Adequacy of EGD Reporting: a Review of 100 Reports from 100 Endoscopists

Abstract

IntroductionEsophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly performed in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). An EGD report should document pertinent findings such as esophagitis, a columnar-lined esophagus (CLE), the location of the squamo-columnar and gastroesophageal junctions, the size and type of a hiatal hernia and the number and location of any biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate how commonly these findings were noted in the EGD reports of patients referred for antireflux surgery. MethodsA retrospective review was performed of patient charts from 2012 to 2015 to identify 100 consecutive EGD reports from different endoscopists in different patients. Each EGD report was reviewed for pertinent findings and the use of a classification system for esophagitis (Savory-Miller or Los Angeles) and for reporting a CLE (Prague). ResultsIn 100 EGD reports, esophagitis was noted in 33 patients, but was graded in only 14 (42%). A CLE was noted in 28 patients, but the length was reported in only 16 (57%) and no report used the Prague classification system. A hiatal hernia was noted in 61 patients, measured in 31 (51%) and the type classified in 26%. A biopsy was taken in 93 patients and the location noted in 86 patients (93%). The number of biopsies was recorded in only 20 patients (22%). In 12 patients the EGD was for Barrett’s surveillance, yet a Seattle biopsy protocol was reported to be used in only 3 patients. ConclusionEndoscopy reports frequently do not include the use of a grading system for esophagitis or the Prague system for CLE. This hampers the assessment of change with therapy or over time. The size of a hiatal hernia was typically reported in a subjective fashion and only infrequently was the type specified. Lack of clarity about the presence of a paraesophageal hernia can impede evaluation of acute symptoms. In patients with Barrett’s esophagus a standard biopsy protocol was infrequently reported to be used. These findings raise concern about the quality of upper endoscopy, both in the performance of the procedure and the documentation of findings. A consistent reporting system is recommended for routine use with upper endoscopy.