PROBLEM: A retrospective audit of surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus 1996-2001 identified the need to improve adherence to guidelines for the endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's oesophagus. DESIGN: Prospective audit of the effect of disseminating guidelines in 2002. Prospective audit of the effect of introducing local guidelines and Barrett's oesophagus surveillance officers, 2003-2005. SETTING: Two general hospitals in Australia, 2002-5. All adult patients diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus were included. KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT: Proportions of patients in a Barrett's oesophagus surveillance programme who had appropriate time intervals between follow-up endoscopies and who had appropriate numbers of biopsies collected at endoscopy. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: Local guidelines were laid down. Surveillance coordinators for Barrett's oesophagus were introduced to manage the process according to a clinical protocol designed for each patient. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Disseminating guidelines had little effect on practice. Six months after surveillance coordinators were introduced, adherence to the planned surveillance interval increased from 17% to 92% and the number of endoscopies at which sufficient biopsies were collected increased from 45% to 83%. These changes have been maintained. LESSONS LEARNT: Disseminating guidelines and results of an audit on endoscopic surveillance in Barrett's oesophagus had no effect on practice. Introducing coordinators who proactively managed the process greatly improved adherence to guidelines.
PROBLEM: A retrospective audit of surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus 1996-2001 identified the need to improve adherence to guidelines for the endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's oesophagus. DESIGN: Prospective audit of the effect of disseminating guidelines in 2002. Prospective audit of the effect of introducing local guidelines and Barrett's oesophagus surveillance officers, 2003-2005. SETTING: Two general hospitals in Australia, 2002-5. All adult patients diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus were included. KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT: Proportions of patients in a Barrett's oesophagus surveillance programme who had appropriate time intervals between follow-up endoscopies and who had appropriate numbers of biopsies collected at endoscopy. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: Local guidelines were laid down. Surveillance coordinators for Barrett's oesophagus were introduced to manage the process according to a clinical protocol designed for each patient. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Disseminating guidelines had little effect on practice. Six months after surveillance coordinators were introduced, adherence to the planned surveillance interval increased from 17% to 92% and the number of endoscopies at which sufficient biopsies were collected increased from 45% to 83%. These changes have been maintained. LESSONS LEARNT: Disseminating guidelines and results of an audit on endoscopic surveillance in Barrett's oesophagus had no effect on practice. Introducing coordinators who proactively managed the process greatly improved adherence to guidelines.
Authors: Bisanth Thushila Batuwitage; Jeremy G C Kingham; Nia Emma Morgan; Ruth Louise Bartlett Journal: Postgrad Med J Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Mats Lindblad; Tim Bright; Ann Schloithe; George C Mayne; Gang Chen; Jeff Bull; Peter A Bampton; Robert J L Fraser; Piers A Gatenby; Louisa G Gordon; David I Watson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Norma B Bulamu; Gang Chen; Tim Bright; Julie Ratcliffe; Adrian Chung; Robert J L Fraser; Björn Törnqvist; David I Watson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Hashem B El-Serag; Zhigang Duan; Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey; Jason Hou; Mohammad Shakhatreh; Aanand D Naik; G John Chen; Richard L Street; Jennifer R Kramer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 9.427