Key performance measure	Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations
Description	Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations should be monitored and the reason for deviation from national/European guidelines should always be provided.
Domain	Post-procedure
Category	Process
Rationale	Post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations reflect the best evidence-based balance between benefit and harm.
	Too frequent surveillance wastes resources and exposes patients to complications of an invasive procedure.
	Too infrequent surveillance may limit the effectiveness of surveillance.
Construct	This performance measure takes into account not only patients’ adherence to the recommendations but also whether there were any written recommendations (letter to the patient or the patient’s general practitioner).
	Denominator: Patients who underwent colorectal polypectomy
	Numerator: Patients in the denominator who received proper (national or European) surveillance recommendations
	Exclusions: Reason provided for deviation from the actual surveillance recommendations
	Calculation: Proportion (%)
	Level of analysis: Service and individual endoscopist
	Frequency: Continuous monitoring using novel endoscopy reporting systems should be the preferred approach;12 an alternative approach is a yearly audit of a sample of 100 consecutive LGI endoscopies.
Standards	Minimum standard: no standard defined
	Target standard: ≥95%
	All endoscopists should follow national or European guidelines for post-polypectomy surveillance and any deviation from these guidelines should be clearly stated.
	When no written recommendation is given, this should be treated as a missing recommendation.
	Endoscopic reporting systems should contain data about surveillance recommendations issued to the patient.
	If there is suboptimal performance, an automated system that issues surveillance recommendations from the endoscopy database and reminders to the patients should be considered.
Consensus agreement	93.8%
PICO	No PICO (see Supporting Information)
Evidence grading	Low quality evidence