1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Performance Measures for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Nationwide Survey From the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been recently identified as a major priority being associated with many outcomes and patient's experience.

          Objective

          To assess adherence of endoscopists to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy in Italy.

          Methods

          All 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.

          Results

          A 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.

          Conclusion

          The 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer.

            Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy. 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

              The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front Med (Lausanne)
                Front. Med.
                Frontiers in Medicine
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-858X
                06 April 2022
                2022
                : 9
                : 868449
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Gastroenterology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna , Bologna, Italy
                [2] 2Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna , Bologna, Italy
                [3] 3Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Policlinico di Modena , Modena, Italy
                [4] 4Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona , Verona, Italy
                [5] 5Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori , Milan, Italy
                [6] 6Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore , Rome, Italy
                [7] 7Digestive Endoscopy Unit, S. Luca Hospital , Lucca, Italy
                [8] 8Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Manerbio Hospital , Manerbio, Italy
                [9] 9Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital , Crotone, Italy
                [10] 10Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Baggiovara University Hospital , Baggiovara, Italy
                [11] 11Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, S. Martino Hospital , Belluno, Italy
                [12] 12Department of Surgery “Pietro Valdoni”, University La Sapienza , Rome, Italy
                [13] 13Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology “Saverio de Bellis”, Research Hospital, Castellana Grotte , Bari, Italy
                [14] 14Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Department, Valduce Hospital , Como, Italy
                [15] 15Kiwa Cermet Certification Body, Statistical Department , Bologna, Italy
                [16] 16UOC Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva, Ospedale Frangipane , Avellino, Italy
                Author notes

                Edited by: Theodor Voiosu, Colentina Clinical Hospital, Romania

                Reviewed by: Bogdan Silviu Ungureanu, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Romania; Darrick Li, Yale University, United States

                *Correspondence: Rocco Maurizio Zagari roccomaurizio.zagari@ 123456unibo.it

                This article was submitted to Gastroenterology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Medicine

                Article
                10.3389/fmed.2022.868449
                9018975
                35463020
                2ced7531-c3aa-4f63-a62a-e66ead413f1f
                Copyright © 2022 Zagari, Frazzoni, Fuccio, Bertani, Crinò, Magarotto, Dajti, Tringali, Da Massa Carrara, Cengia, Ciliberto, Conigliaro, Germanà, Lamazza, Pisani, Spinzi, Capelli, Bazzoli and Pasquale.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 02 February 2022
                : 08 March 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 31, Pages: 10, Words: 6203
                Categories
                Medicine
                Original Research

                endoscopy,quality,performance measure,esge,guidelines
                endoscopy, quality, performance measure, esge, guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article