The aim of this study was to assess the quality of colonoscopic procedures in our endoscopy unit with the goal of improving performance. Methods - We prospe ctively audited 500 consecutive colonoscopic procedures and assessed sixty- two process or outcome indicators for each procedure. Results - Most of the measu red indicators were within standard limits: cecal intubation rate (92% ), inade quate bowel preparations (24% ) , inappropriate procedures (9.7% ), normal pro cedures (54% ), yield for neoplasia (32% ), morbidity (0.4% ), and overall pa tient satisfaction (95.8% ). Some indicators were outside standard limits sugge sting our practices should be modified: endoscopy withdrawal time less than 6 mi nutes (78% ), forceps removal of polyps (31% ), resected polyps not recovered for pathological examination (12% ), adenomas with villous elements (22% ) , p atients unsatisfied because of time spent waiting for the procedure (19% ), pat ients unsatisfied because of inadequate explanations (10% ). There was no stand ard for a few indicators: patient discomfort (6.9% ), diagnostic success (89% ), therapeutic success (92% ). Three new indicators were proposed: proportion of patients aged < 50 years, num ber of normal colonoscopic procedures to perform to detect one advanced adenoma or cancer, and proportion of colonoscopic procedures causing discomfort. The dia gnostic yield of colonoscopy was dependent on age, gender, indication and approp riateness of indication but not on the prescriber. Conclusion- This audit allow ed us to evaluate our endoscopic practices and to detect certain shortcomings an d deviations from standards. It enabled us to change some or our practices with the goal of improving the quality of our colonoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of colonoscopic procedures in our endoscopy unit with the goal of improving performance. Methods - We prospe ctively audited 500 consecutive colonoscopic procedures and assessed sixty- two process or outcome indicators for each procedure. Results - Most of the measu red indicators were within standard limits: cecal intubation rate (92%), inadequate bowel preparations (24%), inappropriate procedures (9.7%), normal pro cedures Some indicators were outside standard limits sugge sting our practices should be modified: endoscopy withdrawal time less than 6 mi nutes (78%), forceps removal of polyps (31% ), resected polyps not recovered for pathological examination (12%), adenomas with villous elements (22%), p atients unsatisfied because of time spent waiting for the procedure (19%), pat ients unsatisfied because of inadequate explanatio There was no stand ard for a few indicators: patient discomfort (6.9%), diagnostic success (89%), therapeutic success (92%). Three new indicators were proposed: proportion of patients aged <50 years , num ber of normal colonoscopic procedures to perform to detect one advanced adenoma or cancer, and proportion of colonoscopic procedures causing discomfort. The dia gnostic yield of colonoscopy was dependent on age, gender, indication and approp riateness of indication but not on the prescriber. Conclusion- This audit allow ed us to evaluate our endoscopic practices and to detect certain shortcomings an d deviations from standards. It enabled us to change some or our practices with the goal of improving the quality of our colonoscopic procedures.