Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopy units.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: ASGE Endoscopy Unit Quality Indicator Taskforce
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5990988 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopy units.
Day Lukejohn W LW Cohen Jonathan J Greenwald David D Petersen Bret T BT Schlossberg Nancy S NS Vicari Joseph J JJ Calderwood Audrey H AH Chapman Frank J FJ Cohen Lawrence B LB Eisen Glenn G Gerstenberger Patrick D PD Hambrick Ralph David RD Inadomi John M JM MacIntosh Donald D Sewell Justin L JL Valori Roland R
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20170526 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsHealthcare professionals are required to conduct quality control of endoscopy procedures, and yet there is no standardised method for assessing quality. The topic of the present study was to validate the applicability of the procedure in daily practice, giving physicians the ability to define areas for continuous quality improvement.MethodsIn ten endoscopy units in France, 200 patients per centre undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. An evaluation was carried out based on a prospectively developed checklist of 10 quality-control indicators including five dependent upon and five independent of the colonoscopy procedure.ResultsOf the 2000 procedures, 30% were done at general hospitals, 20% at university hospitals, and 50% in private practices. The colonoscopies were carried out for a valid indication for 95.9% (range 92.5-100). Colon preparation was insufficient in 3.7% (range 1-10.5). Colonoscopies were successful in 95.3% (range 81-99). Adenoma detection rate was 0.31 (range 0.17-0.45) in successful colonoscopies.ConclusionThis tool for evaluating the quality of colonoscopy procedures in healthcare units is based on standard endoscopy and patient criteria. It is an easy and feasible procedure giving the ability to detect suboptimal practice and differences between endoscopy-units. It will enable individual units to assess the quality of their colonoscopy techniques.
| S-EPMC3324486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Capsule endoscopy (CE) enables evaluation of the entire mucosal surface of the small bowel (SB), which is one of the most important steps for evaluating obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Although the diagnostic yield of SB CE depends on many clinical factors, there are no reports on quality indicators. Thus, the Korean Gut Image Study Group (KGISG) publishes an article titled, "Quality Indicators for Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy" under approval from the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Herein, we initially identified process quality indicators, while the structural and outcome indicators are reserved until sufficient clinical data are accumulated. We believe that outcomes of SB CE can be improved by trying to meet our proposed quality indicators.
| S-EPMC5398361 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10504040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To develop standards for high quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has established the ESGE Quality Improvement Committee. A prerequisite for quality assurance and improvement for all gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures is state-of-the-art integrated digital reporting systems for standardized documentation of the procedures. The current paper describes the ESGE's viewpoints on requirements for high-quality endoscopy reporting systems. The following recommendations are issued: Endoscopy reporting systems must be electronic.Endoscopy reporting systems should be integrated into hospital patient record systems.Endoscopy reporting systems should include patient identifiers to facilitate data linkage to other data sources.Endoscopy reporting systems shall restrict the use of free text entry to a minimum, and be based mainly on structured data entry.Separate entry of data for quality or research purposes is discouraged. Automatic data transfer for quality and research purposes must be facilitated.Double entry of data by the endoscopist or associate personnel is discouraged. Available data from outside sources (administrative or medical) must be made available automatically.Endoscopy reporting systems shall enable the inclusion of information on histopathology of detected lesions; patient's satisfaction; adverse events; surveillance recommendations.Endoscopy reporting systems must facilitate easy data retrieval at any time in a universally compatible format.Endoscopy reporting systems must include data fields for key performance indicators as defined by quality improvement committees.Endoscopy reporting systems must facilitate changes in indicators and data entry fields as required by professional organizations.
| S-EPMC4804380 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been recently identified as a major priority being associated with many outcomes and patient's experience.ObjectiveTo assess adherence of endoscopists to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy in Italy.MethodsAll endoscopist members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) were invited from October 2018 to December 2018 to participate to a self-administered questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire included questions on demographics and professional characteristics, and the recent ESGE quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy.ResultsA total of 392 endoscopists participated in the study. Only a minority (18.2%) of participants recorded the duration of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 51% provided accurate photo documentation in the minimum standard of 90% of cases. Almost all endoscopists correctly used Prague and Los Angeles classifications (87.8% and 98.2%, respectively), as well as Seattle and Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS) biopsy protocols (86.5% and 91.4%, respectively). However, only 52.8% of participants monitored complications after therapeutic EGD, and 40.8% recorded patients with a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE). With regard to colonoscopy, almost all endoscopists (93.9%) used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for measuring bowel preparation quality and reported a cecal intubation rate ≥90%. However, about a quarter (26.2%) of participants reported an adenoma detection rate of <25%, only 52.8% applied an appropriate polypectomy technique, 48% monitored complications after the procedure, and 12.4% measured patient's experience.ConclusionThe adherence of endoscopists to ESGE performance measures for GI endoscopy is sub-optimal in Italy. There is a need to disseminate and implement performance measures and endorse educational and scientific interventions on the quality of endoscopy.
| S-EPMC9018975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & study aimsCorona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has markedly impacted routine medical services including gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We aim to report the real-life performance in high volume GI endoscopy units during the pandemic.Patients and methodsA web-based survey covering all aspects of daily performance in GI endoscopy units was sent to endoscopy units worldwide. Responses were collected and data were analyzed to reveal the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on endoscopy practice.ResultsParticipants from 48 countries (n = 163) responded to the survey with response rate of 67.35%. The majority (85%) decreased procedure volume by over 50%, and four endoscopy units (2.45%) completely stopped. The top three indications for procedures included upper GI bleeding (89.6%), lower GI bleeding (65.6%) and cholangitis (62.6%). The majority (93.9%) triaged patients for COVID-19 prior to procedure. N95 masks were used in (57.1%), isolation gowns in (74.2%) and head covers in (78.5%). Most centers (65%) did not extend use of N95 masks, however 50.9% of centers reused N95 masks. Almost all (91.4%) centers used standard endoscopic decontamination and most (69%) had no negative pressure rooms. Forty-two centers (25.8%) reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients and 50 (30.7%) centers reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among their healthcare workers.ConclusionsMost GI endoscopy centers had a significant reduction in their volume and most procedures performed were urgent. Most centers used the recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) by GI societies however there is still a possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in GI endoscopy units.
| S-EPMC7448955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To assess and improve the effectiveness of ICU care, in-hospital mortality rates are often used as principal quality indicator for benchmarking purposes. Two other often used, easily quantifiable, quality indicators to assess the efficiency of ICU care are based on readmission to the ICU and ICU length of stay. Our aim was to examine whether there is an association between case-mix adjusted outcome-based quality indicators in the general ICU population as well as within specific subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We included patients admitted in 2015 of all Dutch ICUs. We derived the standardized in-hospital mortality ratio (SMR); the standardized readmission ratio (SRR); and the standardized length of stay ratio (SLOSR). We expressed association through Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS:The SMR ranged from 0.6 to 1.5; the SRR ranged from 0.7 to 2.1; and the SLOSR ranged from 0.7 to 1.3. For the total ICU population we found no significant associations. We found a positive, non-significant, association between SMR and SLOSR for admissions with low-mortality risk, (r = 0.25; p = 0.024), and a negative association between these indicators for admissions with high-mortality risk (r = -0.49; p<0.001). CONCLUSION:Overall, we found no association at ICU population level. Differential associations were found between performance on mortality and length of stay within different risk strata. We recommend users of quality information to take these three outcome indicators into account when benchmarking ICUs as they capture different aspects of ICU performance. Furthermore, we suggest to report quality indicators for patient subgroups.
| S-EPMC5999279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have a vision to create a thriving community of endoscopy services across Europe, collaborating with each other to provide high quality, safe, accurate, patient-centered and accessible endoscopic care. Whilst the boundaries of what can be achieved by advanced endoscopy are continually expanding, we believe that one of the most fundamental steps to achieving our goal is to raise the quality of everyday endoscopy. The development of robust, consensus- and evidence-based key performance measures is the first step in this vision. ESGE and UEG have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority. This paper explains the rationale behind the ESGE Quality Improvement Initiative and describes the processes that were followed. We recommend that all units develop mechanisms for audit and feedback of endoscopist and service performance using the ESGE performance measures that will be published in future issues of this journal over the next year. We urge all endoscopists and endoscopy services to prioritize quality and to ensure that these performance measures are implemented and monitored at a local level, so that we can provide the highest possible care for our patients.
| S-EPMC4766555 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and aimsArtificial intelligence (AI)-based applications have transformed several industries and are widely used in various consumer products and services. In medicine, AI is primarily being used for image classification and natural language processing and has great potential to affect image-based specialties such as radiology, pathology, and gastroenterology (GE). This document reviews the reported applications of AI in GE, focusing on endoscopic image analysis.MethodsThe MEDLINE database was searched through May 2020 for relevant articles by using key words such as machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, computer-aided diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, GI endoscopy, and endoscopic image analysis. References and citations of the retrieved articles were also evaluated to identify pertinent studies. The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed in person by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board.ResultsDeep learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks have been used in several areas of GI endoscopy, including colorectal polyp detection and classification, analysis of endoscopic images for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection, detection and depth assessment of early gastric cancer, dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus, and detection of various abnormalities in wireless capsule endoscopy images.ConclusionsThe implementation of AI technologies across multiple GI endoscopic applications has the potential to transform clinical practice favorably and improve the efficiency and accuracy of current diagnostic methods.
| S-EPMC7732722 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Standards for good practice in clinical risk management issued by the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts indicate that "appropriate information is provided to patients on the risks and benefits of proposed treatment, and of the alternatives available before a signature on a consent form is sought". AIMS:To investigate the practicability and patient acceptability of a postal information and consent booklet for patients undergoing outpatient gastroscopy. METHODS:Information about gastroscopy procedure, personalised appointment details, and a carbonised consent form were compiled into a single booklet. This was mailed to patients well in advance of their endoscopic procedure. Patient satisfaction for this new process was assessed by questionnaire. RESULTS:275 patients received a patient information booklet. Of these, 150 (54.5%) returned the consent form by post when they confirmed their attendance; 141 (94%) had signed the form, and the other nine requested further information. Of the remaining 125 booklets sent out, 115 (92%) forms were brought back on the day of the investigation having been previously signed. The remaining 10 (8%) required further information before signing the form. An audit of 168 patients was used to test reaction to the booklet and the idea of filling in the form before coming to hospital; 155 patients (92. 2%) reported the information given in the booklet to be "very useful", and all reported it to be "clear and understandable". CONCLUSION:A specifically designed patient information booklet with integral consent form is accepted by patients, and improves the level of understanding prior to the investigation being carried out.
| S-EPMC1727779 | biostudies-literature