Quality Indicators in Barrett's Esophagus: Time to Change the Status Quo

Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders

Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.

Impact of Residing in Below Median Household Income Districts on Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Barrett's Esophagus

Background

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Low socioeconomic (SES) status adversely impacts care and outcomes in patients with EAC, but this has not been evaluated in BE. As the treatment of BE is similarly intensive, we aimed to evaluate the effect of SES on achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM), dysplasia (CE-D) and development of invasive EAC.

Methods

Our study was a retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, referred for BE-associated high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma were included. Pre, intra and post-procedural data were collected. Household income data was collected from the 2016 census based on postal code region. Patients were divided into income groups relative to the 2016 median household income in Ontario. Multivariate regression was performed for outcomes of interest.

Results

Four hundred and fifty-nine patients were included. Rate of CE-IM was similar between income groups. Fifty-five per cent (n = 144/264) versus 65% (n = 48/264) in the below and above-income groups achieved CE-D, respectively, P = 0.02. Eighteen per cent (n = 48/264) versus 11% (n = 22/195) were found to have invasive EAC during their treatment course in below and above-income groups, respectively, P = 0.04. Residing in a below-median-income district was associated with developing invasive EAC (Odds Ratio, [OR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 3.35) and failure to achieve CE-D (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.97).

Conclusions

Residing in low-income districts is associated with worse outcomes in patients with advanced BE. Further research is needed to guide future initiatives to address the potential impact of SES barriers in the optimal care of BE.

Clinical variation in surveillance and management of Barrett's esophagus: A cross-sectional study of gastroenterologists and gastrointestinal surgeons

Appropriate surveillance and treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is vital to prevent disease progression and decrease esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)-related mortality. We sought to determine the variation in BE care and identify improvement opportunities. 275 physicians (113 general gastroenterologists, 128 interventional gastroenterologists, 34 gastrointestinal surgeons) cared for 3 simulated patients, one each from 3 BE clinical scenarios: non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), BE indefinite for dysplasia (IND), and BE with low grade dysplasia (LGD), and care scores were measured against societal guidelines. Overall quality-of-care scores ranged from 17% to 85% with mean of 47.9% ± 11.8% for NDBE, 50.8% ± 11.7% for IND, and 52.7% ± 12.2% for LGD. Participants appropriately determined risk of progression 20.3% of the time: 14.4% for NDBE cases, 19.9% for LGD cases, and 26.8% for IND cases (P = .001). Treatment and follow-up care scores averaged 12.9% ± 17.5% overall. For the LGD cases, guideline-recommended twice-daily PPI treatment was ordered only 24.7% of the time. Guideline-based follow-up endoscopic surveillance was done in only 27.7% of NDBE cases and 32.7% of IND cases. For the LGD cases, 45.4% ordered endoscopic eradication therapy while 25.1% chose annual endoscopic surveillance. Finally, participants provided counseling on lifestyle modifications in just 20% of cases. Overall care of patients diagnosed with BE varied widely and showed room for improvement. Specific opportunities for improvement were adherence to guideline recommended surveillance intervals, patient counseling, and treatment selection for LGD. Physicians would potentially benefit from additional BE education, endoscopic advances, and better methods for risk stratification.