A Delphi Method for Development of a Barrett's Esophagus Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Optimal Patient-physician Communication

BACKGROUND METHODS

The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as "essential" or "important" were included in Barrett's esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1).

RESULTS

Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds.

CONCLUSIONS

With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Modified Delphi Study

GOALS

Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).

BACKGROUND

IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging.

STUDY

Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process.

RESULTS

All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2's virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient's presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning.

CONCLUSION

Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

Quality Indicators for the Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Despite best practice recommendations for managing eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), variation in care exists.

METHODS

We used established methodology for quality indicator development to identify metrics to define quality for the treatment of EoE.

RESULTS

Among 29 proposed quality indicator statements, 9 (31%) were adopted as highly valid across all categories. Two (22%) of these statements were identified as having existing or suspected quality gaps.

DISCUSSION

We identified highly valid EoE quality indicators for adult gastroenterologists, which can be used for quality improvement with resulting benefits for patient outcomes.

Achalasia Quality Indicator Adherence

BACKGROUND

Quality indicators (QIs) are formal ways to track health care performance and outcomes, guide quality improvement, and identify gaps in care delivery. We developed twelve quality indicators for achalasia management which cover the domains of patient education, diagnosis, and treatment of achalasia.

AIM

To determine adherence to established quality indicators for achalasia management.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, multicenter evaluation of care patterns for adult patients greater than 18 years old with newly diagnosed achalasia from January 2018 to May 2020. A balanced random patient sample was obtained at four large academic medical centers. Independent electronic health record chart abstraction was performed using a standardized form to determine adherence to applicable QIs. Pooled and de-identified data were analyzed to identify gaps in care.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were included and the overall adherence to applicable quality indicators across all centers was 86%. The median follow-up for all patients from time of diagnosis to end of study was 511 days. Clinicians adhered to all applicable quality indicators in 49 patients (39%). The quality indicator domain with the poorest adherence was patient education (67%), with 50% of patients having had a documented discussion of the risks of gastroesophageal reflux disease following surgical or endoscopic myotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps in the quality of achalasia care delivery were identified, the largest of which relates to patient education about treatment risks. These findings highlight a potential area for future quality improvement studies and form the basis for developing fully specified quality measures.

Development of quality indicators for the diagnosis and management of achalasia

BACKGROUND

The management of achalasia has improved due to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. However, variability in care delivery remains and no established measures defining quality of care for this population exist. We aimed to use formal methodology to establish quality indicators for achalasia patients.

METHODS

Quality indicator concepts were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines and clinical experts. Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, experts in achalasia independently ranked proposed concepts in a two-round modified Delphi process based on 1) importance, 2) scientific acceptability, 3) usability, and 4) feasibility. Highly valid measures required strict agreement (≧ 80% of panelists) in the range of 7-9 for across all four categories.

KEY RESULTS

There were 17 experts who rated 26 proposed quality indicator topics. In round one, 2 (8%) quality measures were rated valid. In round two, 19 measures were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts rated 10 (53%) of these measures as valid, resulting in a total of 12 quality indicators. Two measures pertained to patient education and five to diagnosis, including discussing treatment options with risk and benefits and using the most recent version of the Chicago Classification to define achalasia phenotypes, respectively. Other indicators pertained to treatment options, such as the use of botulinum toxin for those not considered surgical candidates and management of reflux following achalasia treatment.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Using a robust methodology, achalasia quality indicators were identified, which can form the basis for establishing quality gaps and generating fully specified quality measures.

Insights Into the Oral Microbiome and Barrett's Esophagus Early Detection: A Narrative Review

Barrett's esophagus (BE) prevalence has increased steadily over the past several decades and continues to be the only known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The exact cause of BE is still unknown. Most evidence has linked BE to gastroesophageal reflux disease, which injures squamous esophageal mucosa and can result in the development of columnar epithelium with intestinal metaplasia. However, this relationship is inconsistent-not all patients with severe gastroesophageal reflux disease develop BE. There is increasing evidence that the host microbiome spanning the oral and esophageal environments differs in patients with and without BE. Several studies have documented the oral and esophageal microbiome's composition for BE with inconsistent findings. The scarcity and inconsistency of the literature and the dynamic phenomena of microbiota all warrant further studies to validate the findings and dissect the effects of oral microbiota, which are considered a viable proxy to represent esophageal microbiota by many researchers. This review aims to summarize the variability of the oral and esophageal microbiome in BE by using the example of Streptococcus to discuss the limitations of the current studies and suggest future directions. Further characterization of the sensitivity and specificity of the oral microbiome as a potential risk prediction or prevention marker of BE is critical, which will help develop noninvasive early detection methods for BE, esophageal adenocarcinoma, and other esophageal diseases.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Barrett Esophagus in the Elderly

As our population continues to age, the early diagnosis and optimal management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease becomes paramount. Maintaining a low threshold for evaluating atypical symptoms in this population is key to improving outcomes. Should patients develop complications including severe esophagitis, peptic stricture, or Barrett esophagus, then a discussion of medical, endoscopic, and surgical treatments that accounts for patient's comorbidities and survival is important. Advances in screening, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment of Barrett esophagus have allowed us to dispel concerns of futility and treat a larger subset of the at-risk population.

A Case of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis Presenting During Relapse of Ulcerative Colitis

Patient: Male, 27

Final Diagnosis: Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis

Symptoms: Headache • seizure • weakness

Medication: —

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Course of Esophageal Candidiasis and Outcomes of Patients at a Single Center

Candida infection in the gastrointestinal tract is most studied in immunocompromised patients. Patients without systemic immunodeficiency, however, may have esophageal candidiasis associated with antibiotic or steroid medication use, alcoholic consumption, diabetes mellitus, and esophageal stasis disorders such achalasia or scleroderma esophagus.^1-5 This population has not been well studied. We aim to describe demographics, risk factors, and relevant clinical outcomes for patients with Candida esophagitis with an emphasis in systemically immunocompetent patients.

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy interpretation and feature analysis in dysplastic Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) is used to identify Barrett's esophagus (BE) dysplasia. Selection of a dysplastic region of interest (ROI) can be challenging due to feature variability across a large amount of data. The degree of agreement among VLE users in selecting a ROI has not been studied.

METHODS

High-definition videos that divided a VLE scan from 18 patients with biopsy-proven BE dysplasia into 1-cm segments were reviewed using a four-quadrant grid superimposed for systematic interpretation. VLE scans were selected based on image quality and appropriate visualization of BE epithelium. Four experienced VLE users rated each quadrant as dysplastic or non-dysplastic. For quadrants rated as dysplastic, reviewers selected a single timeframe with representative features. A high-degree of agreement among reviewers was defined as ≥75% agreement on the quadrant diagnosis and ≥50% agreement on selected timeframe (±2 s).

RESULTS

Thirty-one videos, each 32 s in length, comprising 124 quadrants were reviewed. There was high-agreement among reviewers in 99 (80%) quadrants, of which 68 (69%) were rated as dysplastic. Compared with quadrants rated as non-dysplastic, ROIs of quadrants rated as dysplastic contained a higher number of epithelial glands (12.7 vs 1.2, P < 0.001) with atypical architecture (54 vs 1, P < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between the signal intensity profiles of quadrants rated as dysplastic and quadrants rated as non-dysplastic (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights that experienced VLE users can identify ROIs with high-degree of agreement. Selected ROIs contained VLE features associated with BE dysplasia.

Point-Counterpoint: Screening and Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus, Is It Worthwhile?

The exponential rise in incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), paired with persistently poor survival, continues to drive efforts to improve and optimize screening and surveillance practices. While advancements in endoscopic therapy have generated a shift in management and significantly improved the outcomes of patients with early-stage EAC, the majority of prevalent EAC continues to be diagnosed at advanced stages, remaining ineligible for curative therapy. Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening, when applied to high-yield target populations, using minimally or noninvasive accurate tests, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect prevalent or incident dysplasia/EAC (which can then be treated successfully) is the cornerstone of the current BE management paradigm. While supported by some empiric evidence and attractive, this approach faces a number of challenges, which are also balanced by numerous recent advances in these areas. In this manuscript, we review the rationale, supportive evidence, current challenges, and recent progress in BE screening and surveillance.