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

Quality indicators in gastroscopy. Gastroscopy procedure

Within the project "Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy", pioneered by the Spanish Society for Digestive Diseases (SEPD), the objective of this research is to suggest the structure, process, and results procedures and indicators necessary to implement and assess quality in the gastroscopy setting. First, a chart was designed with the steps to be followed during a gastroscopy procedure. Secondly, a team of experts in care quality and/or endoscopy performed a qualitative review of the literature searching for quality indicators for endoscopic procedures, including gastroscopies. Finally, using a paired analysis approach, a selection of the literature obtained was undertaken. For gastroscopy, a total of nine process indicators were identified (one preprocedure, eight intraprocedure). Evidence quality was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification scale.

Quality indicators in enteroscopy. Enteroscopy procedure

Within the project "Quality Indicators in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy," under the leadership of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), our goal is to propose the procedures and the structure, process, and outcome indicators required for the application and assessment of quality in enteroscopy. To this end a search was performed for quality indicators in enteroscopy. Quality of evidence was measured by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, and classified as high, moderate, low, and very low. A total of 10 process indicators (one preprocedure, eight procedure, one postprocedure) were identified for enteroscopy, with appropriate indication and choice of most efficient route being most significant.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

The aim of the project this paper is part of was to propose quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. In this second issue, procedures and indicators are suggested regarding colonoscopy. First, a diagram charting the previous and subsequent steps of colonoscopy was designed. A group of experts in health care quality and/or endoscopy, under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD), performed a qualitative review of the literature regarding colonoscopy-related quality indicators. Subsequently, using a paired-analysis method, the aforementioned literature was selected and analyzed. A total of 13 specific indicators were found aside of the common markers elsewhere described, ten of which are process-related (one pre-procedure, seven procedure, and two post-procedure markers) while the remaining three are outcome-related. Quality of evidence was assessed for each one of them using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) classification.

Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The procedure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

The goal of the project encompassing the present paper is to propose useful quality procedures and indicators in order to improve quality in digestive endoscopy units. In this third part outcome procedures and indicators are suggested for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). First, a diagram of pre- and post-ERCP steps was developed. A group of experts in healthcare quality and/or endoscopy, under the shelter of the Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases (Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva - SEPD), carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding quality indicators for ERCP. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of identified references. A total of six specific indicators, apart from the common indicators already described, were identified, all of them process indicators (two pre-procedure and four post-procedure). Evidence quality was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.