Concordance of surveillance colonoscopy recommended intervals with Australian guidelines: a clinical audit in six Victorian public hospitals

OBJECTIVE: Appropriate intervals for repeat (surveillance) colonoscopy are important for early colorectal cancer detection and treatment, timely patient access, and minimising patient risks. This study aimed to assess the concordance of endoscopist-recommended surveillance colonoscopy intervals with those recommended by the 2018 Australian Cancer Council surveillance colonoscopy guidelines. METHODS: Three metropolitan and three rural public hospitals in Victoria, Australia, each retrospectively audited at least 35 consecutive colonoscopy cases where the outcome recommendation was for future surveillance. The audit covered colonoscopies conducted between April 2020 and June 2021. Nurses at each hospital audited colonoscopy reports, histopathology results and other relevant patient documentation. Audit data were used to calculate the guideline-interval, which was compared with the endoscopist-recommended return interval to determine concordance. RESULTS: Of 465 consecutive colonoscopy cases audited, 248 were recommended for future surveillance colonoscopy and had complete data. A total of 25.4% (63/248) had an endoscopist-recommended interval that was consistent with the guidelines. Among discordant cases, 74.6% (n = 138) of recommendations were early; 20.5% (n = 38) were not indicated and 4.9% (n = 9) were late according to the guidelines. Excluding cases that should not return for surveillance (n = 38), concordance by guideline-recommended interval categories was 66.7% (8/12) for cases with an interval of ≤12 months, 31.0% (13/42) for 3 years, 58.3% (42/72) for 5 years and 0.0% (0/84) for 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline concordance was suboptimal at participating hospitals. Most discordant surveillance interval recommendations made were earlier than the guidelines recommend. An active, tailored approach to implementation is required given the lack of uptake several years after guideline introduction.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Health Review
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1071/ah26018
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Concordance of surveillance colonoscopy recommended intervals with Australian guidelines: a clinical audit in six Victorian public hospitals

Kumanan Nalankilli, Elizabeth Hristov, Alexandra Gorelik, Jonathan Foo et al.
Australian Health Review
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
article

Concordance of surveillance colonoscopy recommended intervals with Australian guidelines: a clinical audit in six Victorian public hospitals

Kumanan Nalankilli, Elizabeth Hristov, Alexandra Gorelik, Jonathan Foo, Grant M. Russell, Kirsten Carr, Jaclyn Bishop, J.G. Schultz, Alan Moss, Alison Hutchinson, Andrew O’Loughlin, Anne Van Berkel, Ralph Audehm, Harriet Hiscock, Martin Hensher, Corey Joseph, Denise A. O'Connor, Karin A. Thursky, Radha Nair, Sophie Ping, Judi Debney
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Appropriate intervals for repeat (surveillance) colonoscopy are important for early colorectal cancer detection and treatment, timely patient access, and minimising patient risks. This study aimed to assess the concordance of endoscopist-recommended surveillance colonoscopy intervals with those recommended by the 2018 Australian Cancer Council surveillance colonoscopy guidelines. METHODS: Three metropolitan and three rural public hospitals in Victoria, Australia, each retrospectively audited at least 35 consecutive colonoscopy cases where the outcome recommendation was for future surveillance. The audit covered colonoscopies conducted between April 2020 and June 2021. Nurses at each hospital audited colonoscopy reports, histopathology results and other relevant patient documentation. Audit data were used to calculate the guideline-interval, which was compared with the endoscopist-recommended return interval to determine concordance. RESULTS: Of 465 consecutive colonoscopy cases audited, 248 were recommended for future surveillance colonoscopy and had complete data. A total of 25.4% (63/248) had an endoscopist-recommended interval that was consistent with the guidelines. Among discordant cases, 74.6% (n = 138) of recommendations were early; 20.5% (n = 38) were not indicated and 4.9% (n = 9) were late according to the guidelines. Excluding cases that should not return for surveillance (n = 38), concordance by guideline-recommended interval categories was 66.7% (8/12) for cases with an interval of ≤12 months, 31.0% (13/42) for 3 years, 58.3% (42/72) for 5 years and 0.0% (0/84) for 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline concordance was suboptimal at participating hospitals. Most discordant surveillance interval recommendations made were earlier than the guidelines recommend. An active, tailored approach to implementation is required given the lack of uptake several years after guideline introduction.

Australian Health ReviewVol. 50(3)
Federation University (AU), Deakin University (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU), Menzies School of Health Research (AU), NHS Grampian (GB), General Department of Preventive Medicine (VN), Rippe Health (US), Western Health (AU), General Sciences (United States) (US), Unidad de Cirugía Artroscópica (ES), Fédération française de cardiologie (FR), Department of Health Services (NP), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU), Monash University (AU), National Patient Safety Foundation (US)
Department of Health and Human Services, State Government of Victoria, National Health and Medical Research Council
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.