Ryan Schwab1, Eugene Pahk1, Jesse Lachter1. 1. Ryan Schwab, Jesse Lachter, Department of Gastroenterology, Rambam Healthcare Campus, Haifa 35000, Israel.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 survey of EUS using standardized quality indicators (QIs). METHODS: Per EUS exam, 27 QIs were assessed individually and by grouping pre-, intra-, and post-procedural parameters. The recorded QI frequencies from 200 reports (2013-2014) were compared to corresponding data of 100 reports from the quality control study of EUS in 2009. Data for QIs added after 2009 to professional guidelines (added after 2010) were also tabulated. RESULTS: Significant differences (P-value < 0.05) were found for 13 of 20 of the relevant QIs examined. 4 of 5 pre-procedural QIs, 6 of 10 intra-procedural QIs, and 3 of 5 post-procedural QIs all demonstrated significant upgrading with a P-value < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were demonstrated in QI adherence and thus EUS reporting and delivery quality when the 2013-2014 reports were compared to 2009 results. QI implementation facilitates effective high-quality EUS exams by ensuring comprehensive documentation while limiting error.
AIM: To evaluate the impact of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) quality assessment on EUS procedures by comparing the most recent 2013-2014 local EUS procedural reports against relevant corresponding data from a 2009 survey of EUS using standardized quality indicators (QIs). METHODS: Per EUS exam, 27 QIs were assessed individually and by grouping pre-, intra-, and post-procedural parameters. The recorded QI frequencies from 200 reports (2013-2014) were compared to corresponding data of 100 reports from the quality control study of EUS in 2009. Data for QIs added after 2009 to professional guidelines (added after 2010) were also tabulated. RESULTS: Significant differences (P-value < 0.05) were found for 13 of 20 of the relevant QIs examined. 4 of 5 pre-procedural QIs, 6 of 10 intra-procedural QIs, and 3 of 5 post-procedural QIs all demonstrated significant upgrading with a P-value < 0.05. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements were demonstrated in QI adherence and thus EUS reporting and delivery quality when the 2013-2014 reports were compared to 2009 results. QI implementation facilitates effective high-quality EUS exams by ensuring comprehensive documentation while limiting error.
Keywords:
Endoscopic ultrasound; Fine needle sspiration; Improvement; Quality indicators
Authors: Brian C Jacobson; Amitabh Chak; Brenda Hoffman; Todd H Baron; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Susan G Coe; Massimo Raimondo; Timothy A Woodward; Seth A Gross; Kanwar Rupinder S Gill; Laith H Jamil; Mohammad Al-Haddad; Michael G Heckman; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Jason A Dominitz; John G Lieb; David A Lieberman; Walter G Park; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Suqing Li; Marc Monachese; Misbah Salim; Naveen Arya; Anand V Sahai; Nauzer Forbes; Christopher Teshima; Mohammad Yaghoobi; Yen-I Chen; Eric Lam; Paul James Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: Pietro Fusaroli; Mohamad Eloubeidi; Claudio Calvanese; Christoph Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Adrian Saftoiu; Claudio De Angelis; Shyam Varadarajulu; Bertrand Napoleon; Andrea Lisotti Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-06-21