Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves1, Diogo Libânio1,2, Joana Marques-Antunes1, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro1,2, Pedro Pimentel-Nunes1,2,3. 1. Center for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 2. Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 3. Department of Surgery and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. METHODS: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. RESULTS: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The high-quality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). CONCLUSIONS: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. METHODS: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. RESULTS: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The high-quality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). CONCLUSIONS: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.
Authors: Daniel R Gavin; Roland M Valori; John T Anderson; Mark T Donnelly; J Graham Williams; Edwin T Swarbrick Journal: Gut Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Michael Bretthauer; Lars Aabakken; Evelien Dekker; Michal F Kaminski; Thomas Rösch; Rolf Hultcrantz; Stepan Suchanek; Rodrigo Jover; Ernst J Kuipers; Raf Bisschops; Cristiano Spada; Roland Valori; Dirk Domagk; Colin Rees; Matthew D Rutter Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Walter G Park; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; John M Inadomi; Loren A Laine; John G Lieb; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Sachin Wani Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: B Rembacken; C Hassan; J F Riemann; A Chilton; M Rutter; J-M Dumonceau; M Omar; T Ponchon Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Zhongliang Chen; Deanna M Rothwell; Chris Vinden; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas O Faigel; Judith R Logan; Nora Mattek; Jennifer Holub; Glenn Eisen; Cynthia Morris; Robert Smith; Marion Nadel Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Raf Bisschops; Matthew D Rutter; Miguel Areia; Dirk Domagk; Michel F Kaminski; Andrew Veitch; Wafaa Khanoussi; Ian M Gralnek; Cesare Hassan; Helmut Messmann; Thierry Ponchon; Paul Fockens; Axel Dignass; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 4.623
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: Rocco Maurizio Zagari; Leonardo Frazzoni; Lorenzo Fuccio; Helga Bertani; Stefano Francesco Crinò; Andrea Magarotto; Elton Dajti; Andrea Tringali; Paola Da Massa Carrara; Gianpaolo Cengia; Enrico Ciliberto; Rita Conigliaro; Bastianello Germanà; Antonietta Lamazza; Antonio Pisani; Giancarlo Spinzi; Maurizio Capelli; Franco Bazzoli; Luigi Pasquale Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-06