audit

462 Gut 1995; 36: 462-467Prospective audit of upper gastrointestinalendoscopy in two regions of England; safety,staffing, and sedation methodsMA Quine, G D Bell, R F McCloy, J E Charlton, H B Devlin, A Hopkins3Abstract cations rises in parallel. Sedation techniques areA prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal probably responsible for some of the medical com-endoscopy in 36 hospitals across two regions plications seen, but operator inexperience, and lackp rovided data from 14 149 gastroscopies of of monitoring may also be important. This audit haswhich 1113 procedures were therapeutic and 13 been designed to investigate how often problems036 were diagnostic. Most patients received gas- occur at the time of upper gastrointestinaltroscopy under intravenous sedation; midazo- endoscopy and for a 30 day period after the proce-lam was the preferred agent in the North West dure, and to explore common variables inand diazepam was preferred in East Anglia. endoscopy practice when such complications occur.Mean doses of each agent used were 5.7 mg and The audit has included all flexible diagnostic and13.8 mg respectively, although there was a wide therapeutic fibreoptic upper gastrointestinaldistribution of doses reported. Only half of the endoscopy and has excluded rigid oesophagoscopvpatients endoscoped had some form of intra- and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogra-venous access in situ and few were supplied with phy. It is hoped that the findings of ...