Endoscopy reporting standards

Automated Detection of Anatomical Landmarks During Colonoscopy Using a Deep Learning Model

Background and aims

Identification and photo-documentation of the ileocecal valve (ICV) and appendiceal orifice (AO) confirm completeness of colonoscopy examinations. We aimed to develop and test a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model that can automatically identify ICV and AO, and differentiate these landmarks from normal mucosa and colorectal polyps.

Methods

We prospectively collected annotated full-length colonoscopy videos of 318 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopies. We created three nonoverlapping training, validation, and test data sets with 25,444 unaltered frames extracted from the colonoscopy videos showing four landmarks/image classes (AO, ICV, normal mucosa, and polyps). A DCNN classification model was developed, validated, and tested in separate data sets of images containing the four different landmarks.

Results

After training and validation, the DCNN model could identify both AO and ICV in 18 out of 21 patients (85.7%). The accuracy of the model for differentiating AO from normal mucosa, and ICV from normal mucosa were 86.4% (95% CI 84.1% to 88.5%), and 86.4% (95% CI 84.1% to 88.6%), respectively. Furthermore, the accuracy of the model for differentiating polyps from normal mucosa was 88.6% (95% CI 86.6% to 90.3%).

Conclusion

This model offers a novel tool to assist endoscopists with automated identification of AO and ICV during colonoscopy. The model can reliably distinguish these anatomical landmarks from normal mucosa and colorectal polyps. It can be implemented into automated colonoscopy report generation, photo-documentation, and quality auditing solutions to improve colonoscopy reporting quality.

Optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms: a comparison of rural versus urban documentation practices

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007-2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location.

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 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.

Predicting the future: introducing business analytics to endoscopy units

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

currently, most endoscopy software only provides limited statistics of past procedures, while none allows patterns to be extrapolated. To overcome this need, the authors applied business analytic models to predict future demand and the need for endoscopists in a tertiary hospital Endoscopy Unit.

METHODS

a query to the endoscopy database was performed to retrieve demand from 2015 to 2021. The graphical inspection allowed inferring of trends and seasonality, perceiving the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and selecting the best forecasting models. Considering COVID-19's impact in the second quarter of 2020, data for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy was estimated using linear regression of historical data. The actual demand in the first two quarters of 2022 was used to validate the models.

RESULTS

during the study period, 53,886 procedures were requested. The best forecasting models were: a) simple seasonal exponential smoothing for EGD, colonoscopy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG); b) double exponential smoothing for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy; and c) simple exponential smoothing for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The mean average percentage error ranged from 6.1 % (EGD) to 33.5 % (deep enteroscopy). Overall, 8,788 procedures were predicted for 2022. The actual demand in the first two quarters of 2022 was within the predicted range. Considering the usual time allocation for each technique, 3.2 full-time equivalent endoscopists (40 hours-dedication to endoscopy) will be required to perform all procedures in 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

the incorporation of business analytics into the endoscopy software and clinical practice may enhance resource allocation, improving patient-focused decision-making and healthcare quality.

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.

Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group

Background and Objectives

Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting.

Results

EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

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.

Management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an update for the general physician

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (AUGIB) is one of the most common medical emergencies in the UK, with roughly one presentation every 6 min. Despite advances in therapeutics and endoscopy provision, mortality following AUGIB over the last two decades has remained high, with over 9,000 deaths annually in the UK; consequently, several national bodies have published UK-relevant guidelines. Despite this, the 2015 UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death in AUGIB highlighted variations in practice, raised concerns regarding suboptimal patient care and released a series of recommendations. This review paper incorporates the latest available evidence and UK-relevant guidelines to summarise the optimal pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and post-endoscopic approach to and management of non-variceal and variceal AUGIB that will be of practical value to both general physicians and gastroenterologists.

Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention

Background and Aim

In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality.

Methods

This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists.

Results

Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The high-quality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%).

Conclusions

A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.

Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A comparative study of outcomes after an improvement programme in a tertiary hospital

INTRODUCTION

There is an opportunity for improvement in the recording and measuring of quality indicators. However, no previous experiences exist in our field in terms of their compliance in esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).

OBJECTIVE

To analyse compliance with EGD quality criteria and evaluate improvement after conducting a training programme.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Comparative study of 2 cohorts: one retrospective (control group) and one prospective (intervention group), before and after a training programme consisting of an information session and the report writing improvement programme. The quality indicators proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology were used.

RESULTS

A total of 1,200 EGDs were included in a sequential manner (600 in each group). Following the training programme, a significant improvement was observed in the following indicators: documented indication (93 vs. 99.8%; P<0.01), documented full examinations (94.7 vs. 97.3%; P<0.01), correct performance (63.7 vs. 87.9%; P<0.01), appropriate biopsies according to protocols (57.9 vs. 83.8%; P<0.01), photo-documentation of described lesions (84.1 vs. 94.9%; P<0.01), photo-documentation per segment (52.9 vs. 70.5%; P<0.01) and correct overall assessment (56,9 vs. 90.5%; P<0.01). Biopsies for coeliac disease, documented indication, full examination and correct performance, if it went ahead, exceeded the recommended standard.

CONCLUSION

A very simple training programme improves EGD quality indicators, with the majority reaching the standards recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology.

Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy: introduction to structure, process, and outcome common indicators

The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.

Defining quality indicators for best-practice management of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of published data regarding the quality of care of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in Canada. Clinical quality indicators are quantitative end points used to guide, monitor and improve the quality of patient care. In Canada, where universal health care can vary significantly among provinces, quality indicators can be used to identify potential gaps in the delivery of IBD care and standardize the approach to interprovincial management.

METHODS

The Emerging Practice in IBD Collaborative (EPIC) group generated a shortlist of IBD quality indicators based on a comprehensive literature review. An iterative voting process was used to select quality indicators to take forward. In a face-to-face meeting with the EPIC group, available evidence to support each quality indicator was presented by the EPIC member aligned to it, followed by group discussion to agree on the wording of the statements. The selected quality indicators were then ratified in a final vote by all EPIC members.

RESULTS

Eleven quality indicators for the management of IBD within the single-payer health care system of Canada were developed. These focus on accurate diagnosis, appropriate and timely management, disease monitoring, and prevention or treatment of complications of IBD or its therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These quality indicators are measurable, reflective of the evidence base and expert opinion, and define a standard of care that is at least a minimum that should be expected for IBD management in Canada. The next steps for the EPIC group involve conducting research to assess current practice across Canada as it pertains to these quality indicators and to measure the impact of each of these indicators on patient outcomes.