Quality assurance of endoscopy units

Utilization and quality assessment of digestive endoscopy in China: results from 5-year consecutive nationwide surveys

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, the volume and availability of digestive endoscopy have undergone dramatic development in recent years, with increasing attention on quality assurance. We investigated the utilization and quality of digestive endoscopy in China from 2015 to 2019 and developed a quantitative quality evaluation tool for medical institutions.

METHODS

We invited all tertiary/secondary hospitals in Chinese mainland to participate in the survey annually. The questionnaires included the personnel, annual volume, and quality indicators of endoscopy. An endoscopy quality index (EQI) was developed based on recorded quality indicators using principal component analysis to determine the relative weight.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2019, 806, 1412, 2644, 2468, and 2541 hospitals were respectively enrolled in this study. The average annual volume of endoscopy increased from 12,445 to 16,206 (1.30-fold) and from 2938 to 4255 (1.45-fold) in tertiary and secondary hospitals, respectively. The most obvious growth was observed in diagnostic colonoscopy (1.44-fold for all hospitals after standardization). The proportion of early cancer among all esophageal and gastric cancers during diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy increased from 12.3% (55,210/448,861) to 17.7% (85,429/482,647) and from 11.4% (69,411/608,866) to 16.9% (107,192/634,235), respectively. The adenoma detection rate of diagnostic colonoscopy increased from 14.9% (2,118,123/14,215,592) to 19.3% (3,943,203/20,431,104). The EQI model included 12 quality indicators, incorporating 64.9% (7.792/12) of the total variance into one comprehensive index. According to the EQI measurements, the quality of endoscopy was higher in tertiary hospitals and hospitals in developed areas with higher volume or more endoscopists than that in other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Digestive endoscopy in China has developed considerably in recent years in terms of both volume and quality. The EQI is a promising tool to quantify the quality of endoscopy at different hospitals.

Interobserver variability in comfort scores for screening colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the agreement in comfort scores between patients, endoscopist and specialist screening practitioner (SSP) for colonoscopy, and which factors influence comfort.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Single-centre UK Bowel Cancer Screening Program colonoscopy service from April 2017 to March 2018.

PATIENTS

498 patients undergoing bowel cancer screening colonoscopy, with median age of 68 (IQR 64-71). 320 (64.3%) were men.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent screening colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Comfort scores on a validated 1 (best) to 5 (worst) ordinal scale were assigned for each colonoscopy by the patient, endoscopist and SSP. Inter-rater agreement of discomfort scores between endoscopist, patient and SSP was investigated using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression was used to investigate the effects of patient and colonoscopy factors on comfort scores.

RESULTS

SSPs had superior comfort score agreement with patients (0.638; 'moderate agreement') than endoscopists had with the same patients (0.526; 'weak agreement'). Male patients reported lower scores than female patients (OR 0.483, OR 0.499 [95% CI 0.344 to 0.723]; p<0.001). Endoscopists reported lower scores when there was better bowel prep (OR 0.512 [95% CI 0.279 to 0.938]; p=0.030). Agreement was worse at higher levels of discomfort.

CONCLUSION

There is variability in perceived comfort levels between healthcare providers and patients during screening colonoscopy, which is greater at worse levels of discomfort. Endoscopists who undertake screening colonoscopies may wish to consider both patient and healthcare provider comfort scores in order to improve patient experience while ensuring optimal quality assurance.

Paediatric Endoscopy Global Rating Scale: Development of a Quality Improvement Tool and Results of a National Pilot

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The endoscopy Global Rating Scale (GRS) is a web-based self-assessment quality improvement (QI) tool that provides a framework for service improvement. Widespread use of the GRS in adult endoscopy services in the United Kingdom (UK) has led to a demonstrable improvement in quality. The adult GRS is not directly applicable to paediatric endoscopy services. The objective of this study is to develop and pilot a paediatric endoscopy Global Rating Scale (P-GRS) as a QI tool.

METHODS

Members of the British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) Endoscopy Working Group collaborated with the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) to develop the P-GRS. After a period of consultation, this was piloted nationally at 9 centres and data were collected prospectively at 2 census points, May and December 2016.

RESULTS

The P-GRS mirrors the adult GRS by dividing care into 4 domains and includes 19 standards with several measures that underpin the standards. Eight services completed the online P-GRS return in May 2016 and 6 in December 2016. All pilot sites identified areas that needed improvement and post-pilot reflected on the key challenges and developments. Several positive developments were reported by the pilot sites.

CONCLUSIONS

The national pilot helped ensure that the P-GRS developed was relevant to the paediatric endoscopy services. The pilot demonstrated that even in the first year of engaging with this QI tool, services were starting to identify areas that needed improvement, share best practice documents, put in place QI plans, and support greater patient involvement in services.

Development of a national automated endoscopy database: The United Kingdom National Endoscopy Database (NED)

Background

The National Endoscopy Database (NED) project commenced in 2013 under the auspices of the Joint Advisory Group. The aim is to upload endoscopy procedure data from all units across the United Kingdom to a centralised database. The database can be used to facilitate quality assurance, research and training in endoscopy.

Objective

This article describes the development and implementation process of NED from its inception to date.

Methods

NED utilises automated data uploading of a minimum dataset from local endoscopy reporting systems to a central national database via the internet. Currently all data are anonymised. Key performance indicators are presented to endoscopists and organisations on a web-based platform for quality assurance purposes.

Results

As of October 2018, 295 endoscopy services out of a total of 529 known services in the UK (56%) are actively uploading to NED. Data from more than 400,000 endoscopic procedures have been uploaded.

Conclusion

UK-wide data collection from endoscopy units to a central database is feasible using an automated upload system. This has the potential to facilitate endoscopy quality assurance and research.

Impact of the Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) on endoscopy services in the UK and beyond

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG) was initially established in 1994 to standardise endoscopy training across specialties. Over the last two decades, the position of JAG has evolved to meet its current role of quality assuring all aspects of endoscopy in the UK to provide the highest quality, patient-centred care. Drivers such as changes to healthcare agenda, national audits, advances in research and technology and the advent of population-based cancer screening have underpinned this shift in priority. Over this period, JAG has spearheaded various quality assurance initiatives with support from national stakeholders. These have led to the achievement of notable milestones in endoscopy quality assurance, particularly in the three major areas of: (1) endoscopy training, (2) accreditation of endoscopy services (including the Global Rating Scale), and (3) accreditation of screening endoscopists. These developments have changed the landscape of UK practice, serving as a model to promote excellence in endoscopy. This review provides a summary of JAG initiatives and assesses the impact of JAG on training and endoscopy services within the UK and beyond.

Endoscopy in 2017: a national survey of practice in the UK

INTRODUCTION

The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG), hosted by the Royal College of Physicians, London, oversees the quality assurance of endoscopy services across the UK. Additional questions focusing on the pressures faced by endoscopy units to meet targets were added to the 2017 annual Global Rating Scale (GRS) return. This provides a unique insight into endoscopy services across all nations of the UK involving the acute and non-acute Nation Health Service sector as well as the independent sector.

METHODS

All 508 services who are registered with JAG were asked to complete every field of the survey online in order to submit their completed April 2017 GRS return.

RESULTS

A number of services reported difficulty in meeting national waiting time targets with a national average of only 55% of units meeting urgent cancer wait targets. Many services were insourcing or outsourcing patients to external providers to improve waiting times. Services are striving hard to increase capacity by backfilling lists and working weekends. Data collection was done in most units to reflect productivity but not to look at demand and capacity. Some of the units did not have an agreed capacity plan. The Did Not Attend rates for patients in the bowel cancer screening programme were much lower compared with standard lists.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the increased pressure endoscopy services are under and the 'just about coping' situation. This is the first published overview of different aspects of UK-wide endoscopy services and the future challenges.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing continuous quality improvement programs in colonoscopy services: a mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) programs may result in quality of care and outcome improvement. However, the implementation of such programs has proven to be very challenging. This mixed methods systematic review identifies barriers and facilitators pertaining to the implementation of CQI programs in colonoscopy services and how they relate to endoscopists, nurses, managers, and patients.

METHODS

We developed a search strategy adapted to 15 databases. Studies had to report on the implementation of a CQI intervention and identified barriers or facilitators relating to any of the four groups of actors directly concerned by the provision of colonoscopies. The quality of the selected studies was assessed and findings were extracted, categorized, and synthesized using a generic extraction grid customized through an iterative process.

RESULTS

We extracted 99 findings from the 15 selected publications. Although involving all actors is the most cited factor, the literature mainly focuses on the facilitators and barriers associated with the endoscopists' perspective. The most reported facilitators to CQI implementation are perception of feasibility, adoption of a formative approach, training and education, confidentiality, and assessing a limited number of quality indicators. Receptive attitudes, a sense of ownership and perceptions of positive impacts also facilitate the implementation. Finally, an organizational environment conducive to quality improvement has to be inclusive of all user groups, explicitly supportive, and provide appropriate resources.

CONCLUSION

Our findings corroborate the current models of adoption of innovations. However, a significant knowledge gap remains with respect to barriers and facilitators pertaining to nurses, patients, and managers.

Quality improvement in gastroenterology clinical practice

An emphasis on quality improvement (QI) is vital to the cost-effective provision of evidence-based health care. QI projects in gastroenterology have typically focused on endoscopy to minimize or eliminate procedure-related complications or errors. However, a significant component of gastroenterology care is based on the management of chronic disease. Patients with chronic diseases are seen in many different outpatient practices in the community and academia. In an attempt to ensure that every patient receives high-quality care, major gastrointestinal societies have published guidelines on the management of common gastrointestinal complaints. However, adherence to these guidelines varies. We discuss common outpatient gastrointestinal illnesses with established guidelines for management that could benefit from active QI projects; these would ensure a consistently high standard of care for every patient.

The Global Rating Scale in clinical practice: a comprehensive quality assurance programme for endoscopy departments

BACKGROUND

The Global Rating Scale is an endoscopy quality assurance programme, successfully implemented in England. It remains uncertain whether it is applicable in another health care setting.

AIM

To assess the applicability of the Global Rating Scale as benchmark tool in an international context.

METHODS

Eleven Dutch endoscopy departments were included for a Global Rating Scale-census, performed as a cross-sectional evaluation, July 2010. Two Global Rating Scale-dimensions - 'clinical quality' and 'patient experience' - were assessed across six items using a range of levels: from level-D (basic) to level-A (excellent). Construct validity was assessed by comparing department-specific colonoscopy audit data to GRS-levels.

RESULTS

For 'clinical quality', variable scores were achieved in items 'safety' (9%=B, 27%=C, 64%=D) and 'communication' (46%=A, 18%=C, 36%=D). All departments achieved a basic score in 'quality' (100%=D). For 'patient experience', variable scores were achieved in 'timeliness' (18%=A, 9%=B, 73%=D) and 'booking-choice' (36%=B, 46%=C, 18%=D). All departments achieved basic scores in 'equality' (100%=D). Departments obtaining level-C or above in 'information', 'comfort', 'communication', 'timeliness' and 'aftercare', achieved significantly better audit outcomes compared to those obtaining level-D (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The Global Rating Scale is appropriate to use outside England. There was significant variance across departments in dimensions. Most Global Rating Scale-levels were in line with departments' audit outcomes, indicating construct validity.