Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of the No Interruption Zone on Distraction Levels, Withdrawal Times, and Adenoma Detection Rates of Colonoscopy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The creation of no interruption zones (NIZs) reduces medical errors by reducing distraction levels on hospital wards. To date, the effect of a NIZ during colonoscopy has not been evaluated.

Aims

Assess the effects of a NIZ during colonoscopy, on distraction levels, withdrawal times, and adenoma detection rates (ADRs).

Methods

This was a non-randomized prospective study of screening colonoscopies at a teaching hospital. The intervention, a NIZ, was created by limiting conversations to the care of the patient undergoing the procedure and posting a “do not disturb” sign during the withdrawal phase of colonoscopy. Distraction levels, withdrawal times, and ADRs were analyzed at baseline and after the NIZ.

Results

The implementation of the NIZ leads to a significant reduction of high-distraction-level environments (13.1 vs. 5.1 %; p < 0.0001). There was a significant decrease in withdrawal time with NIZs; (10.6 vs. 9.9 min, p = 0.0038). There was no significant difference in ADRs (38 % baseline vs. 36 % NIZs, respectively; p = 0.33).

Conclusions

Creation of a NIZ was associated with a significant decrease in high-distraction environments and shorter withdrawal times with no significant change in ADRs. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether lower distraction levels in an endoscopy suite translate to improved quality measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of interventional studies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:656–665.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:873–885.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benson ME, Reichelderfer M, Said A. Variation in colonoscopic technique and adenoma detection rates at an academic gastroenterology unit. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:166–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rex DK. Maximizing detection of adenomas and cancers during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2866–2877.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Mark AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1298–1306.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endoscopy. 2003;58: 76–79.

  7. Taber A, Romagnuolo J. Effect of simply recording colonoscopy withdrawal time on polyp and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endoscopy. 2010;71:782–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Coiera E. The science of interruption. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:357–360.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WT, Day RO. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:683–690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1795–1803.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;143:844–857.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Broom MA, Capek AL, Carachi P, Akeroyd MA, Hilditch G. Critical phase distractions in anaesthesia and the sterile cockpit concept. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:175–179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wadhera RK, Parker SH, Burkhart HM, et al. Is the “sterile cockpit” concept applicable to cardiovascular surgery critical intervals or critical events? The impact of protocol-driven communication during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:312–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Juliar BE, Azzouz F, Ransohoff DF. Variation in polyp detection rates at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:1288–1295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1892–1898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2533–2541.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1296–1308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rogart JN, Siddiqui UD, Jamidar PA, Aslanian HR. Fellow involvement may increase adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2841–2846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Scott and White gastroenterology team for their participation and support of this study.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baylor Scott and White Healthcare, 2401 South 31st Street, Temple, TX, 76502, USA

    Nancy S. Behazin, Michelle Thompson, Mena Milad, Jeffrey Hart, Juhee Song, Mark Jeffries & Dawn M. Sears

  2. Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, Temple, TX, USA

    Juhee Song

Authors
  1. Nancy S. Behazin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mena Milad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Juhee Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark Jeffries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dawn M. Sears
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawn M. Sears.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Behazin, N.S., Thompson, M., Milad, M. et al. Effects of the No Interruption Zone on Distraction Levels, Withdrawal Times, and Adenoma Detection Rates of Colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 60, 966–970 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3396-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3396-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation