Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Research Articles

Anesthesiologist-directed care for elective gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of an Italian multicentric prospective observational study.

Sedation, ranging from minimal, moderate and deep sedation to general anesthesia, improves patient comfort and procedure quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). There are currently no comprehensive recommendations on sedation practice in diagnostic and therapeutic GIE. We aimed to investigate real-life sedation practice in elective GIE. We performed a multicentric observational study across 14 Endoscopy Units in Italy. We recorded consecutive data on all diagnostic procedures performed with Anesthesiologist-directed care (ADC) and all therapeutic procedures performed with ADC or non-Anesthesiologist sedation (NAS) over a three-month period. Dedicated ADC is available five days/week in 28.6% (4/14), four days/week in 21.5% (3/14), three days/week in 35.7% (5/14), two days/week in 7.1% (1/14) and one day/week in 7.1% (1/14) of participating Centers. ADC use for elective diagnostic GIE varied from 18.2% to 75.1% of the total number of procedures performed with ADC among different Centers. ADC use for elective therapeutic GIE varied from 10.8% to 98.9% of the total number of elective therapeutic procedures performed among different Centers. Our study highlights the lack of standardization and consequent great variability in sedation practice for elective GIE, with ADC being potentially overused for diagnostic procedures and underused for complex therapeutic procedures. A collaborative effort involving Endoscopists, Anesthesiologist and Institutions is needed to optimize sedation practice in GIE.

Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality in Italy: A Nationwide Study.

International guidelines advise improving esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) quality in Western countries, where gastric cancer is still diagnosed in advanced stages. This nationwide study investigated some indicators for the quality of EGD performed in endoscopic centers in Italy. Clinical, endoscopic, and procedural data of consecutive EGDs performed in one month in the participating centers were reviewed and collected in a specific database. Some quality indicators before and during endoscopic procedures were evaluated. A total of 3,219 EGDs performed by 172 endoscopists in 28 centers were reviewed. Data found that some relevant information (family history for GI cancer, smoking habit, use of proton pump inhibitors) were not collected before endoscopy in 58.5-80.7% of patients. Pre-endoscopic preparation for gastric cleaning was routinely performed in only 2 (7.1%) centers. Regarding the procedure, sedation was not performed in 17.6% of patients, and virtual chromoendoscopy was frequently (>75%) used in only one (3.6%) center. An adequate sampling of the gastric mucosa (i.e., antral and gastric body specimens) was heterogeneously performed, and it was routinely performed only by 23% of endoscopists, and in 14.3% centers. Our analysis showed that the quality of EGD performed in clinical practice in Italy deserves to be urgently improved in different aspects.

Adenoma Detection Rate Benchmarks: An Updated Analysis.

Early-onset colorectal cancer prompted organizations to reduce the recommended screening initiation age from 50 to 45 years. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee recommends 3 priority quality indicators for colonoscopy services. The adenoma detection rate is considered the most important measure with the established benchmark based upon studies of patients 50 years or older. The incidence of polyps increases with age, so this change has an as-yet-unknown effect on the new benchmark. Five studies were reviewed. Based upon the results, 45- to 50-year-old patients should be included in facilities' adenoma detection rate calculations using the currently recommended benchmarks of 25% for women and men combined, or 20% for women and 30% for men when the genders are calculated separately. Males consistently had more adenomas than females in each of the 3 studies that separated genders, a detail that might merit gender-based adenoma detection rate determinations in some practices. One study indicated caution is advised; it recommends males and females be calculated separately and different benchmarks be used for each gender. The adenoma detection rate has been shown to increase over time. More studies are needed to guide screening quality metrics.

Improving Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality

Improving Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality

Prime Time to Focus on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement

With all the hard work and contribution by the authors and reviewers, Journal of Digestive Endoscopy (JDE), the official journal of Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India, has completed one more successful year with its impressive endoscopy-based articles under various categories. We should always take pride in how far we have come and have faith in how far we can go. We whole heartedly thank all the authors and reviewers who had sincerely contributed to JDE in 2022 and expect the same to continue for the coming year.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee's Three Priority Quality Indicators for Screening Colonoscopy Services.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee's Three Priority Quality Indicators for Screening Colonoscopy Services.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee's Three Priority Quality Indicators for Screening Colonoscopy Services.

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and women in the United States. Small polyps are slow to grow and turn to cancer, which provides time for screening and removal of the precancerous polyps so that colorectal cancer is prevented. Quality colonoscopy services are essential to ensure all polyps are found and removed as the final step of colorectal cancer screening. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Assurance in Endoscopy Committee developed quality indicators for colonoscopy services. The Committee prioritized 3 quality indicators for screening colonoscopies: the frequency of (1) adenoma detection in asymptomatic patients at average risk; (2) adherence to the surveillance intervals for postpolypectomy, postcancer resection, or the 10-year interval for the average-risk patients with good bowel preparations who had negative colonoscopies; and (3) visualization of the cecum by notation and landmark photographic documentation. Gastroenterology nurses, endoscopists, and the quality management team can use the Plan-Do-Study-Act method of quality improvement to meet the established performance targets and prevent interval cancers.

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.

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.

The impact of face shields on the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, with healthcare workers at a high risk of exposure. During this pandemic, endoscopists must wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including face shields, to prevent COVID-19 transmission; however, few studies have reported the impact of face shields on the quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We aimed to determine whether the use of PPE, including face shields, affected the quality of GI endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe medical records of patients who had undergone screening or surveillance colonoscopy and gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) at Dong-A University Hospital between June 2020 and March 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Endoscopists wore isolation gowns, disposable gloves, and KF94 masks from June 2020 to October 2020. From November 2020, endoscopists also wore face shields. We compared GI endoscopy quality indicators between the first five months (no face shields) and the second five months (with face shields). In the non-face shield and face shield groups, we calculated the overall adenoma detection rates (ADRs), polyp detection rate (PDR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), advanced neoplasia detection rate (ANDR), complete resection rate (CRR), number of polyps and/or adenomas per colonoscopy, and gastric ESD procedure time.ResultsIn total, 1359 study patients had undergone screening or surveillance colonoscopy (face shield group, n = 679; non-face shield group, n = 680). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed (PDR, 49.04 vs. 52.50%, p = 0.202; ADR, 38.59 vs. 38.97%, p = 0.884; SSPDR, 1.91 vs. 1.32%, p = 0.388; ANDR, 3.98 vs. 3.97%, p = 0.991, respectively). No difference was found in colonoscopy quality indicators between patients examined by experienced and trainee endoscopists with and without face shields. Of 144 study patients who had undergone gastric ESD for gastric neoplasms, there were 72 patients in each group. No statistically significant differences were found in the CRR (94.44 vs 93.05%, p = 1.000) and procedure times (19.22 ± 9.33 vs. 19.03 ± 11.49, p = 0.911).ConclusionsWearing face shields during the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the quality indicators for GI endoscopy.

The case for digital image capture during procedures.

The case for digital image capture during procedures.

Live endoscopy events (LEEs): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement - Update 2021.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is dedicated to improving the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy, including through educational activities such as live endoscopy events (LEEs). The primary goal of LEEs should be to facilitate the improvement of endoscopic patient care through the acquisition of best endoscopic practice. Patients should not expect additional benefit from being treated during a LEE compared to a routine setting. There is limited available evidence on LEE safety but to date there is no indication that patients are at increased risk from participation. Pre-recorded cases with live facilitation can also be used to fulfill learning outcomes. Establishing an endoscopic curriculum with clear learning outcomes is important to structure attendees' learning, assess course outcomes, and allow appropriate targeting of courses to learner experience. Increasingly, LEEs are streamed online and therefore the necessary measures should be taken to ensure that patients have given appropriate consent and that their anonymity has been safeguarded. ESGE recommends that an endoscopist who is not participating in the live demonstrations is named as patient advocate, and that patient safety should must be prioritized throughout. In all ESGE-organized LEEs the intended learning outcomes, procedural indications and descriptions, attendee feedback, and adverse events should be recorded and submitted in a post-event report to ESGE.

A Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Control System Incorporated With Deep Learning Improved Endoscopist Performance in a Pretest and Post-Test Trial.

INTRODUCTION:Gastrointestinal endoscopic quality is operator-dependent. To ensure the endoscopy quality, we constructed an endoscopic audit and feedback system named Endo.Adm and evaluated its effect in a form of pretest and posttest trial.METHODS:Endo.Adm system was developed using Python and Deep Convolutional Neural Ne2rk models. Sixteen endoscopists were recruited from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University and were randomly assigned to undergo feedback of Endo.Adm or not (8 for the feedback group and 8 for the control group). The feedback group received weekly quality report cards which were automatically generated by Endo.Adm. We then compared the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and gastric precancerous conditions detection rate between baseline and postintervention phase for endoscopists in each group to evaluate the impact of Endo.Adm feedback. In total, 1,191 colonoscopies and 3,515 gastroscopies were included for analysis.RESULTS:ADR was increased after Endo.Adm feedback (10.8%–20.3%, P < 0.01, <odds ratio (OR) 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.317–3.447), and endoscopists' ADR without feedback remained nearly unchanged (10.8%–10.9%, P = 0.57, OR 1.086, 95% CI 0.814–1.447). Gastric precancerous conditions detection rate increased in the feedback group (3%–7%, P < 0.01, OR 1.866, 95% CI 1.399–2.489) while no improvement was observed in the control group (3.9%–3.5%, P = 0.489, OR 0.856, 95% CI 0.550–1.332).DISCUSSION:Endo.Adm feedback contributed to multifaceted gastrointestinal endoscopic quality improvement. This system is practical to implement and may serve as a standard model for quality improvement in routine work (http://www.chictr.org.cn/, ChiCTR1900024153).

Composite detection rate as an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy quality measure correlating with detection of neoplasia

BackgroundEsophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly used diagnostic method with no widely accepted quality measure. We assessed quality indicator—composite detection rate (CDR)—consisting of detection of at least one of the following: cervical inlet patch, gastric polyp and post-ulcer duodenal bulb deformation. The aim of the study was to validate CDR according to detection rate of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms (UGN).MethodsIt was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted from January 2019 to October 2019. The endoscopic reports from 2896 symptomatic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD were analyzed. The EGDs were performed in three endoscopy units located in tertiary university hospital, private outpatient clinic and local hospital.Results64 UGNs were detected. The mean CDR was 21.9%. The CDR correlated with UGN detection rate (R = 0.49, p = 0.045). Based on CDR quartiles, operators were divided into group 1 with CDR < 10%, group 2 with CDR 10–17%, group 3 with CDR 17.1–26%, and group 4 with CDR > 26%. Detection rate of UGN was significantly higher in the group 4 in comparison to group 1 (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.2 − 9.0). In the multivariate regression model, patient age, male gender and operator’s CDR > 26% were independent risk factors of UGN detection (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01 − 1.05, OR 2; 95% CI 1.2 − 3.5, and OR 5.7 95% CI 1.5 − 22.3, respectively).ConclusionsThe CDR is associated with the detection of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms. This parameter may be a useful quality measure of EGD to be applied in general setting.

The gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire captures patient satisfaction as a key quality indicator of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Patient satisfaction is a crucial indicator of gastrointestinal endoscopy quality. The gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire (GESQ) was validated for the assessment of patient satisfaction undergoing endoscopy in English with good validity. We translated and validated the GESQ in Dutch. The original GESQ was translated in Dutch according to the WHO guidelines. First, an internal validation of the Dutch GESQ (D-GESQ) was established by the think-aloud method and subsequent expert panel analysis. Next, the D-GESQ was embedded in the computer-based education (CBE) program in our unit, with 30-day interval after endoscopy. Adult patients, informed via CBE after undergone endoscopy, were included. Exclusion criteria were conscious sedation, limited language skills, no e-mail address available, dementia and visual impairment. For statistical analysis, several psychometric analyses were performed to identify the underlying dimensions and assessed the questionnaire for reliability and validity. In total, 227 of 1065 patients completed the D-GESQ, a response rate of 21.3%. Men comprised 52.6% (n = 129) of patients. Mean age was 62.7 ± 11.54 years. In total, 180 patients (79.3%) had previously undergone endoscopy, with 157 (87.2%) of them two or more times. The exploratory factor analysis showed the 21 questions could best be clustered into five clusters instead of four in the original GESQ. The D-GESQ had an overall Cronbach α of 0.88, confirming the high internal validity. The Dutch version of the GESQ showed high internal validity and practicality. We recommend the D-GESQ for routine use in endoscopy practice to improve quality of patient care.

Establishing a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUNDTens of millions of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed every year in China, but the quality varies significantly and related factors are complex. Individual endoscopist- and endoscopy division-related factors may be useful to establish a model to measure and predict the quality of endoscopy.AIMTo establish a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in mainland China.METHODSSelected data on endoscopy experience, equipment, facility, qualification of endoscopists, and other relevant variables were collected from the National Database of Digestive Endoscopy of China. The multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the potential predictive variables for occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. Linear and nonlinear regressions were used to establish models to predict incidence of endoscopic complications.RESULTSIn 2012, gastroscopy/colonoscopy-related complications in mainland China included bleeding in 4,359 cases (0.02%) and perforation in 914 (0.003%). Endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiopancreatography-related complications included severe acute pancreatitis in 593 cases (0.3%), bleeding in 2,151 (1.10%), perforation in 257 (0.13%) and biliary infection in 4,125 (2.11%). Moreover, 1,313 (5.0%) endoscopists encountered with medical malpractice, and 5,243 (20.0%) encountered with the disturbance from patients. The length of endoscopy experience, weekly working hours, weekly night shifts, annual vacation days and job satisfaction were predictors for the occurrence of medical malpractice and patient disturbance. However, the length of endoscopy experience and the ratio of endoscopists to nurses were not adequate to establish an effective predictive model for endoscopy complications.CONCLUSIONThe workload and job satisfaction of endoscopists are valuable predictors for medical malpractice or patient disturbance. More comprehensive data are needed to establish quality-predictive models for endoscopic complications.

Serbian Translation and Cross-Cultural Validation of the Questionnaire for Assessing Patient Satisfaction with Endoscopic Examination of the Digestive Tract

Abstract Patient satisfaction is a key indicator to assess the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy. The aim of this study was to examine the Serbian translation and cross-cultural validation of the questionnaire for the assessment of satisfaction in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. After obtaining the consent of the author of the original questionnaire, translation and cross-cultural validation of the GESQ (Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Satisfaction Questionnaire) were carried out in accordance with the conductors of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). The study was conducted in the Center for Gastroenterohepatology (GEH) of the Kragujevac Clinical Center and included 165 patients. The reliability of the Serbian translation of the GESQ was estimated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire in order to implement the structural validation. The overall score of the questionnaire was compared and correlated with the total scores on the Short Subjective Well-being scale (KSB) and visual analogue scale (VAS), which were administered to the same patients. The Serbian translation of the GESQ showed high reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.763, good structure and homogeneity by randomly sharing the questionnaire into two parts. Exploratory factor analysis indicated the existence of four factors that explain 57.200% of the variability. The Serbian version of the GESQ showed similar psychometric characteristics to the original English questionnaire, with a similar factor structure, and represented a valid, reliable and acceptable tool for the assessment of patient satisfaction with the endoscopic examination of the digestive tract.

Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy: the preface.

According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Institute of Medicine, health care quality is “the degree to which health care services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge” (1).

Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement.

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.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures.

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.

Live endoscopy events (LEEs): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement - Update 2014.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is dedicated to improving the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy through educational activities such as live endoscopy events (LEEs). The primary utility of LEEs is the educational value for the audience, and patients should not expect additional benefit from being treated during a LEE compared to a routine setting. Although there is no evidence that LEEs entail additional risks for patients, neither can possible unknown risks be excluded as the evidence available is limited. Therefore, necessary measures should be taken to assure patient safety. Patients must be adequately informed that the standard of care will be assured and that their identity will not be revealed. ESGE recommends that an endoscopist not belonging to the hosting unit is named as patient advocate. Clinical indications for the LEE procedures and the educational outputs must be clear and agreed between host and demonstrator teams. ESGE will ensure that in all ESGE-organized LEEs the indications, procedural descriptions, and adverse events will be registered, and that organizers requesting ESGE endorsement can demonstrate such a registry.