AIM:To complete a quality audit using recently published criteria from the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.METHODS:Consecutive colonoscopy reports of patients at average/high risk screening,or with a prior colorectal neoplasia (CRN) by endoscopists who perform 11 000 procedures yearly,using a commercial computerized endoscopic report generator.A separate institutional database providing pathological results.Required documentation included patient demographics,history,procedure indications,technical descriptions,colonoscopy findings,interventions,unplanned events,follow-up plans,and pathology results.Reports abstraction employed a standardized glossary with 10% independent data validation.Sample size calculations determined the number of reports needed.RESULTS:Two hundreds and fifty patients (63.2 ± 10.5 years,female:42.8%,average risk:38.5%,personal/family history of CRN:43.3%/20.2%) were scoped in June 2009 by 8 gastroenterologists and 3 surgeons (mean practice:17.1 ± 8.5 years).Procedural indication and informed consent were always documented.14% provided a previous colonoscopy date (past polyp removal information in 25%,but insufficient in most to determine surveillance intervals appropriateness).Most procedural indicators were recorded (exam date:98.4%,medications:99.2%,difficulty level:98.8%,prep quality:99.6%).All reports noted extent of visualization (cecum:94.4%,with landmarks noted in 78.8% photodocumentation:67.2%).No procedural times were recorded.One hundred and eleven had polyps (44.4%) with anatomic location noted in 99.1%,size in 65.8%,morphology in 62.2%;removal was by cold biopsy in 25.2% (cold snare:18%,snare cautery:31.5%,unrecorded:20.7%),84.7% were retrieved.Adenomas were noted in 24.8% (advanced adenomas:7.6%,cancer:0.4%) in this population with varying previous colonic investigations.CONCLUSION:This audit reveals lacking reported items,justifying additional research to optimize quality of reporting. AIM: To complete a quality audit using recently published criteria from the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. METHHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy reports of patients at average / high risk screening, or with a prior colorectal neoplasia (CRN) by endoscopists who perform 11 000 procedures yearly, using a commercial computerized endoscopic report generator. A separate institutional database providing pathological results. Request document included patient demographics, history, procedure indications, technical descriptions, colonoscopy findings, interventions, unplanned events, follow-up plans, and pathology results. Reports abstraction employed a standardized glossary with 10% independent data validation. sample size plans determined the number of reports needed .RESULTS: Two hundreds and fifty patients (63.2 ± 10.5 years, female: 42.8%, average risk: 38.5% personal / family history of CRN: 43.3% / 20.2%) were scoped in June 2009 by 8 gastroenterologists and 3 surg Proconsural indication and informed consent were always documented.14% provided a previous colonoscopy date (past polyp removal information in 25%, but insufficient in most determining monitorring appropriateness) .Most procedural indicators All reports noted extent of visualization (cecum: 94.4%, with landmarks noted in 78.8% photodocumentation: 67.2%) . No procedural times were recorded. One hundred and eleven had polyps (44.4%) with anatomic location noted in 99.1%, size in 65.8%, morphology in 62.2%; removal was by cold biopsy in 25.2% (cold snare: 18% A total of 24.8% (advanced adenomas: 7.6%, cancer: 0.4%) of this population with varying previous colonic investigations. CONCLUSION: This audit reveals lacking reported items, justifying additional research to optimize quality of reporting.