Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures

TEMPORARY REMOVAL: Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Quality Standards in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Can Deep Sedation Influence It?

Introduction

According to the guideline published by ESGE/UEG, a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) implies the application of some criteria that enable better healthcare outcomes. Although intra-procedural performance measures are dependent on patient factors, there is no reference to sedation practices in the guideline mentioned above.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate whether deep sedation influences EGD performance measures established by ESGE/UEG.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study, with a prospective enrollment, that considered for inclusion consecutive patients referred for EGD. Two questionnaires were used to assess performance measures and patient satisfaction after EGD.

Results

Sedation had a statistically significant impact on most quality indicators, including complete examination (77.2% without sedation vs. 97.8% with sedation), inspection time (6.17 ± 3.45 vs. 8.39 ± 2.67 min), photodocumentation (78% vs. 97.8%), biopsies (39.3% vs. 60.7%), and patient satisfaction (5.42 ± 2.93 vs. 9.1 ± 1.19). The main reason for an incomplete procedure was patient intolerance (82.6%).

Discussion

Deep sedation of patients submitted to EGD proved to be a determinant in the applicability of the ESGE/UEG quality indicators. Patient intolerance was eliminated in the group with sedation, enhancing procedure completeness, adequate pathology identification, management, and consequently, the effectiveness of the exam.

Conclusion

Sedation administration should be considered in patients undergoing EGD since it ensures a high-quality procedure.

Quality indicators in Barrett's endoscopy: Best is yet to come

There is growing interest in establishing quality indicators (QIs) for endoscopic screening and surveillance in Barrett's esophagus (BE). QIs are objective, measurable, and evidence-based metrics that are applicable in a health-care setting to monitor a process and identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to achieve defined goals. In the Barrett's endoscopy setting, QIs can offer a standardized approach to monitor and maintain high-quality endoscopy for BE screening and surveillance that will allow measuring performance of an endoscopist as an individual, a group, or a facility. Since BE is an endoscopically identifiable premalignant condition with histological corroboration, adherence to QIs is paramount for the early and accurate detection of dysplasia and neoplasia. It is the holy grail for BE screening and surveillance. Although several suggested QIs for Barrett's endoscopy exist, issues remain in determining the most appropriate ones. These issues include inconsistent use of terminology, unclear definitions, and a scarcity of studies linking these QIs with relevant patient outcomes, making it difficult for clinicians to understand the concept and clinical importance. Hence, there is an urgent need to determine what should constitute appropriate QIs for Barrett's endoscopy, clearly define items used in the QIs, and identify ways to measure these KPIs. Ultimately, well-defined and validated QIs will contribute to clinically effective, safe, timely, and patient-focused care. In this review, we summarize recent literature and discuss four proposed QIs: (i) neoplasia detection rate; (ii) postendoscopy Barrett's neoplasia; (iii) Barrett's inspection time; and (iv) adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol.

How to implement adverse events as a quality indicator in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Quality improvement through the registration of endoscopy-related adverse events (AEs) has been recognized by major international endoscopy societies as an important quality indicator. The theory behind this is easier to approve than its implementation in daily practice. The results of many valuable attempts have been published in the literature, mainly highlighting the diverse hurdles trying to capture events related to endoscopy and the sedation used for endoscopic procedures. The current review discusses the difficulties encountered attempting to register AEs and incidents related to endoscopic procedures. Government-driven and financed health-care databases with automated coupling of specific data seem the only efficient way to implement endoscopy-related AEs and outcomes on a prospective and complete basis. This will not only allow continuous confidential feedback to endoscopists in relation to the pooled national benchmark data, but also follow-up in time through data-driven credentialing aiming to progressively optimize these benchmark data.

Proposed quality indicators and recommended standard reporting items in performance of EBUS bronchoscopy: An official World Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology Expert Panel consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Since their introduction, both linear and radial endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) have become an integral component of the practice of Pulmonology and Thoracic Oncology. The quality of health care can be measured by comparing the performance of an individual or a health service with an ideal threshold or benchmark. The taskforce sought to evaluate quality indicators in EBUS bronchoscopy based on clinical relevance/importance and on the basis that observed significant variation in outcomes indicates potential for improvement in health care outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review informed the composition of a comprehensive list of candidate quality indicators in EBUS. A multiple-round modified Delphi consensus process was subsequently performed with the aim of reaching consensus over a final list of quality indicators and performance targets for these indicators. Standard reporting items were developed, with a strong preference for items where evidence demonstrates a relationship with quality indicator outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve quality Indicators are proposed, with performance targets supported by evidence from the literature. Standardized reporting items for both radial and linear EBUS are recommended, with evidence supporting their utility in assessing procedural outcomes presented.

CONCLUSION

This statement is intended to provide a framework for individual proceduralists to assess the quality of EBUS they provide their patients through the identification of clinically relevant, feasible quality measures. Emphasis is placed on outcome measures, with a preference for consistent terminology to allow communication and benchmarking between centres.

Quality indicators in the endoscopic detection of gastric cancer

Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.

A novel smartphone application for the tracking of procedural numbers and trainee experience in gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVES

The tracking and documentation of procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy including therapeutic interventions is an essential but challenging process. The University of Alberta has developed a smartphone app to help facilitate this task. This study evaluated the functionality, usefulness, and user satisfaction of this app.

METHODS

Four Gastroenterology (GI) residents and two therapeutic endoscopy fellows participated in the study. The trainees submitted all their data into the app from the procedures in which they participated hands-on for one year, data was collected and analyzed on the app and the website associated with it.

RESULTS

Trainees were able to register the procedures immediately after each procedure without difficulty, this data was available to be reviewed at anytime in the app and associated website. Furthermore, the data collected was able to be transformed into tables and graphs on the app website. The total number of procedures and therapeutic interventions performed were easily accessed in the app and website at anytime. The app facilitated the calculation of the cecal intubation rate in colonoscopy and the cannulation rate in ERCP for the therapeutic endoscopy trainee. Trainees reported excellent experience with the app capabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel smartphone app was useful in collecting meaningful data submitted by gastrointestinal endoscopy trainees, furthermore, through an associated website, it was capable to create graphs and tables to show and facilitate the calculation of meaningful data such as key performance indicators.

The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

The quality and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy varies considerably across regions and facilities worldwide. In this field, quality management has traditionally focused on individual performance of endoscopists, with most indicators addressing process measures and limited evidence of improvement in health outcomes. Indicators of quality can be classified according to their nature and sequence. The various professional societies and organizations have proposed many systems of indicators, but a universal system is necessary so that healthcare professionals are not overburdened and confused with a variety of quality improvement approaches. In this paper, we propose guidelines by the Saudi Gastroenterology Association pertaining to quality in endoscopic procedures aiming to improve the awareness of endoscopy unit staff toward important quality indications to enhance and standardize quality of care provided to our patients.

Correlation between adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators, and its variability depending on factors such as sedation or indication for colonoscopy

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important worldwide public health burden and colonoscopy is the main diagnostic and most importantly, preventive method. For this reason, many countries have implemented national or regional CRC screening programs. High-quality colonoscopy is a prerequisite to effectively detect premalignant lesions, like adenomas. The quality of colonoscopy is assessed using several quality indicators, the main one being adenoma detection rate (ADR). In Romania, despite CRC having the highest incidence of all cancers, there is no national screening program and quality in colonoscopy is not routinely assessed. We therefore wanted to evaluate the actual level of quality in colonoscopy in a region of Romania. Our study was conducted in two private endoscopy clinics over a period of 7 months. 1,440 consecutive colonoscopies performed by five physicians were included in the study. We found that the quality level is above the minimum one recommended by international societies and that the ADR calculation method does not significantly influence its value. Furthermore, ADR correlated well with other quality indicators such as polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC). An interesting finding was that ADR was higher among colonoscopies performed without sedation. Thus, our data encourage endoscopists to adopt a sedation-free colonoscopy in their practice without an impact on the quality of the procedure.

Quality indicators for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

DISCUSSION

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) quality standards and indicators for pediatric endoscopy: an ASGE-endorsed guideline

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current endoscopy quality guidelines largely focus on cancer screening-related metrics that are not applicable to pediatric populations. Through an international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN), quality standards and indicators for pediatric endoscopic procedures were developed and endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II instrument guided PEnQuIN members, from 31 centers representing 11 countries, in generating and refining proposed quality standards and indicators. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Consensus on reporting elements was sought with an iterative online Delphi process.

RESULTS

Forty-nine quality standards and 47 indicators, encompassing pediatric endoscopy facilities, procedures, and endoscopists, as well as 30 reporting elements essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report reached consensus. Minimal acceptable standards were defined for 3 key indicators related to pediatric lower endoscopy: terminal ileal intubation rate ≥85%, cecal intubation rate ≥90%, and rate of adequate bowel preparation ≥80%. There was strong consensus that terminal ileal intubation, rather than cecal intubation, is integral to ensuring high-quality endoscopic care in children.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEnQuIN guidelines establish international agreement on clinically meaningful metrics tailored to pediatric endoscopy that can be used to promote safe, high-quality, patient- and family-centered endoscopic care. Moving forward, it is recommended that all providers and facilities involved in endoscopy service for children adopt the PEnQuIN standards, indicators, and key reporting elements outlined in these ASGE-endorsed guidelines.

How to track and register adverse events and incidents related to gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background and study aims: Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures have evolved significantly in the last sixty years revolutionising the approach to the diagnostic and therapeutic spheres of medicine. Despite the advantages of using natural orifices to the bowel, adverse events (AE) may occur following endoscopy. Systematic AE registration is an objective in every realm of quality medicine. Despite the obvious advantage as a quality indicator, tracking endoscopy-related AE is not evident. The current study aimed at tracking all AE of all endoscopic procedures during a 3-month period. The three methods used were voluntary reporting by the endoscopist and by the patient in parallel with retrospective data analysis of patients’ electronic medical records to allow capture of all AE and comparison of the three methods. Patients and methods: During a 3-month period endoscopists and patients were requested to report any possible AE. At the end of the period, a systematic review of all patient files was performed to track all AE related to the endoscopic procedure or the endoscopyrelated anaesthesia. In total 2668 endoscopic procedures were reviewed. Results: The total AE rate was 1.95%. Only half (51.9%) of all AE were voluntarily reported by endoscopists, the other half were extracted from the electronic medical record. There were no patient-reported AE. Although the majority (66.7%) of unreported AE were mild, these findings illustrate that voluntary AE reporting is unreliable. However, the retrospective tracking process proved to be difficult and time-consuming. Conclusions: The current study highlighted that systematic registration of all endoscopy-related AE is feasible, but challenging because of multiple hurdles. More practical methods are warranted to obtain reliable and long-term data as part of endoscopy quality measures.

Development and validation of a deep learning-based algorithm for colonoscopy quality assessment

BACKGROUND

Quality indicators should be assessed and monitored to improve colonoscopy quality in clinical practice. Endoscopists must enter relevant information in the endoscopy reporting system to facilitate data collection, which may be inaccurate. The current study aimed to develop a full deep learning-based algorithm to identify and analyze intra-procedural colonoscopy quality indicators based on endoscopy images obtained during the procedure.

METHODS

A deep learning system for classifying colonoscopy images for quality assurance purposes was developed and its performance was assessed with an independent dataset. The system was utilized to analyze captured images and results were compared with those of real-world reports.

RESULTS

In total, 10,417 images from the hospital endoscopy database and 3157 from Hyper-Kvasir open dataset were utilized to develop the quality assurance algorithm. The overall accuracy of the algorithm was 96.72% and that of the independent test dataset was 94.71%. Moreover, 761 real-world reports and colonoscopy images were analyzed. The accuracy of electronic reports about cecal intubation rate was 99.34% and that of the algorithm was 98.95%. The agreement rate for the assessment of polypectomy rates using the electronic reports and the algorithm was 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.83-0.90). A good correlation was found between the withdrawal time calculated using the algorithm and that entered by the physician (correlation coefficient r = 0.959, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We proposed a novel deep learning-based algorithm that used colonoscopy images for quality assurance purposes. This model can be used to automatically assess intra-procedural colonoscopy quality indicators in clinical practice.

Prevalence of Adenomas on Surveillance Colonoscopies for Patients with a History of Colonic Polyps of Unknown Histology

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy depend on polyp histology. When patients present to a new healthcare system and report a personal history of "colon polyps," however, information on polyp histology is frequently unavailable.

AIMS

To assess adenoma prevalence in patients with a history of colonic polyps of unknown histology and to compare it to patients undergoing either screening colonoscopy or surveillance colonoscopy for known adenomatous polyps.

METHODS

This cohort study evaluated colonoscopies of patients ≥ 50 years of age over a 14-year period at a single institution. The exposure of interest was colonoscopy indication, categorized into three groups: screening colonoscopy, surveillance colonoscopy for history of colonic polyp(s) of unknown histology, and surveillance colonoscopy for history of adenoma(s). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between colonoscopy indication and adenoma detection rate.

RESULTS

Of 31,856 colonoscopies, the adenoma prevalence was 26.1% for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy, 32.9% for patients with a history of polyps of unknown histology, and 41.9% for patients with a history of known adenomatous polyps. Relative to screening colonoscopies, there were higher odds of adenoma detection in surveillance colonoscopies for polyps of unknown histology (aOR compared to screening 1.42, 95% CI 1.30-1.55) and even higher odds among surveillance colonoscopies for a history of adenoma (aOR compared to screening 1.89, 95% CI 1.75-2.05).

CONCLUSION

The adenoma prevalence on surveillance colonoscopy for patients with polyps of unknown histology was higher than that of screening colonoscopies but lower than that of surveillance colonoscopies for patients with adenomatous polyps.

Overview of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric-specific quality standards for endoscopy are needed to define best practices, while measurement of associated indicators is critical to guide quality improvement. The international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) working group was assembled to develop and define quality standards and indicators for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures through a rigorous guideline consensus process.

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument guided PEnQuIN members, recruited from 31 centers of various practice types representing 11 countries, in generating and refining proposed quality standards and indicators. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process, and finalized at an in-person conference. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Forty-nine quality standards and 47 indicators reached consensus, encompassing pediatric endoscopy facilities, procedures, endoscopists, and the patient experience. The evidence base for PEnQuIN standards and indicators was largely adult-based and observational, and downgraded for indirectness, imprecision, and study limitations to "very low" quality, resulting in "conditional" recommendations for most standards (45/49).

CONCLUSIONS

The PEnQuIN guideline development process establishes international agreement on clinically meaningful metrics that can be used to promote safety and quality in endoscopic care for children. Through PEnQuIN, pediatric endoscopists and endoscopy services now have a framework for auditing, providing feedback, and ultimately, benchmarking performance. Expansion of evidence and prospective validation of PEnQuIN standards and indicators as predictors of clinically relevant outcomes and high-quality pediatric endoscopic care is now a research priority.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Pediatric Endoscopy Reporting Elements: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality procedure reports are a cornerstone of high-quality pediatric endoscopy as they ensure the clear communication of procedural events and outcomes, guide patient care and facilitate continuous quality improvement. The aim of this document is to outline standardized reporting elements that achieved international consensus as requirements for high-quality pediatric endoscopy procedure reports.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used Delphi methodology to identify key elements that should be found in all pediatric endoscopy reports. Item reduction was attained through iterative rounds of anonymized online voting using a 6-point scale. Responses were analyzed after each round and items were excluded from subsequent rounds if ≤50% of panelists rated them as 5 ("agree moderately") or 6 ("agree strongly"). Reporting elements that ≥70% of panelists rated as "agree moderately" or "agree strongly" were considered to have achieved consensus.

RESULTS

Twenty-six PEnQuIN group members from 25 centers internationally rated 63 potential reporting elements that were generated from a systematic literature review and the Delphi panelists. The response rates were 100% for all three survey rounds. Thirty reporting elements reached consensus as essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that the PEnQuIN Reporting Elements for pediatric endoscopy be universally employed across all endoscopists, procedures and facilities as a foundational means of ensuring high-quality endoscopy services, while facilitating quality improvement activities in pediatric endoscopy.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopists and Endoscopists in Training: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with 7 corresponding indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high-quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%).

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy Facilities: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing international recognition of the impact of variability in endoscopy facilities on procedural quality and outcomes. There is also growing precedent for assessing the quality of endoscopy facilities at regional and national levels by using standardized rating scales to identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of facilities where endoscopic care is provided to children. Consensus was reached via an iterative online Delphi process and subsequent in-person meeting. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 27 standards for facilities supporting pediatric endoscopy, as well 10 indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopic care in children. These standards were subcategorized into three subdomains: Quality of Clinical Operations (15 standards, 5 indicators); Patient and Caregiver Experience (9 standards, 5 indicators); and Workforce (3 standards).

DISCUSSION

The rigorous PEnQuIN process successfully yielded standards and indicators that can be used to universally guide and measure high-quality facilities for procedures around the world where endoscopy is performed in children. It also underscores the current paucity of evidence for pediatric endoscopic care processes, and the need for research into this clinical area.

A colonoscopy quality improvement intervention in an endoscopy unit

Many studies identified colonoscopy quality indicators in order to improve performance and safety. We conducted a colonoscopy improvement study. Our study was designed according to a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle: first recording of our quality indicators and identification of shortcomings, second identification of improvement targets and implementation of new procedures, third second recording of quality indicators, fourth validation of procedures and identification of new goals. Quality indicators derived from European and French guidelines were recorded before and after our improvement actions. We were mainly interested in the quality indicators of the colonic preparation, the description of the diagnosed lesions and on the examination reports. The data of 134 patients prospectively included in January-February 2017 were compared to 133 patients included in May-June 2019, after implementation of improvement procedures, in the digestive endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Dijon, France. Our intervention, and in particular the implementation of new standardized forms, improved preparation quality: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores increased significantly from 7.8 to 8.2. Cecal intubation rate increased by 6%, and more adenomas were diagnosed and removed (+3.3%). Adenoma detection rate increased significantly from 26 to 42%. The completion of withdrawal time measure improved from 6.7 to 100%. Our study led to the rapid implementation of corrective actions and improved quality in our unit and in our personal practice. This quality improvement strategy could be easily implemented in every digestive endoscopy unit.

Patients' Experiences Before, During, and After a Colonoscopy Procedure: A Qualitative Study

Although colonoscopy is a common examination, there is limited research focusing on how patients experience this procedure. It is important that a colonoscopy is tolerated, as it may lead to lifesaving diagnostics and treatment. This study aims to explore adult patients' experience of undergoing a colonoscopy regarding the time prior to, during, and after the procedure. This was a qualitative study with individual interviews (n = 24) and a purposeful sample that was analyzed using thematic analysis. The analysis revealed four themes. The first, "making up one's mind," describes how the participants gathered information and reflected emotionally about the forthcoming procedure. The hope of clarification motivated them to proceed. In the theme "getting ready," self-care was in focus while the participants struggled to follow the instructions and carry out the burdensome cleansing. The next theme, "going through," illuminates' experiences during the colonoscopy and highlights the importance of feeling involved and respected. The last theme, "finally over," is characterized by experiences of relief, tiredness, and a desire for clarity. The healthcare professionals' ability to meet the participants' needs is vital, given that the experiences are highly individual. These findings contribute to a variegated image of how patients experience the process of undergoing a colonoscopy.

Evaluation of the effects of an artificial intelligence system on endoscopy quality and preliminary testing of its performance in detecting early gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a prerequisite for detecting upper gastrointestinal lesions especially early gastric cancer (EGC). An artificial intelligence system has been shown to monitor blind spots during EGD. In this study, we updated the system (ENDOANGEL), verified its effectiveness in improving endoscopy quality, and pretested its performance in detecting EGC in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

ENDOANGEL was developed using deep convolutional neural networks and deep reinforcement learning. Patients undergoing EGD in five hospitals were randomly assigned to the ENDOANGEL-assisted group or to a control group without use of ENDOANGEL. The primary outcome was the number of blind spots. Secondary outcomes included performance of ENDOANGEL in predicting EGC in a clinical setting.

RESULTS

1050 patients were randomized, and 498 and 504 patients in the ENDOANGEL and control groups, respectively, were analyzed. Compared with the control group, the ENDOANGEL group had fewer blind spots (mean 5.38 [standard deviation (SD) 4.32] vs. 9.82 [SD 4.98]; P < 0.001) and longer inspection time (5.40 [SD 3.82] vs. 4.38 [SD 3.91] minutes; P < 0.001). In the ENDOANGEL group, 196 gastric lesions with pathological results were identified. ENDOANGEL correctly predicted all three EGCs (one mucosal carcinoma and two high grade neoplasias) and two advanced gastric cancers, with a per-lesion accuracy of 84.7 %, sensitivity of 100 %, and specificity of 84.3 % for detecting gastric cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter study, ENDOANGEL was an effective and robust system to improve the quality of EGD and has the potential to detect EGC in real time.

The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Objectives

Measuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures.

Design

Phase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement.

Results

Phase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages.

Conclusion

This manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients’ experiences of different endoscopic interventions.

Patient, Physician, and Procedure Characteristics Are Independently Predictive of Polyp Detection Rates in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Variability in colon polyp detection impacts patient outcomes. However, the relative influence of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors on polyp detection is unclear. Therefore, determining how these factors contribute to adenoma and sessile serrated polyp (SSP) detection is important to contextualize measures of colonoscopy quality such as adenoma detection rate and patient outcomes.

AIMS

To determine the relative contribution of physician, patient, and procedure-specific factors in total polyp, adenoma, and SSP detection rates.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy and used a two-level generalized linear mixed regression model to identify factors associated with polyp detection.

RESULTS

7799 average risk screening colonoscopies were performed between July 2016 and October 2017. The patient factor most strongly associated with increased risk of adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection was white race (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.39 and OR 3.17, 95% CI 2.34-4.30, respectively). Adenomatous (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.04-3.57) and sessile serrated polyps (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.37-20.0) were more likely to be found during procedures performed with anesthesia care as compared to those with moderate sedation. Physician with a luminal gastrointestinal focus had increased odds of adenoma detection (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.02-2.50).

CONCLUSIONS

In a multi-level model accounting for clustering effects, we identified patient, provider and procedural factors independently influence adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection. Our findings suggest that to compare polyp detection rates between endoscopists, even at the same institution, risk adjustment by characteristics of the patient population and practice is necessary.

Do Low-Risk Patients With Dyspepsia Need a Gastroscopy? Use of Gastroscopy for Otherwise Healthy Patients With Dyspepsia

Background

Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) recommends not to perform gastroscopy for dyspepsia in otherwise healthy adults less than 55 years of age (2014). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of gastroscopy in a young, healthy population with uncomplicated dyspepsia.

Methods

A retrospective review of gastroscopies completed during 3-month periods in 2015, 2016, and 2017 identified all patients undergoing gastroscopy for the primary indication of dyspepsia. Low-risk patients for dyspepsia were defined as adults, aged 18 to 54 years without alarm symptoms, comorbidities and/or abnormal imaging findings or laboratory values. Gastroscopy and pathology reports were reviewed to identify clinically actionable findings. Clinical outcomes were followed to December 31, 2018 including gastroenterology referrals, emergency room visitation and hospitalization.

Results

Among 1358 patients having a gastroscopy for dyspepsia, 480 (35%) were low-risk patients. Sixteen patients 3.3% (16/480) had a clinically actionable result found on gastroscopy or biopsy. No malignant lesions were detected. Low-risk patients were followed up for an average of 2.75 years, 8% (39/480) visited the emergency department (ED), 1% (3/480) of patients were admitted to hospital and 12% (59/480) of patients were re-referred for a dyspepsia-related concern.

Interpretation

A high rate of low yield, high cost, invasive endoscopic investigations were performed in this population of otherwise healthy patients under age 55 years. These data suggest limited uptake of current recommendations against the routine use of gastroscopy to investigate dyspepsia.

Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study)

Background and study aims  The endoscopic report has a key role in quality improvement for gastrointestinal endoscopy. High quality standards have been set by the endoscopic societies in this field. Unlike other digestive endoscopy procedures, the quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has not been thoroughly evaluated and a reference standard is lacking. Methods  We performed an international online survey concerning the attitudes of endosonographers towards EUS reports in order to understand the needs for standardization and quality improvement. Endosonographers from different countries and institutional setting, with varying case volume and experience were invited to take part to complete a structured questionnaire. Results  We collected replies from 171 endosonographers. Overall analysis of results according to case volume, experience and working environment of respondents (academic, public hospital, private) are provided. In brief, everyone agreed on the need for standardization of EUS reporting. The use of minimal standard terminology and a structured tree with mandatory items was considered of primary importance. Image documentation was also deemed fundamental in complementing EUS reports both for patient documentation and research purposes. A strong demand for connection and consultation among endosonographers for clinical and training needs was also found. In this respect, a formal expert consultation network was advocated in order to improve the quality of reporting in EUS. Conclusions  Our survey showed a strong agreement among endosonographers who expressed the need for a standardization in order to improve the report and, as a consequence, the quality of EUS.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in children and adults: How do they differ?

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has grown dramatically over the past century, and with subsequent improvements in technology and anaesthesia, it has become a safe and useful tool for evaluation of GI pathology in children. There are substantial differences between paediatric and adult endoscopy beyond size, including: age-related patho-physiology and the different spectrum of diseases in children. Literature on endoscopic procedures in children is sparse but significant. The present review aims at describing the current knowledges on paediatric endoscopy practice and highlights the main areas of differences between paediatric and adult practice.

Guidelines for accreditation of endoscopy units: quality measures from the Korean Society of Coloproctology

Purpose

Colonoscopy is an effective method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it can prevent CRC by detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The most important considerations when performing colonoscopy screening are the safety and satisfaction of the patient and the diagnostic accuracy. Accordingly, the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP) herein proposes an optimal level of standard performance to be used in endoscopy units and by individual colonoscopists for screening colonoscopy. These guidelines establish specific criteria for assessment of safety and quality in screening colonoscopy.

Methods

The Colonoscopy Committee of the KSCP commissioned this Position Statement. Expert gastrointestinal surgeons representing the KSCP reviewed the published evidence to identify acceptable quality indicators and indicators that lacked sufficient evidence.

Results

The KSCP recommends an optimal standard list for quality control of screening colonoscopy in the following 6 categories: training and competency of the colonoscopist, procedural quality, facilities and equipment, performance indicators and auditable outcomes, disinfection of equipment, and sedation and recovery of the patient.

Conclusion

The KSCP recommends that endoscopy units performing CRC screening evaluate 6 key performance measures during daily practice.

Monitoring photographic proof of cecal intubation: A closed-loop audit of best practice colonoscopy

Gold standard colonoscopy in the UK demands a 90% cecal intubation (CI) rate. Endoscopists must provide photographic evidence of CI, which can include images of the terminal ileum, appendix orifice, anastomosis or ileocecal valve. Whilst photographic proof of intubation should be obtained for all complete colonoscopies, this is not routinely audited. Three hundred and ninety-six complete colonoscopies were analyzed, 200 in an initial audit, and 196 in a second audit. Photos taken during colonoscopy were reviewed for evidence of successful CI, as well as whether these photographs had been marked as "proof of intubation" (POI). Results were shared at departmental governance meetings in order to assess any improvement in practice. Initial audit revealed 70% of colonoscopies had provided sufficient proof of CI but only 50% provided photographs that were described as such. Twenty percent of colonoscopies provided sufficient images, but these were not identified as POI. Thirty percent of all colonoscopies provided insufficient proof of CI. Upon repeat audit, 71% of colonoscopies met best practice standards, with the remaining 29% showing insufficient evidence of CI. In the modern era of digital technology, lack of photographic evidence should be seen as unacceptable and may raise important clinical and medicolegal concerns. We recommend that audits such as this become standard practice to ensure best practice.

Impact of photodocumentation of caecal intubation on colonoscopy outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The European and American colonoscopy guidelines recommend mandatory photodocumentation of caecal intubation to allow retrospective analysis and improve outcomes. We aim to demonstrate whether photodocumentation of caecal intubation improves colonoscopy outcomes.

METHODS

We extracted images and procedural data from 317 consecutive colonoscopies. Images were anonymised and reviewed by four expert reviewers who scored their certainty that caecal intubation was achieved. Statistical analysis correlated adequately and inadequately photodocumented cases with polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 59.4 years and 52% were male. Eighty-one percent were performed by consultant endoscopists and 19% by specialist registrar. Sixty-five percent of these procedures were performed by gastroenterologists and 35% by surgical endoscopists. Fifty-three percent were deemed to have adequately demonstrated photographic evidence of caecal intubation. Statistical analysis comparing adequately and inadequately photodocumented cases: the PDR of procedures with confirmed caecal intubation was greater than procedures without photographic evidence (40% vs 34%). Similarly, the ADR of photographically confirmed cases was greater than that of inadequately photodocumented cases (25% vs 18%). The number of images taken per procedure positively correlated with photographic documentation of caecal intubation.

CONCLUSION

While failing to reach statistical significance, there was a nominal difference in ADR and PDR demonstrated between the two groups, and with predominantly positive confidence intervals, this might suggest that a larger sample size could result in significance in favour of photodocumentation of caecal intubation. Future studies would be warranted. However, endoscopists that take more images were more likely to have proven caecal intubation.

Quality in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: what's new in 2020?

Quality assessment and improvement of an endoscopic service has emerged as a basic component of everyday gastrointestinal endoscopy. In order to ensure a high level of quality, a series of actions must be adopted when performing an endoscopic examination. Nonetheless, quality still remains a qualitative parameter; thus, implementation of specific indicators of quality is warranted. Irrespective of the nature of the endoscopic procedure, quality indicators usually refer to either structural properties of an endoscopy unit (e.g., examination availability), procedural factors (e.g., diagnostic accuracy), or patient outcomes (e.g., occurrence of an adverse event related to performance of an endoscopic procedure). Moreover, they are usually classified into 3 distinct sections, according to the phase of the procedure they relate to: i.e., before, during, and after the examination. The aim of this review is to present measures that need to be adopted in order to reach an optimal quality level during an endoscopic ultrasound examination and to provide up-to-date data regarding the respective quality indicators implicated.

Sedation/Analgesia Administration Practice Varies according to Endoscopy Facility (Hospital- or Office-Based) Setting: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Greece

Objectives

To examine the impact of endoscopy setting (hospital-based vs. office-based) on sedation/analgesia administration and to provide nationwide data on monitoring practices among Greek gastroenterologists in real-world settings. Material and Methods. A web-based survey regarding sedation/analgesia rates and monitoring practices during endoscopy either in a hospital-based or in an office-based setting was disseminated to the members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology and Professional Association of Gastroenterologists. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, which consisted of 35 items, stratified into 4 sections: demographics, preprocedure (informed consent, initial patient evaluation), intraprocedure (monitoring practices, sedative agents' administration rate), and postprocedure practices (recovery).

Results

211 individuals responded (response rate: 40.3%). Propofol use was significantly higher in the private hospital compared to the public hospital and the office-based setting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (85.8% vs. 19.5% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.0001) and colonoscopy (88.2% vs. 20.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.0001). This effect was not detected for midazolam, pethidine, and fentanyl use. Endoscopists themselves administered the medications in most cases. However, a significant contribution of anesthesiology sedation/analgesia provision was detected in private hospitals (14.7% vs. 2.8% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001) compared to the other settings. Only 35.2% of the private offices have a separate recovery room, compared to 80.4% and 58.7% of the private hospital- and public hospital-based facilities, respectively, while the nursing personnel monitored patients' recovery in most of the cases. Participants were familiar with airway management techniques (83.9% with bag valve mask and 23.2% with endotracheal intubation), while 49.7% and 21.8% had received Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) training, respectively.

Conclusion

The private hospital-based setting is associated with higher propofol sedation administration both for EGD and for colonoscopy. Greek endoscopists are adequately trained in airway management techniques.

Do Nontechnical Skills Affect Legal Outcomes After Endoscopic Perforations?

INTRODUCTION

Health systems often emphasize technical skills to reduce iatrogenic injuries. Nontechnical skills such as clinical and communication skills are mostly overlooked or not readily retrievable from medical records. Our aim was to estimate the association of technical and nontechnical skills of endoscopists with indemnity payments to patients after endoscopic perforations.

METHODS

This is an observational registry-based study of closed claims against gastroenterologists involved in endoscopic perforations.

RESULTS

We analyzed 175 closed claims related to perforations, all of which involved allegations of improper performance of the endoscopic procedure. Inadequate communication (n = 71, 41%) and clinical judgment (n = 60, 34%) on the part of the endoscopists were observed. Inadequate communication and clinical judgment were associated with over 3-fold odds of indemnity payment (odds ratio [OR] 3.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46-7.48, and OR 3.18; 95% CI, 1.44-7.01, respectively). However, if there were no communication breakdown or clinical judgment issues and the only allegation was poor technical skill, the odds of indemnity payments were less than half of those cases (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.15-0.80). There was no evidence of a statistically significant interaction among age, procedure type, trainee involvement, clinical severity, need for surgery, and procedure-related death.

DISCUSSION

We observed that inadequate communication and clinical judgment were associated with indemnity payment, independent of the severity of clinical outcomes. On the other hand, cases wherein there was an allegation of poor technical skills alone, without communication breakdown or clinical judgment issues, were associated with favorable legal outcomes for the defendant. (See the Visual Abstract at http://links.lww.com/AJG/B568.).

Quality of Colonoscopy: A Comparison Between Gastroenterologists and Nongastroenterologists

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy performance by gastroenterologists has been shown to be associated with lower rates of developing interval colorectal cancer. However, it is unclear if this difference among specialists stems from a difference in meeting colonoscopy quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine and compare the rates of colonoscopy quality indicators between different specialties.

DESIGN

This is a cohort study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy investigating quality metrics as compared by the proceduralist specialty.

SETTING

All screening colonoscopies performed at the Cleveland Clinic between 2012 and 2014 were followed by manual chart review.

PATIENTS

Average-risk patients, ≥50 years of age, who had a complete screening colonoscopy were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, and other nonestablished overall and segment-specific rates were calculated and compared using t tests.

RESULTS

A total of 4151 patients were included in the analysis. Colonoscopies were performed by 54 (64.3%) gastroenterologists, 21 (25%) colorectal surgeons, and 9 (10.7%) general surgeons. Gastroenterologists had the highest overall adenoma detection rate (28.6 ± 1.2; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (24.3 ± 1.5) and general surgeons (18.4 ± 2.3), as well as the highest adenoma detection rate in men (34.7 ± 1.3; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (28.2 ± 1.6) and general surgeons (23.7 ± 2.6). Similarly, gastroenterologists had the highest adenoma detection rate in women (24.3 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (21.6 ± 1.4) and general surgeons (12.9 ± 2.0). Withdrawal time was the longest among general surgeons (11.1 ± 5.5; p = 0.041), followed by colorectal surgeons (10.94 ± 5.2) and gastroenterologists (10.16 ± 1.26).

LIMITATIONS

We could not adjust for some procedure-related details such as retroflexion in the right colon and the use of end-of-scope devices.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, only gastroenterologists met the currently accepted overall and sex-specific adenoma detection rate benchmarks. They also outperformed nongastroenterologists in many other nonestablished quality metrics. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B232.

CALIDAD DE LA COLONOSCOPIA

UNA COMPARACIÓN ENTRE GASTROENTERÓLOGOS Y NO GASTROENTERÓLOGOS: Se ha demostrado que el rendimiento de la colonoscopia por parte de los gastroenterólogos, se asocia con tasas más bajas de cáncer colorrectal en intervalos de desarrollo. Sin embargo, no está claro si esta diferencia entre especialistas, se deriva de una diferencia en el cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad de la colonoscopia.El propósito del estudio, es determinar y comparar las tasas de indicadores de calidad de colonoscopia entre diferentes especialidades.Este es un estudio de cohorte de pacientes sometidos a una colonoscopia de detección, que investiga métricas de calidad en comparación con la especialidad de procesos.Todas las colonoscopias de detección realizadas en la Clínica Cleveland entre 2012 y 2014, fueron seguidas por una revisión manual del expediente.Pacientes de riesgo promedio, ≥50 años de edad que se sometieron a una colonoscopia de detección completa.La tasa de detección de adenomas, tasa de intubación cecal, tiempo de retirada y otras tasas generales y específicas de segmento no establecidas, se calcularon y compararon usando pruebas t.Un total de 4,151 pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis. Las colonoscopias fueron realizadas por 54 (64.3%) gastroenterólogos, 21 (25%) cirujanos colorrectales y 9 (10.7%) cirujanos generales. Los gastroenterólogos tuvieron la tasa de detección más alta de adenomas en general (28.6 ± 1.2; p < 0.001), seguidos por los cirujanos colorrectales (24.3 ± 1.5) y los cirujanos generales (18.4 ± 2.3), así como la tasa de detección más alta de adenoma en hombres (34.7 ± 1.3; p < 0.001) seguido por cirujanos colorrectales (28.2 ± 1.6) y cirujanos generales (23.7 ± 2.6). Del mismo modo, los gastroenterólogos tuvieron la tasa más alta de detección de adenoma en mujeres (24.3 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), seguidos por los cirujanos colorrectales (21.6 ± 1.4) y los cirujanos generales (12.9 ± 2.0). El tiempo de extracción fue el más largo entre los cirujanos generales (11.1 ± 5.5; p = 0.041) seguido por los cirujanos colorrectales (10.94 ± 5.2) y los gastroenterólogos (10.16 ± 1.26).No pudimos ajustar algunos detalles relacionados con el procedimiento, tales como la retroflexión en el colon derecho y el uso de accesorios endoscópicos.En este estudio, solo los gastroenterólogos cumplieron con los índices de referencia actualmente aceptados, de detección de adenomas en general y específicas de género. También superaron a los no gastroenterólogos en muchas otras métricas no establecidas de calidad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B232. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Fifty years of digestive endoscopy: Successes, setbacks, solutions and the future

Flexible endoscopes became generally available 50 years ago and created a revolution in the practice of gastroenterology. They improved diagnosis enormously, enabled quicker, less invasive, and more cost-effective surgical treatment, while endoscopic screening has prevented many cancer deaths. The new technology stimulated research leading to a better understanding of gastrointestinal pathology, identifying new diseases and clarifying the etiology of others. Better-controlled clinical trials accelerated the use of newer and more effective drugs. National and international endoscopy societies supported nursing input, encouraged research, stimulated specialist journals, and devised guidelines that encouraged audit and quality assurance. Advances in instrument design and the manufacture of new accessories enhanced endoscopic technique, diagnostic ability, patient comfort, and safety. The risk of cross-infection inherent in the use of complex labile equipment that cannot be autoclaved remains a challenge. Endoscopy societies working closely with industry have established rigid protocols for high-level disinfection that minimize the risks, but strict adherence to guidelines and continued vigilance is essential, especially with the increasing prevalence of antibiotic-resistant commensals that can give rise to opportunistic infection. Government health departments have a responsibility to encourage and support research in this area by endoscopists, instrument manufacturers, and the pharmaceutical industry. Current trends suggest that in the future, artificial intelligence will greatly improve endoscopic diagnosis, and that therapeutic endoscopy will expand, encouraging endoscopists to subspecialize.

Improvement of Endoscopic Reports with Implementation of a Dictation Template

Aims

Completeness of procedure reports is an important quality indicator in endoscopy. A dictation template was developed to ensure key elements were included in colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reports. Endoscopy reports were reviewed prior to and following implementation of the dictation templates to determine whether report completeness improved.

Methods

Key elements in an endoscopic report were identified from published guidelines and posted at dictation stations. Colonoscopy and EGD reports were reviewed for the nine physicians performing endoscopy at St. Paul’s Hospital prior to and following implementation of dictation templates. Dictation completeness was defined as inclusion of all key elements. Dictation completeness and inclusion of individual key elements at the two time points were compared using the t-test and Chi-square test.

Results

Reports for 4648 procedures undertaken by nine endoscopists were reviewed for completeness at each time point (2008 and 2014). Colonoscopy report completeness increased from 65.8% to 83.2% (P < 0.001). Items that improved included documentation of consent, endoscope used, complications, withdrawal time and rectal retroflexion. EGD report completeness increased from 72.7% to 77.3% (P < 0.001) with improvement in documentation of consent and complications. Items consistently underreported for colonoscopy and EGD at both time points included: patient age, comorbidities, current medications and patient comfort.

Conclusion

There was an association between the use of a posted dictation template at dictation stations and the improved completeness of endoscopic reports.

Updates on the Facilities, Procedures, and Performance of the Accredited Endoscopy Unit

Endoscopic quality indicators can be classified into three categories, namely facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedures, and outcome measures. In 2019, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy updated the accreditation of qualified endoscopy unit assessment items for these quality indicators to establish competence and define areas of continuous quality improvement.

Here, we presented the updated program guidelines on the facilities, procedures, and performance of the accredited endoscopy unit. Many of these items have not yet been validated. However, the updated program will help in establishing competence and defining areas of continuous quality improvement in Korean endoscopic practice.

A Single-center Review of Pediatric Colonoscopy Quality Indicators

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy with terminal ileal (TI) intubation is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool in the care of children with digestive diseases, especially in those with inflammatory bowel disease. Ileal intubation rate is a recognized quality indicator for pediatric colonoscopy. Our primary aim was to identify our single-center ileal intubation rate and to secondarily identify specific factors, including bowel preparation quality, procedure duration, and cecal intubation rates which affect successful ileal intubation and by extension, complete colonoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all colonoscopies in 2015 was completed, identifying 458 procedures. Sixty-seven patients were excluded, resulting in 391 colonoscopies reviewed.

RESULTS

We analyzed 391 colonoscopy procedures with a mean patient age of 14.4 ± 5.3 years. The most frequent primary indications for colonoscopy included abdominal pain with "red flag" symptoms (35.5%), known inflammatory bowel disease (25.1%), and isolated abdominal pain (11.5%). Ileal intubation was achieved in 91% of all colonoscopies, with a 94.4% cecal intubation rate. Failure of ileal and cecal intubations was classified into 4 categories: disease-related conditions, bowel preparation, technical aspects, and miscellaneous issues. Potentially modifiable factors accounted for the majority of cases of failed TI intubation. The mean colonoscopy time with and without successful TI intubation were 39 and 48.1 minutes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Completion of colonoscopy to the TI is an essential part of a complete colonoscopy. TI intubation was possible in 91% of patients. This rate could potentially improve to 95% with optimization of modifiable factors such as improving bowel preparation or further refinement of endoscopic skills.

Terminal ileum ileoscopy and histology in patients undergoing high-definition colonoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy for chronic nonbloody diarrhea: A prospective, multicenter study

Background and aims

Ileo-colonoscopy is the procedure of choice for chronic nonbloody diarrhea (CNBD) of unknown origin. Histological evaluation at different colonic sites is mandatory to assess the presence of microscopic colitis. However, the value of routine ileal biopsy on normal-appearing mucosa as assessed by means of standard-resolution white-light ileoscopy is controversial given its reported low diagnostic yield. Hence, we have assessed for the first time the accuracy of retrograde ileoscopy using high-definition and dyeless chromoendoscopy (HD + DLC), thereby calculating the impact and cost of routine ileal biopsy in CNBD.

Methods

Patients with CNBD of unknown origin were prospectively enrolled for ileo-colonoscopy with HD + DLC at five referral centers. Multiple biopsies were systematically performed on each colorectal segment and in the terminal ileum for histopathological analysis.

Results

Between 2014 and 2017, 546 consecutive patients were recruited. Retrograde ileoscopy success rate was 97.6%. A total of 492 patients (mean age: 53 ± 18 years) fulfilled all the inclusion criteria: Following endoscopic and histopathological work-up, 7% had lymphoid nodular hyperplasia and 3% had isolated ileitis. Compared to the histopathology as the gold standard, retrograde ileoscopy with HD + DLC showed 93% sensitivity, 98% specificity and 99.8% negative predictive value. In patients with normal ileo-colonoscopy, ileum histology had no diagnostic gain and resulted in a cost of US $26.5 per patient.

Conclusions

Retrograde ileoscopy with HD  +  DLC predicts the presence of ileitis in CNBD with excellent performance. The histopathological evaluation of the terminal ileum is the gold standard for the diagnostic assessment of visible lesions but has no added diagnostic value in CNBD patients with negative ileo-colonoscopy inspection using modern endoscopic imaging techniques.

Assessment of the Quality of Outpatient Endoscopic Procedures by Using a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic procedures represent an important part of daily practice, both for gastroenterologists and nurses, enabling diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. An optimal level of quality needs to be obtained for endoscopic procedures to be efficient, which is reflected directly by patient satisfaction. The Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire (GESQ) has already been validated in a multicenter trial as an efficient method for measuring patient satisfaction. Aim The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of endoscopic procedures and patient satisfaction by applying a modified version of the GESQ in an outpatient facility, with or without deep sedation performed under the supervision of an anesthesiologist.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study included 552 patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic upper and lower GI endoscopies, including endoscopic ultrasound procedures (EUS) performed under propofol sedation, from September 2015 to February 2016. Consecutive patients examined during these 6 months received the questionnaire which was handed by the endoscopy nurse two hours after procedure. The GESQ was modified to include different sections for: 1) communication skills with questions regarding the quantity and clarity of the information delivered to the patient before and after the procedures; 2) pain and discomfort related to the examination with an added question about the specific procedure the patient had undergone; 3) staff manners; 4) physician's technical skills; 5) facility organization (waiting time, comfort in the recovery room, good facilities and equipment) and 6) overall satisfaction. The questionnaire did not include personal data, while answers were analyzed in a confidential manner.

RESULTS

A total number of 552 patients agreed to answer our questionnaire, 192 (34,7%) underwent gastroscopies, 288 (52,1%) colonoscopies and 72 (13,2%) EUS examinations. Regarding the overall level of satisfaction (assessed on a five-point scale), 476 (86,2%) were very satisfied or satisfied, 69 (12,5%) dissatisfied and the remainder 7 (1,3%) were indifferently. For the communication section 16 (3%) patients were not satisfied with the explanations received before the procedure or with the answers to their questions. Pain and discomfort were mentioned by 29 (5,2%) of the patients, usually related to colonoscopies or EUS examinations. 13 (2,3%) of the patients considered the comfort or intimacy of the recovery room to be poor, and 11 (2%) patients were not satisfied with the waiting time before the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Our modified questionnaire showed good overall patient satisfaction with our endoscopy unit, while also suggesting some areas in need of improvement, such as staff communication skills, better time management and reorganization of the recovery area. Our study demonstrates the importance of such questionnaires in providing feedback information meant to improve standards in endoscopy, including staff skills and organization.

No Interval Cancers in Endoscopic Practice

Colonoscopy is long time the most preferred method for CRC screening along with diagnosis and treatment for a range of colon diseases. Based on its difficulty in visualizing precursor CRC lesions, mostly those located on the right colon, this method can be subject of improvement. The colonoscopy quality can be influenced by many factors such as colon preparation, retraction time, the colonoscopists medical training and knowledges as well as the performance of endoscopy equipment. The bad quality of colonoscopy will result in the emergence of interval cancers defined, based on the author, as cancers that appear at 3-5 years up to 10 years from the colonoscopy procedure. Interval cancers have predominantly incriminated both the colonoscopy quality and the clinician competences and less the tumor biology. Subsequently there were set quality indicators of colonoscopy in order to raise the quality of the exploration. Among the important indicators, proving their utility in studies, the ADR (adenoma detection rate) is most commonly used along with PDR (polyp detection rate) and APC (adenoma per colonoscopy). Following the purpose of obtaining a higher colonoscopy quality the medical units should keep in check all indicators. Furthermore, there should be an active involvement in an additional training of non-conforming medical personnel or even restrain of practice, given the medical legal actions that have interval cancers as a main cause.

A descriptive monitoring study of a non-anesthetist sedation quality program

INTRODUCTION

sedation substantially improves the quality of digestive endoscopy procedures but may result in severe complications.

METHODS

a joint commission-based multidisciplinary protocol was used to define a protocol for sedation by non-anesthesiologists. ASA 4 patients were excluded, as well as patients with a difficult airway, complex procedures and deep sedation. Quality based on the analysis of 9 indicators were monitored. Incomplete procedures were also monitored in order to assess efficacy.

RESULTS

patient safety was established based on a very low incidence of complications and a rate of respiratory events of 1.07. Furthermore, a low rate of hypotension and bradycardia was found, as well as a low rate of pain, either during or after endoscopy and an incidence of unexpected admissions lower than 0.5%. The quality indicators measured reflect the evolution of the results of the program.

CONCLUSIONS

ongoing sedation program monitoring in endoscopy allows the control of different quality dimensions and the implementation of steps for process improvement.

Quality Metrics of a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Background/Aims

Knowledge regarding the quality metrics of fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening programs is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance and quality metrics of a FIT-based screening program.

Methods

In our screening program, asymptomatic subjects aged ≥50 years underwent an annual FIT, and subjects with positive FIT results underwent a subsequent colonoscopy. The performance of the FIT and colonoscopy was analyzed in individuals with a positive FIT who completed the program between 2009 and 2015 at a university hospital.

Results

Among the 51,439 screened participants, 75.1% completed the FIT. The positive rate was 1.1%, and the colonoscopy completion rate in these patients was 68.6%. The positive predictive values of cancer and advanced neoplasia were 5.5% and 19.1%, respectively. The adenoma detection rate in the patients who underwent colonoscopy after a positive FIT was 48.2% (60.0% for men and 33.6% for women). The group with the highest tertile quantitative FIT level showed a significantly higher detection rate of advanced neoplasia than the group with the lowest tertile (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 5.1; p<0.001).

Conclusions

The quality metrics used in the United States and Europe may be directly introduced to other countries, including Korea. However, the optimal quality metrics should be established in each country.