Literature DB >> 28839658

The ERCP quality network benchmarking project: a preliminary comparison of practice in UK and USA.

Kofi W Oppong1, Joseph Romagnuolo2, Peter B Cotton2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Quality Network is a voluntary system for submission of data to generate individual report cards and benchmarking. The aim of this study was to compare aspects of ERCP practice between USA and UK participants.
DESIGN: Analysis was limited to USA and UK based endoscopists who had each entered more than 30 cases. A number of practice and performance measures were studied including, rates of deep biliary cannulation, sedation use and success in bile duct stone removal. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Patients attending for routine and emergency ERCP in participating tertiary and secondary care units in the UK and USA.
RESULTS: 61 US endoscopists performed 18 182 procedures and 16 UK endoscopists 3172, respectively. The UK participants performed less complex procedures as judged by the accepted complexity grading system, 8% versus 35% at grade 3, p<0.001. There was a significantly greater use of sedation as opposed to anaesthesia in the UK 97% versus 34%, p<0.001. UK deep biliary cannulation rate was 93% versus 97%, p<0.001. For small bile duct stones (<10 mm) the UK success rate was 96% compared with 99%, p<0.001.
CONCLUSION: The present data, while not purporting to be an accurate representation of practice in either country, documents good technical success in both cohorts, albeit significantly better in the USA. The inexorable drive to greater accountability and transparency of outcomes in endoscopic practice is likely to lead to increased participation in subsequent benchmarking projects.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 28839658      PMCID: PMC5517277          DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2011-100099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol        ISSN: 2041-4137


  13 in total

1.  Quality and outcomes assessment in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Authors:  John F. Johanson; Colleen M. Schmitt; Thomas M. Deas; Glenn M. Eisen; Martin Freeman; Jay L. Goldstein; Dennis M. Jensen; David A. Lieberman; Simon K. Lo; Anand Sahai; Philip Schoenfeld; Megan Morgan
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  How many times have you done this procedure, doctor?

Authors:  Peter B Cotton
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Public release of clinical outcomes data—online CABG report cards.

Authors:  Timothy G Ferris; David F Torchiana
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  All-cause mortality after first ERCP in England: clinically guided analysis of hospital episode statistics with linkage to registry of death.

Authors:  Keith Bodger; Katherine Bowering; Sanchoy Sarkar; Elizabeth Thompson; Michael G Pearson
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Todd H Baron; Bret T Petersen; Klaus Mergener; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffinan; Brian C Jacobson; John L Petrini; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Measuring the quality of endoscopy.

Authors:  David J Bjorkman; John W Popp
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 7.  Are we meeting the standards set for ERCP?

Authors:  John Baillie; Pier-Alberto Testoni
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice.

Authors:  Earl J Williams; Steve Taylor; Peter Fairclough; Adrian Hamlyn; Richard F Logan; Derrick Martin; Stuart A Riley; Peter Veitch; Mark Wilkinson; Paula R Williamson; Martin Lombard
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-12-04       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Nancy N Baxter; Rinku Sutradhar; Shawn S Forbes; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2010-09-18       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Donald A Garrow; Joseph Gallagher; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic management of biliary stone disease.

Authors:  P Wilson; Gjm Webster
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-02-10

2.  The future developments in endoscopy.

Authors:  Adam Haycock; Kofi W Oppong
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-05-31

Review 3.  The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Laura J Neilson; Linda Sharp; Joanne M Patterson; Christian von Wagner; Paul Hewitson; Lesley M McGregor; Colin J Rees
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-10

4.  Patient experience of gastrointestinal endoscopy: informing the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

Authors:  Laura J Neilson; Joanne Patterson; Christian von Wagner; Paul Hewitson; Lesley M McGregor; Linda Sharp; Colin J Rees
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-01-13
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.