician and procedure factors associated with good quality CS reporting were identified. Results. Variables that were consistently well documented included date of the procedure (99.6%), procedure indication (88.9%), a description of the most proximal anatomical segment reached (98.6%), and documentation of polyp location (97.8%). Approximately 79.4% of the reports were considered to be of good quality. Gastroenterology specialty, lower annual CS volume, and fewer years in practice were associated with good quality reporting. Discussion. CS reporting in usual practice in Ontario lacks quality in several areas. Almost 1 in 5 reports was of poor quality in our study. Conclusions. Targeted interventions and/or use of mandatory fields in synoptic reports should be considered to improve CS reporting.

Administrative Database Research Overestimates the Rate of Interval Colon Cancer

GOALS

Our study reexamines the prevalence of interval colorectal cancer (I-CRC) by manually reviewing CRC cases at a single institution.

BACKGROUND

In 2% to 8% of patients with CRC, diagnosis occurs during the interval 6 to 36 months after a cancer-free colonoscopy. Rates are often determined by linking the date of colonoscopy with cancer registry information.

STUDY

We examined all colonoscopies from 1993 to 2011. These examinations were linked with Pennsylvania Cancer Registry data. Matched charts were manually reviewed. We determined whether the CRC was "prevalent" or, for patients with a previous colonoscopy, whether they were interval or noninterval based on time from last colonoscopy. For interval cases, we identified "administrative errors" that could falsely increase the number of reported I-CRC.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 43,661 colonoscopies were performed, with 1147 (2.6%) positive for CRC after excluding cases (n=52) in which patients had IBD, previous surgery, or nonadenocarcinoma malignancy. Prevalent CRCs totaled 1062 (92.6%). Noninterval CRCs (diagnosed over 36 mo from index colonoscopy) were present in 40 (3.5%). There remained 45 (3.9%) potential I-CRC cases. However, after manual review, 21 cases were found to be administrative errors. Therefore, the accurate proportion of colonoscopies that found an I-CRC was 2.1% (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-3.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of I-CRC at our institution before adjustment was comparable with previously reported rates. This proportion was 47% lower after adjusting for administrative errors placing our figure at the lower end of reported I-CRC incidence. Reported rates of I-CRC may be falsely elevated due to errors unique to merging administrative databases.

Standard bowel cleansing is highly ineffective in cirrhotic patients undergoing screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on tolerability and quality of standard bowel cleansing for colonoscopy in patients with chronic disease.

AIM

We seek to evaluate the tolerability and results of lavage solution for colonoscopy in cirrhotic patients in comparison with controls.

METHODS

Fifty-three cirrhotic and fifty-two normal subjects undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in the study. Data regarding tolerability of lavage solution were harvested at the pre-procedure visit. Data on level of bowel cleansing and other endoscopic variables were recorded after the procedure.

RESULTS

Rate of failure to complete the prescribed bowel preparation and incidence of side effects during its administration were similar between cirrhotic and normal subjects. Despite this, cirrhotic patients exhibited an insufficient level of bowel preparation with approximately half exhibiting bad colon cleansing level (49% versus 5% control, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Alternative bowel cleansing protocols are needed for cirrhotic subjects to better match their colonoscopic screening needs.

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Improving Endoscopic Adherence to Quality Metrics in Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Appropriate documentation of quality metrics in the endoscopy reports provides evidence that a thorough and complete examination was performed. The aim of our study was to assess compliance with 3 current quality metrics for colonoscopy defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined colonoscopy reports from 6 gastroenterologists at Ochsner Medical Center for appropriate documentation of the quality of the bowel preparation and photodocumentation of the appendiceal orifice and the ileocecal valve. A performance review and educational session then took place with each physician. Subsequent colonoscopy reports were evaluated to monitor for improvement.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation documentation was high before and after the educational sessions (97.5% and 97.2%). Preeducation, the mean photodocumentation rate of the appendiceal orifice was 55% (range, 23%-84%). For the ileocecal valve, the documentation rate was 32.5% (range, 3%-73%). Posteducation, the mean appendiceal orifice labeling increased to an average of 91%, with a median change of 28.5% (P=0.0313). Documentation of the ileocecal valve improved to an average of 73%, a median change of 37.5% (P=0.0625).

CONCLUSION

Although reassessment of subsequent reports will be necessary to evaluate the permanence of this intervention, our evidence suggests that educational sessions can improve the quality and accuracy of documentation of quality metrics during colonoscopies.

Quality measures for colonoscopy: a critical evaluation

In a recent article in The New York Times, "The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill,"(1) colonoscopy was singled out for its cost. In their response, the leading gastroenterology professional societies highlighted colonoscopy's effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). Affirming colonoscopy's central role in CRC prevention, both as a frontline test and as the final common pathway for other CRC screening modalities, requires strategies to measure and improve colonoscopy quality, particularly by controlling operator-dependent factors. Although colonoscopy is a powerful CRC screening test,(2-6) several recent studies have highlighted decreased protection, mainly against right-sided CRC,(5,7-16) an observation that has been linked to performance quality.

Optimal bowel preparation--a practical guide for clinicians

High-quality bowel preparation is essential for effective colonoscopy. Bowel preparations are judged by their safety, efficacy and tolerability. Between efficacy and tolerability, efficacy is the clinical priority because inadequate preparations are disruptive and costly. Achieving high rates of adequate preparation depends first on using split-dose or same-day dosing. Patients who have medical predictors of inadequate preparation quality (for example chronic constipation) should be prescribed more aggressive preparations and patients who have factors that predict they are less likely to follow the instructions (such as English not being their first language) should receive intensified education. On the day of the procedure, patients with persistent brown effluent should be considered for large-volume enemas or additional oral preparation before proceeding with colonoscopy. During the procedure, preparation quality should be graded after the clean-up has been completed.

How we can measure quality in colonoscopy?

Measuring quality is a current need of medical services either to assess their cost-effectiveness or to identify discrepancies requiring refinement. With the advent of bowel cancer screening and increasing patient awareness of bowel symptoms, there has been an unprecedented increase in demand for colonoscopy. Consequently, there is an expanding open-discussion on missed rates of cancer or precancerous polyps during diagnostic/screening colonoscopy and on the rate of adverse events related to therapeutic colonoscopy. Delivering a quality colonoscopy service is therefore a healthcare priority. Colonoscopy is a multi-step process and therefore assessment of all aspects of the procedure must be addressed. Quality in colonoscopy refers to a combination of many patient-centered technical and non-technical skills and knowledge aiming to patient’s safety and satisfaction through a continuous effort for improvement. The benefits of this endless process are hiding behind small details which can eventually make the difference in colonoscopy. Identifying specific quality metrics help to define and shape an optimal service and forms a secure basis of improvement. Τhis paper does not aim to give technical details on how to perform colonoscopy but to summarize what to measure and when, in accordance with the current identified quality indicators and standards for colonoscopy.