Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures

Rizk, Maged; Sawhney, Mandeep S.; Cohen, Jonathan; Pike, Irving M.; Adler, Douglas G.; Dominitz, Jason A.; Lieb, John G.; Lieberman, David A.; Park, Walter G.; Shaheen, Nicholas J.; Wani, Sachin

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.055

Cited by 127 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) supports the achievement of a quality goal of usually >98% with regard to the application of general quality indicators [4]. The German guideline mainly foregoes indicating defined cut-off values, particularly for quality parameters that are generally accepted, legally claimed, and logical (evidence level III; expert opinion) even without any study-based evidence.…”

Section: General Quality Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Image documentation should include the following: i) images with ‘landmarks' of the examined structures; ii) images of all of the pathological findings; iii) images of all of the therapeutic interventions with documentation from before and after the intervention, optionally also during the intervention. These 3 forms of image documentation are also mentioned in the international guidelines of the ESGE and ASGE as a quality attribute [4,17]. Furthermore, the image documents should be stored according to the legal requirements and, if applicable, should be submitted to the competent self-governing bodies for quality control reasons [18].…”

Section: General Quality Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

Denzer

2016

Visc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The verbalisation of quality standards and parameters by medical societies are relevant for qualitative improvement but may also be an instrument to demand more resources for health care or be a unique characteristic. Within the health care system 3 different quality levels can be defined: structure, process and result quality. Methods: The current S2k guideline of the German Society for Gastroenterology (quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy) AWMF registry no. 021-022 provides recommendations based on the available evidence for the structure quality (requirements for equipment, human resources) as well as for the process quality (patient preparation, conduct, documentation) and result quality (follow-up of specific endoscopic procedures). Results: Based on these recommendations, measurable quality indicators/parameters for the endoscopy have been selected and formulated. General quality parameters for endoscopic examinations are given as well as quality parameters for specific procedures for the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of specific endoscopic interventions. Conclusion: Only the regular review of processes and courses by means of defined measurement parameters builds up the basis for corrections based on facts. In addition, the implementation of recommended standards may be an instrument in demanding more resources from the health care system and, therefore, should be embedded as routine.

show abstract

Section: General Quality Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Quality Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

Denzer

2016

Visc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to identify these performance gaps and promote better practices to optimize endoscopic procedures among gastroenterologists, the main national and international scientific entities, such as the European and the American Societies of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE and ASGE), have put forward a range of quality indicators for these tests (7)(8)(9)(10)(11).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The particular parameter that is being used for comparison is termed a quality indicator. Quality indicators may be reported as a ratio between the incidence of correct performance and the opportunity for correct performance, or as the proportion of interventions that achieve a predefined goal (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Quality indicators for GI endoscopy are now well defined by scientific societies (7)(8)(9)(10)(11) and have been proven to deliver better health outcomes, better patient experience and fewer repeated procedures (11). However, the miss rates of pre-malignant and/or malignant lesions, which have been reported in several papers to interval and/or follow-up cancers (1-6), have not decreased over time (5,6).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A survey-based analysis on endoscopic quality indicators compliance among Spanish endoscopists

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Endoscopy plays a key role for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders. Therefore, quality indicators have been widely proposed in order to optimize endoscopic practice. The aims of this study, promoted by the Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases (SEPD), were to assess the knowledge and compliance to endoscopy quality indicators among Spanish gastroenterologists.Methods: A 31-questionnaire survey was created based on the endoscopy quality indicators proposed by international guidelines. The survey was distributed among Spanish gastroenterologists who are members of the society. Using only fully completed surveys, a descriptive analysis was performed. Those factors related with a suboptimal quality performance were also investigated.Results: A total of 1,543 surveys were sent and 281 (18.2%) were received completed. Based on the answers obtained, the management of 14 (70%) out of 20 assessed quality indicators was poor: 5 (83.3%) out of 6 pre-procedure items, 7 (58.3%) out of 12 intra-procedure items and 2 (100%) out of 2 post-procedure items. Young age, public setting, no colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program at the institution and a low volume of procedures/week are factors related to poorer management of the assessed quality indicators.Conclusions: A significant proportion of Spanish endoscopists do not comply with main endoscopic quality indicators. Factors such as "young" age, public setting, no colorectal cancer screening program and low volume of procedures/week are related to a poorer management of the assessed quality indicators and should be the target for future formative activities.

show abstract

Training to Become a High‐Quality Endoscopist

Ghassemi

Faigel

2022

Successful Training in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures

Cited by 127 publications

References 63 publications

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?

A survey-based analysis on endoscopic quality indicators compliance among Spanish endoscopists

Training to Become a High‐Quality Endoscopist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About