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.
ESGE
endoscopy
guidelines
performance measure
quality
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
02
02
2022
accepted:
08
03
2022
entrez:
25
4
2022
pubmed:
26
4
2022
medline:
26
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been recently identified as a major priority being associated with many outcomes and patient's experience. To assess adherence of endoscopists to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality performance measures for upper and lower GI endoscopy in Italy. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has been recently identified as a major priority being associated with many outcomes and patient's experience.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35463020
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.868449
pmc: PMC9018975
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
868449Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Zagari, Frazzoni, Fuccio, Bertani, Crinò, Magarotto, Dajti, Tringali, Da Massa Carrara, Cengia, Ciliberto, Conigliaro, Germanà, Lamazza, Pisani, Spinzi, Capelli, Bazzoli and Pasquale.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
AT is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2017 Jan;109(1):33-48
pubmed: 28004966
GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec;26(1):24-32
pubmed: 30675501
Endosc Int Open. 2021 Sep 16;9(10):E1456-E1462
pubmed: 34540535
Endoscopy. 2017 Apr;49(4):378-397
pubmed: 28268235
Endoscopy. 2016 Mar;48(3):291-4
pubmed: 26841269
Can J Gastroenterol. 2013;27(5):259-66
pubmed: 23712300
GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2017 Nov;24(6):269-274
pubmed: 29255767
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Sep;19(9):1890-1898
pubmed: 33878471
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2020 May 15;13:1756284820916693
pubmed: 32477426
Endoscopy. 2022 May;54(5):488-495
pubmed: 34293811
Gastroenterology. 2011 Jan;140(1):65-72
pubmed: 20854818
Patient Educ Couns. 2012 Feb;86(2):137-46
pubmed: 21640543
Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317-22
pubmed: 7901634
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1795-803
pubmed: 20463339
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Sep;76(3):531-8
pubmed: 22732877
Endoscopy. 2021 Feb;53(2):196-202
pubmed: 33412590
Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Sep;66(9):2888-2896
pubmed: 32984930
Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45(10):813-8
pubmed: 24019130
J Gastrointest Surg. 2021 May;25(5):1117-1123
pubmed: 32607854
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Nov;40(9):587-594
pubmed: 28648767
Gastroenterology. 2017 Aug;153(2):460-469.e1
pubmed: 28501581
Dig Liver Dis. 2020 Aug;52(8):931-935
pubmed: 32616464
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jan;83(1):29-36
pubmed: 26616725
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr 21;19(15):2355-61
pubmed: 23613629
Endoscopy. 2016 Jan;48(1):81-9
pubmed: 26662057
Endoscopy. 2016 Sep;48(9):843-64
pubmed: 27548885
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Mar;13(3):480-487.e2
pubmed: 25117772
Endosc Int Open. 2021 Nov 12;9(11):E1627-E1632
pubmed: 34790524
Gastroenterology. 2015 Aug;149(2):356-66.e1
pubmed: 25911510
Gut. 2013 Feb;62(2):242-9
pubmed: 22661458