A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating PAN-PROMISE, a Patient-reported Outcome Measure to Detect Post-ERCP Morbidity

Thiruvengadam, Nikhil R.; Kouanda, Abdul; Kalluri, Anita L.; Schaubel, Douglas E.; Saumoy, Monica; Forde, Kimberly A.; Song, Jun; Faggen, Alec; Davis, Brenton G.; Onwugaje, Kenechukwu Chudy; Coté, Gregory A.; Arain, Mustafa A.; Kochman, Michael L.

doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.08.034

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The return of these questionnaires is usually far from complete, and patients tend to experience symptoms from any underlying condition as possibly related to the recently undergone endoscopic procedure. 16,55,56 These patient questionnaires have a reliability issue. Therefore, systematic postprocedure patient contact by phone calls have been proposed, as a method to capture postprocedure AEs in a more complete and trustworthy manner.…”

Section: How To Track Aementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patient questionnaires, either on paper or app‐based, to capture postprocedure AEs rely on patient collaboration and willingness to respond to the questions and to (digitally) send back the document. The return of these questionnaires is usually far from complete, and patients tend to experience symptoms from any underlying condition as possibly related to the recently undergone endoscopic procedure 16,55,56 . These patient questionnaires have a reliability issue.…”

Section: How To Track Aementioning

confidence: 99%

“…External audits are mandatory to keep track of missing data, to provide personalized feedback to the participating endoscopists to keep them informed and motivated. This is why this mode of action only results in small‐scale initiatives of local endoscopy units for a limited time duration 16,55–57,59 . National surveys to monitor quality in endoscopy led by scientific societies are characterized by poor response numbers and by unrepresentative data collection of only the best performers 60–63 …”

Section: How To Track Aementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is why this mode of action only results in small-scale initiatives of local endoscopy units for a limited time duration. 16,[55][56][57]59 National surveys to monitor quality in endoscopy led by scientific societies are characterized by poor response numbers and by unrepresentative data collection of only the best performers. [60][61][62][63] More efficient methods are eagerly needed to reliably capture endoscopy-related AEs (and incidents) in a continuous and complete way.…”

Section: How To Track Aementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

How to implement adverse events as a quality indicator in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Moreels

2023

Digestive Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality improvement through the registration of endoscopy‐related adverse events (AEs) has been recognized by major international endoscopy societies as an important quality indicator. The theory behind this is easier to approve than its implementation in daily practice. The results of many valuable attempts have been published in the literature, mainly highlighting the diverse hurdles trying to capture events related to endoscopy and the sedation used for endoscopic procedures. The current review discusses the difficulties encountered attempting to register AEs and incidents related to endoscopic procedures. Government‐driven and financed health‐care databases with automated coupling of specific data seem the only efficient way to implement endoscopy‐related AEs and outcomes on a prospective and complete basis. This will not only allow continuous confidential feedback to endoscopists in relation to the pooled national benchmark data, but also follow‐up in time through data‐driven credentialing aiming to progressively optimize these benchmark data.

show abstract

Section: How To Track Aementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How To Track Aementioning

confidence: 99%