Dataset Information

Checklist feasibility and impact in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

ABSTRACT: Background and study aim ?Checklists prevent errors and have a positive impact on patient morbidity and mortality in surgical settings. Despite increasing use of checklists in gastrointestinal endoscopy units across many countries, a summary of cumulated experience is lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the feasibility of successful checklist implementation in gastrointestinal endoscopy units and summarise the evidence of its impact on the commitment in safety culture. Methods ?A comprehensive literature search was performed identifying the use of a checklist or time-out in endoscopy units from 1978 to January 2020 using OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases, with search terms related to checklist and endoscopy. We summarised overall adherence to checklists from included studies through a narrative synthesis, characterizing barriers and facilitators according to nurse and physician perspectives, while also summarizing safety endpoints. Results ?The seven studies selected from 673 screened citations were highly heterogeneous in terms of methodology, context, and outcomes. Across five of these, checklist adherence rates post-intervention varied for both nurses (84?% to 96?%) and physicians (66?% to 95?%). Various facilitators (education, continued reassessment) and barriers (lack of safety culture, checklist completion time) were identified. Most studies did not report associations between checklist implementation and clinical outcomes, except for better team communication. Conclusion ?Implementation of a gastrointestinal endoscopy checklist is feasible, with an understanding of relevant barriers and facilitators. Apart from a significant increase in the perception of team communication, evidence for a measurable impact attributable to gastrointestinal checklist implementation on endoscopic processes and safety outcomes is limited and warrants further study.

SUBMITTER: Bitar V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7895652 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Checklist feasibility and impact in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Bitar Véronique V Martel Myriam M Restellini Sophie S Barkun Alan A Kherad Omar O

Endoscopy international open 20210219 3

<b>Background and study aim</b> Checklists prevent errors and have a positive impact on patient morbidity and mortality in surgical settings. Despite increasing use of checklists in gastrointestinal endoscopy units across many countries, a summary of cumulated experience is lacking. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate the feasibility of successful checklist implementation in gastrointestinal endoscopy units and summarise the evidence of its impact on the commitment in safety cult ...[more]

PMID: 33655049

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures.MethodsWe systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool.ResultsWe identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations.ConclusionsRecommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Project description:BackgroundTechnological advancements have opened the path for many technology providers to easily develop and introduce eHealth tools to the public. The use of these tools is increasingly recognized as a critical quality driver in health care; however, choosing a quality tool from the myriad of tools available for a specific health need does not come without challenges.ObjectiveThis review aimed to systematically investigate the literature to understand the different approaches and criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and organizational perspectives).MethodsA structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 in English, which yielded 675 results, of which 40 (5.9%) studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes.ResultsSimilar measures from the different papers, frameworks, and initiatives were aggregated into 36 unique criteria grouped into 13 clusters. Using the sociotechnical approach, we classified the relevant criteria into technical, social, and organizational assessment criteria. Technical assessment criteria were grouped into 5 clusters: technical aspects, functionality, content, data management, and design. Social assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: human centricity, health outcomes, visible popularity metrics, and social aspects. Organizational assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: sustainability and scalability, health care organization, health care context, and developer.ConclusionsThis review builds on the growing body of research that investigates the criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools and highlights the complexity and challenges facing these initiatives. It demonstrates that there is no single framework that is used uniformly to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach that balances the social, organizational, and technical assessment criteria in a way that reflects the complexity and interdependence of the health care ecosystem and is aligned with the factors affecting users' adoption to ensure uptake and adherence in the long term.

Project description:Background and study aims Credentialing, the process through which an institution assesses and validates an endoscopist's qualifications to independently perform a procedure, can vary by region and country. Little is known about these inter-societal and geographic differences. We aimed to systematically characterize credentialing recommendations and requirements worldwide. Methods We conducted a systematic review of credentialing practices among gastrointestinal and endoscopy societies worldwide. An electronic search as well as hand-search of World Endoscopy Organization members' websites was performed for credentialing documents. Abstracts were screened in duplicate and independently. Data were collected on procedures included in each document (e. g. colonoscopy, ERCP) and types of credentialing statements (procedural volume, key performance indicators (KPIs), and competency assessments). The primary objective was to qualitatively describe and compare the available credentialing recommendations and requirements from the included studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data when appropriate. Results We screened 653 records and included 20 credentialing documents from 12 societies. Guidelines most commonly included credentialing statements for colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and ERCP. For colonoscopy, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 150 to 275 and adenoma detection rate (ADR) from 20 % to 30%. For EGD, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 130 to 1000, and duodenal intubation rate of 95 % to 100%. For ERCP, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 100 to 300 with selective duct cannulation success rate of 80 % to 90 %. Guidelines also reported on flexible sigmoidoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound. Conclusions While some metrics such as ADR were relatively consistent among societies, there was substantial variation among societies with respect to procedural volume and KPI statements.

Project description:IntroductionSince the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical studies, luminal gastrointestinal endoscopy has made great progress, especially in the detection and characterization of neoplastic and preneoplastic lesions. Several studies have recently shown the potential of AI-driven endoscopy for the investigation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This systematic review provides an overview of the current position and future potential of AI in IBD endoscopy.MethodsA systematic search was carried out in PubMed and Scopus up to 2 December 2020 using the following search terms: artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer-aided, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn's disease (CD). All studies on human digestive endoscopy were included. A qualitative analysis and a narrative description were performed for each selected record according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodologies and the PRISMA statement.ResultsOf 398 identified records, 18 were ultimately included. Two-thirds of these (12/18) were published in 2020 and most were cross-sectional studies (15/18). No relevant bias at the study level was reported, although the risk of publication bias across studies cannot be ruled out at this early stage. Eleven records dealt with UC, five with CD and two with both. Most of the AI systems involved convolutional neural network, random forest and deep neural network architecture. Most studies focused on capsule endoscopy readings in CD (n = 5) and on the AI-assisted assessment of mucosal activity in UC (n = 10) for automated endoscopic scoring or real-time prediction of histological disease.DiscussionAI-assisted endoscopy in IBD is a rapidly evolving research field with promising technical results and additional benefits when tested in an experimental clinical scenario. External validation studies being conducted in large and prospective cohorts in real-life clinical scenarios will help confirm the added value of AI in assessing UC mucosal activity and in CD capsule reading.Plain language summaryArtificial intelligence for inflammatory bowel disease endoscopy Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising technology in many areas of medicine. In recent years, AI-assisted endoscopy has been introduced into several research fields, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) endoscopy, with promising applications that have the potential to revolutionize clinical practice and gastrointestinal endoscopy.We have performed the first systematic review of AI and its application in the field of IBD and endoscopy.A formal process of paper selection and analysis resulted in the assessment of 18 records. Most of these (12/18) were published in 2020 and were cross-sectional studies (15/18). No relevant biases were reported. All studies showed positive results concerning the novel technology evaluated, so the risk of publication bias cannot be ruled out at this early stage.Eleven records dealt with UC, five with CD and two with both. Most studies focused on capsule endoscopy reading in CD patients (n = 5) and on AI-assisted assessment of mucosal activity in UC patients (n = 10) for automated endoscopic scoring and real-time prediction of histological disease.We found that AI-assisted endoscopy in IBD is a rapidly growing research field. All studies indicated promising technical results. When tested in an experimental clinical scenario, AI-assisted endoscopy showed it could potentially improve the management of patients with IBD.Confirmatory evidence from real-life clinical scenarios should be obtained to verify the added value of AI-assisted IBD endoscopy in assessing UC mucosal activity and in CD capsule reading.

Dataset Information

Checklist feasibility and impact in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Publications

Checklist feasibility and impact in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets