Quality indicators for endoscopic ultrasonography

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.

The assessment of endosonographers in training

Endosonography (EUS) has an estimated long learning curve including the acquisition of both technical and cognitive skills. Trainees in EUS must learn to master intraprocedural steps such as echoendoscope handling and ultrasonographic imaging with the interpretation of normal anatomy and any pathology. In addition, there is a need to understand the periprocedural parts of the EUS-examination such as the indications and contraindications for EUS and potential adverse events that could occur post-EUS. However, the learning process and progress vary widely among endosonographers in training. Consequently, the performance of a certain number of supervised procedures during training does not automatically guarantee adequate competence in EUS. Instead, the assessment of EUS-competence should preferably be performed by the use of an assessment tool developed specifically for the evaluation of endosonographers in training. Such a tool, covering all the different steps of the EUS-procedure, would better depict the individual learning curve and better reflect the true competence of each trainee. This mini-review will address the issue of clinical education in EUS with respect to the evaluation of endosonographers in training. The aim of the article is to provide an informative overview of the topic. The relevant literature of the field will be reviewed and discussed. The current knowledge on how to assess the skills and competence of endosonographers in training is presented in detail.

Impact of endoscopic ultrasound quality assessment on improving endoscopic ultrasound reports and procedures

AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 survey of EUS using standardized quality indicators (QIs).

METHODS: Per EUS exam, 27 QIs were assessed individually and by grouping pre-, intra-, and post-procedural parameters. The recorded QI frequencies from 200 reports (2013-2014) were compared to corresponding data of 100 reports from the quality control study of EUS in 2009. Data for QIs added after 2009 to professional guidelines (added after 2010) were also tabulated.

RESULTS: Significant differences (P-value < 0.05) were found for 13 of 20 of the relevant QIs examined. 4 of 5 pre-procedural QIs, 6 of 10 intra-procedural QIs, and 3 of 5 post-procedural QIs all demonstrated significant upgrading with a P-value < 0.05.

CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were demonstrated in QI adherence and thus EUS reporting and delivery quality when the 2013-2014 reports were compared to 2009 results. QI implementation facilitates effective high-quality EUS exams by ensuring comprehensive documentation while limiting error.

Reported findings on endoscopic ultrasound examinations for chronic pancreatitis: toward establishing an endoscopic ultrasound quality benchmark

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) quality benchmarks for pancreatic disease previously focused on maintaining thresholds of diagnostic accuracy for fine-needle aspiration and measuring complications. We aimed to evaluate quality indicators when performing EUS specifically for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis (CP).

METHODS

Using a single-center EUS database, we identified patients who underwent an EUS since 2001 specifically for the indication of (1) suspected CP, (2) exclusion of CP, or (3) established CP. Each EUS report was evaluated for the number of parenchymal and ductal criteria as per minimal standards terminology criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-six EUS examinations performed by 4 endosonographers were included. The mean number of reported evaluated parenchymal criteria was 2.44 (median, 2), and that of ductal criteria was 2.41 (median, 2). There was a difference among endosonographers in terms of mean number of total criteria reported evaluated (P < 0.001): endosonographer 1 = 3.9 (n = 174 examinations), endosonographer 2 = 6.8 (n = 86 examinations), endosonographer 3 = 6.2 (n = 13 examinations), and endosonographer 4 = 2.5 (n = 11 examinations). However, there was no difference between endosonographers in the number of total (parenchymal and ductal) criteria found.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a discrepancy among endosonographers when reporting which EUS findings were evaluated in patients undergoing EUS specifically to diagnose CP.

Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has gained wide acceptance as an important, minimally invasive diagnostic tool in gastroenterology, pulmonology, visceral surgery and oncology. This review focuses on data regarding risks and complications of non-interventional diagnostic EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Measures to improve the safety of EUS und EUS-FNB will be discussed. Due to the specific mechanical properties of echoendoscopes in EUS, there is a low but noteworthy risk of perforation. To minimize this risk, endoscopists should be familiar with the specific features of their equipment and their patients’ specific anatomical situations (e.g., tumor stenosis, diverticula). Most diagnostic EUS complications occur during EUS-FNB. Pain, acute pancreatitis, infection and bleeding are the primary adverse effects, occurring in 1% to 2% of patients. Only a few cases of needle tract seeding and peritoneal dissemination have been reported. The mortality associated with EUS and EUS-FNB is 0.02%. The risks associated with EUS-FNB are affected by endoscopist experience and target lesion. EUS-FNB of cystic lesions is associated with an increased risk of infection and hemorrhage. Peri-interventional antibiotics are recommended to prevent cyst infection. Adequate education and training, as well consideration of contraindications, are essential to minimize the risks of EUS and EUS-FNB. Restricting EUS-FNB only to patients in whom the cytopathological results may be expected to change the course of management is the best way of reducing the number of complications.

Learning curve for double-balloon enteroscopy: Findings from an analysis of 282 procedures

AIM: To determine the learning curves for antegrade double-balloon enteroscopy (aDBE) and retrograde DBE (rDBE) by analyzing the technical success rates.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis in a tertiary referral center. This study reviewed all cases from June 2006 to April 2011 with a target lesion in the small-bowel identified by either capsule endoscopy or computed tomography scan posted for DBE examinations. Main outcome measurements were: (1) Technical success of aDBE defined by finding or excluding a target lesion after achieving sufficient length of small bowel intubation; and (2) Technical success for rDBE was defined by either finding the target lesion or achieving stable overtube placement in the ileum.

RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty two procedures fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. These procedures were analyzed by blocks of 30 cases. There was no distinct learning curve for aDBE. Technical success rates for rDBE continued to rise over time, although on logistic regression analysis testing for trend, there was no significance (P = 0.09). The odds of success increased by a factor of 1.73 (95% CI: 0.93-3.22) for rDBE. For these data, it was estimated that at least 30-35 cases of rDBE under supervision were needed to achieve a good technical success of more than 75%.

CONCLUSION: There was no learning curve for aDBE. Technical success continued to increase over time for rDBE, although a learning curve could not be proven statistically. Approximately 30-35 cases of rDBE will be required for stable overtube intubation in ileum.

Improving colonoscopy quality through health-care payment reform

Problems with the quality of colonoscopy are well recognized. Variation in colonoscopist performance is compounded by payment structures that reward volume rather than quality. Payment reform has emerged as one strategy to address these and more systemic problems in the quality of health care. Various forms of value-based purchasing might encourage a realignment of incentives, and allow reimbursement to be directly linked with clinically important goals of colonoscopy. This paper proposes criteria for the selection of quality measures, and three candidate indicators to define quality for the purpose of payment reform in colonoscopy: cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and recommended post-polypectomy surveillance interval. These measures represent valid, credible, and reliable indicators of the quality of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Payment reform should explicitly link public reporting and performance on these quality measures to payment for colonoscopy.

Esophageal cancer: ultrasonography

Esophageal malignancy is a major source of morbidity and mortality, despite the recently increased attention to screening and early detection. Prognosis for esophageal cancer remains grim, with advanced tumor stage and lymph node metastases conferring even graver outcomes. Several studies have demonstrated that the addition of preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy may improve survival in patients with locally advanced tumor (T3) disease or local lymph node metastases. It is here that endoscopic ultrasonography finds its niche in the precise staging of these tumors and the subsequent use of stage-dependent treatment protocols.

Defining and measuring endoscopic complications: more questions than answers

The demand for information on quality in health care has risen sharply over the past decade. Endoscopic outcomes, including complication rates, need to be accurately measured and reported. Such documentation continues to be problematic because of the lack of a widely accepted classification system for endoscopic complications. Such a system should (1) include unequivocal definitions for the various types of negative outcomes and categories of complications; (2) define what negative outcomes are to be classified as complications, and (3) standardize the stratification of complications by severity. Establishing such a standardized classification of endoscopic complications could facilitate clinical research, improve the position of gastroenterologists vis-à-vis pay-for-performance programs, and result in better and more meaningful quality improvement programs, ultimately improving the care provided to patients.