Abstract
Introduction
There is an opportunity for improvement in the recording and measuring of quality indicators. However, no previous experiences exist in our field in terms of their compliance in esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).Objective
To analyse compliance with EGD quality criteria and evaluate improvement after conducting a training programme.Patients and methods
Comparative study of 2 cohorts: one retrospective (control group) and one prospective (intervention group), before and after a training programme consisting of an information session and the report writing improvement programme. The quality indicators proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology were used.Results
A total of 1,200 EGDs were included in a sequential manner (600 in each group). Following the training programme, a significant improvement was observed in the following indicators: documented indication (93 vs. 99.8%; P<0.01), documented full examinations (94.7 vs. 97.3%; P<0.01), correct performance (63.7 vs. 87.9%; P<0.01), appropriate biopsies according to protocols (57.9 vs. 83.8%; P<0.01), photo-documentation of described lesions (84.1 vs. 94.9%; P<0.01), photo-documentation per segment (52.9 vs. 70.5%; P<0.01) and correct overall assessment (56,9 vs. 90.5%; P<0.01). Biopsies for coeliac disease, documented indication, full examination and correct performance, if it went ahead, exceeded the recommended standard.Conclusion
A very simple training programme improves EGD quality indicators, with the majority reaching the standards recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology.Citations & impact
Impact metrics
Citations of article over time
Smart citations by scite.ai
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been
supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2017.05.007
Article citations
Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Performance Measures for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Nationwide Survey From the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy.
Front Med (Lausanne), 9:868449, 06 Apr 2022
Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 35463020 | PMCID: PMC9018975
Overcoming the barriers to dissemination and implementation of quality measures for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) position statement.
United European Gastroenterol J, 9(1):120-126, 10 Feb 2021
Cited by: 5 articles | PMID: 33323062 | PMCID: PMC8259235
Biopsy Sampling in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Survey from 10 Tertiary Referral Centres Across Europe.
Dig Dis, 39(3):179-189, 01 Oct 2020
Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 33002891 | PMCID: PMC8220928
Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention.
GE Port J Gastroenterol, 26(1):24-32, 03 Apr 2018
Cited by: 5 articles | PMID: 30675501 | PMCID: PMC6341322
Similar Articles
To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.
Evaluation of long-term adherence to oesophagogastroduodenoscopy quality indicators.
Gastroenterol Hepatol, 43(10):589-597, 14 Jul 2020
Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 32674879
Quality Indicators and Outcome Measures of Endoscopy in the National Cancer Screening Program.
Yonsei Med J, 60(11):1054-1060, 01 Nov 2019
Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 31637887 | PMCID: PMC6813148
[Indicators of quality evaluation registry for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a tertiary referral Hospital in Mexico City.].
Rev Gastroenterol Mex, 74(4):301-305, 01 Oct 2009
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 20423758
Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy: introduction to structure, process, and outcome common indicators.
Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 109(6):435-450, 01 Jun 2017
Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 28553719
Review
