Related Articles

Background: The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) issued guidelines on the investigation of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) ensuring standardised and comprehensive gastrointestinal investigation in all patients. It was apparent that not all patients in the authors' hospital were investigated according to these guidelines.

Objective: To determine whether patients who were referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for investigation of IDA were confirmed to be iron deficient, and whether the BSG guidelines were being fully implemented.

Methods: All patients referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy over an 18 month period on a computer database (Endoscribe) were reviewed. Haematology, biochemistry, and radiology results were obtained and the frequency of the various diagnoses recorded.

Results: A total of 320 patients (133 male; mean age 71.5 years) were initially referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for investigation of IDA, of whom 95 were iron deficient. Of these, 44 (46%) had duodenal biopsies performed, three (7%) of whom were diagnosed with coeliac disease. Five patients were diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal carcinoma (one oesophageal, four gastric). Of the remaining 87 patients, 65 (75%) underwent lower gastrointestinal investigations with four having colorectal carcinoma, four colonic polyps, and one angiodysplasia.

Conclusions: Duodenal biopsies were performed in less than half of the patients. In those not diagnosed with coeliac disease or upper gastrointestinal carcinoma, only three quarters underwent lower gastrointestinal assessment. Approximately 10% were diagnosed with gastrointestinal malignancy as a cause for their anaemia and in 66% of patients no gastrointestinal cause was found. All physicians need to be made fully aware of the BSG guidelines for investigation of IDA.

The most sensitive investigative tool for the upper gastrointestinal tract is endoscopy, and many gastroenterologists offer an open-access endoscopy service to general practitioners. However, for patients with dyspepsia, endoscopy is not always the most appropriate initial investigation, and the one-stop dyspepsia clinic allows for different approaches. We have audited, over one year, the management and outcomes of patients attending a one-stop dyspepsia clinic. All patients seen in the clinic were included, and for those not endoscoped the notes were reviewed one year after the end of the study to check for reattendances and diagnoses originally missed. Patients' and general practitioners' views of the service were assessed by questionnaire. 485 patients were seen, of whom 301 (62%) were endoscoped at first attendance. In 66 patients (14%), endoscopy was deemed inappropriate and only one of these returned subsequently for endoscopy. 118 patients (24%) were symptom-free when seen in the clinic and were asked to telephone for an appointment if and when symptoms recurred; half of these returned and were endoscoped. Oesophagitis and duodenal ulcer were significantly more common in this 'telephone endoscopy' group than in those endoscoped straight from the clinic. Overall, 25% of patients referred were not endoscoped. Important additional diagnoses were made from the clinic consultation. General practitioners and patients valued the system, in particular the telephone endoscopy service. 84% of general practitioners said they would prefer the one-stop dyspepsia clinic to open-access endoscopy.

The liver section of the British Society of Gastroenterology and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians collaborated to set up a nationwide audit to investigate the practice of percutaneous liver biopsy in England and Wales. Each of 189 health districts in England and Wales was approached to provide a list of 10 consecutive percutaneous biopsies performed during 1991, and details of demographic data, indications, suspected diagnosis, investigations, biopsy technique, outcome, and influence on patient management were collected. Data were retrieved on 1500 (79%). The age distribution showed 6% of biopsies were done in those over 80 years of age and as many over 90 as under 10 years of age. Suspected malignancy and chronic liver disease each contributed one third of the indications. In 34% the procedure was carried out by radiologists under ultrasound image control. The remainder were done by general physicians and gastroenterologists, with the operator in the second group being more senior and experienced. The Trucut biopsy needle accounted for two thirds of biopsies, the remainder being the Menghini type. For both needles the samples were recorded as excellent or satisfactory in 83% and inadequate in only 5%. Bleeding complicated 26 procedures (1.7%), requiring transfusion in 11, and was commoner when clotting was impaired or serum bilirubin raised. There were two definite and three possible procedure related, given an overall mortality of 0.13-0.33%. The diagnosis made before biopsy was confirmed in 63% of patients, and the clinician found the biopsy helpful in treatment in 75%. Day case biopsy and techniques to reduce the risk of bleeding were surprisingly rare in this series, which has given a unique opportunity to examine everyday practice across a wide range of hospitals.

BACKGROUND:

Practice audit is an important component of continuing professional development that may more readily be undertaken if it were less complex. This qualitative study assessed the use of personal digital assistants to facilitate data collection and review.

METHODS:

Personal digital assistants programmed with standard questionnaires related to upper gastrointestinal endoscopies (Practice Audit in Gastroenterology-Endoscopy [‘PAGE-Endo’]) and colonoscopies (PAGE-Colonoscopy [‘PAGE-Colo’]) were provided to Canadian gastroenterologists, surgeons and internists. Over a three-week audit period, participants recorded indications, and the expected (E) and reported (R) findings for each procedure. Thereafter, participants recorded compliance with reporting, the ease of use and value of the PAGE program, and their willingness to perform another audit.

RESULTS:

Over 15 to 18 months, 173 participants completed PAGE-Endo (6168 procedures) and 111 completed PAGE-Colo (4776 procedures). Most respondents noted that PAGE was easy to use (99%), beneficial (88% to 95%), and that they were willing undertake another audit (92% to 95%). In PAGE-Endo, alarm features were prevalent (55%), but major reported findings were less common than expected: esophagitis (E 29.9%, R 14.8%), esophageal stricture (E 8.3%, R 3.6%), gastric ulcer (E 17.0%, R 4.7%), gastric cancer (E 4.3%, R 1.0%) and duodenal ulcer (E 11.5%, R 5.7%). In PAGE-Colo, more colonoscopies were performed for symptom investigation (55%) than for screening (25%) or surveillance (20%). There were marked interprovincial variations with respect to sedation, biopsies and technical aspects of colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION:

Secure, real-time data entry with review of aggregate and individual data in the PAGE program provided an acceptable, straightforward methodology for accredited practice audit activities. PAGE has considerable potential for continuing professional development in gastroenterology and other specialties.

Over the past decade, multiple clinical reports have demonstrated that the use of propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy by gastroenterologists and trained endoscopy nurses is safe and effective in appropriately selected patients. Proposed benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, improved patient comfort and rapid clearance, as well as prompt recovery and discharge from the endoscopy unit. As a result of medical evidence, a number of international professional societies have endorsed the use of propofol in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In Canada, no formal guidelines currently exist. In the present article, the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology presents a position statement, incorporating updated information on the use of propofol sedation for endoscopy in adult patients.

In 1986 a Royal College of Surgeons Working Party published guidelines, based on over 15 years of clinical research both here and in the U.S.A., on when to perform skull X-rays on a head injury patient. In this retrospective study the recorded details of 405 patients who presented to an accident and emergency (A&E) department over a 3-month period in 1991 are analysed, and the Report criteria applied to each one to assess whether the guidelines are being followed in performing a skull X-ray. According to these guidelines, 191 of these patients (47.2%) should have been X-rayed, however, only 83 were. Only one patient was thought to have been X-rayed inappropriately. The Report criteria most commonly thought by the A&E doctors not to warrant skull X-ray, were loss of consciousness, amnesia, dizziness, blurred vision, headache, and alcohol intoxication. The reasons why these criteria are being ignored are examined, and together with reference to recent studies, slight alterations to the Working Party guidelines are suggested to make them more applicable to everyday situations of head injury encountered in a casualty department.

AIM: To assess the appropriate use and the diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy in this subgroup of patients.

METHODS: In total, 789 consecutive outpatients referred for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy [381 for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and 408 for colonoscopy] were prospectively enrolled in the study. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines were used to assess the relationship between appropriateness and the presence of relevant endoscopic findings.

RESULTS: The overall inappropriate rate was 13.3%. The indications for EGD and colonoscopy were, respectively, appropriate in 82.7% and 82.6% of the exams, uncertain in 5.8% and 2.4% and inappropriate in 11.5% and 15%. The diagnostic yield was significant higher for EGDs and colonoscopies judged appropriate and uncertain when compared with those considered inappropriate (EGD: 36.6% vs 36.4% vs 11.4%, P = 0.004; Colonoscopy: 24.3% vs 20.0% vs 3.3%, P = 0.001). Of the 25 malignant lesions detected, all but one was detected in exams judged appropriate or uncertain.

CONCLUSION: This study shows a good adherence to ASGE guidelines by the referring physicians and a significant increase of the diagnostic yield in appropriate examinations, namely in detecting neoplastic lesions. It underscores the importance that the appropriateness of the indication assumes in assuring high-quality GI endoscopic procedures.

(1) The number of endoscopic examinations performed is rising. Epidemiological data and the workload of well developed units show that annual requirements per head of population are approaching: Upper gastrointestinal 1 in 100 Flexible sigmoidoscopy 1 in 500 Colonoscopy 1 in 500 ERCP 1 in 2000 (2) Open access endoscopy to general practitioners is desirable and increasingly sought. For a district general hospital serving a population of 250,000, this workload entails about 3500 procedures annually, performed during 10 half day routine sessions plus emergency work. (3) High standards of training and experience are needed by all staff, who must work in purpose built accommodation designed to promote efficient and safe practice. (4) The endoscopy unit should be adjacent to day care facilities and near the x ray department. There should be easy access to wards. (5) An endoscopy unit needs at least two endoscopy rooms; a fully ventilated cleaning/disinfection area; rooms for patient reception, preparation, and recovery; and accommodation for administration, storage, and staff amenities. (6) The service should be consultant based. At least 10 clinical sessions are required, made up of six or more consultant sessions and two to four clinical assistant, hospital practitioner, or staff specialist sessions. Each consultant should be expected to commit at least two sessions weekly to endoscopy. Extra consultant sessions may be needed to provide an efficient service. (7) A specially trained nursing sister (grade G or H) and five other endoscopy nurses are needed to care for the patients; their work may be supplemented by care assistants. (8) A new post of endoscopy department assistant (analogous to an operating department assistant) is proposed to maintain and prepare instruments, and to give technical assistance during procedures. (9) A full time secretary should be employed. Records, appointments, and audit should be computer based. (10) ERCP needs the collaboration of an interventional radiologist working with high quality x ray equipment in a specially prepared radiology screening room. This facility may need to serve more than one hospital. (11) A gastrointestinal measurement laboratory can conveniently be combined with the endoscopy unit. In some hospitals one or more gastrointestinal measurement technicians may staff this laboratory. (12) An endoscopy unit is a service department analogous to a radiology department. It needs an annual budget.

Several organizations worldwide have developed procedure-based guidelines and/or position statements regarding various aspects of quality and safety indicators, and credentialing for endoscopy. Although important, they do not specifically address patient needs or provide a framework for their adoption in the context of endoscopy services. The consensus guidelines reported in this article, however, aimed to identify processes and indicators relevant to the provision of high-quality endoscopy services that will support ongoing quality improvement across many jurisdictions, specifically in the areas of ethics, facility standards and policies, quality assurance, training and education, reporting standards and patient perceptions.

BACKGROUND:

Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE:

To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.

METHODS:

A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.

RESULTS:

Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.

DISCUSSION:

The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.

CONCLUSIONS:

The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Work by this group has shown that there is a wide range of opinion as to patients' suitability for endoscopy. In a recent study, 1297 questionnaires were sent to a random selection of doctors, including 350 general physicians, 400 surgeons, 477 gastroenterologists, and 70 general practitioners. The respondent was asked to indicate whether or not he would refer the patient described by each case vignette for endoscopy. Depending on the indication, the positive referral rate varied from 4.5% to 99% overall, and from 4.5% to 63.8% for all those clinical situations that the working party felt to be inappropriate. A second study examined the appropriateness of 400 consecutive cases referred from four units within one health region; these cases were judged independently, and without conferring, by a panel of seven gastroenterologists. The same cases were rated by software that incorporated American opinion (the Rand criteria). Although only 45 (11%) of the cases were classed as inappropriate by the British panel, 120 cases (31%) assessed by the American software were rated inappropriate. These differences occurred largely because in the USA it is recommended that one month's antiulcer treatment be tried before considering endoscopy for dyspepsia and thus many referrals were seen as inappropriate by the American database. Of the 45 cases found to be inappropriate by the British doctors no important abnormality was found at endoscopy; whereas of 120 cases judged inappropriate by the Rand criteria, three duodenal and two gastric ulcers, and one gastric cancer were diagnosed at gastroscopy. This study attempts a quantitative assessment of inappropriate use and serves to encourage further work to define appropriateness.

This study investigated the impact of the guidelines of The Royal College of Surgeons of England on the practice of hernia surgery in Wales. This was assessed by means of a postal survey to all consultant general surgeons in Wales in 1996-1997. The areas covered were: awareness of the guidelines of The Royal College of Surgeons of England and the impact of such guidelines on their practice, attendance at hernia courses, operative technique, materials used for repair and skin suture, proportion of day case hernias, length of inpatient stay, thromboembolic (TE) prophylaxis and postoperative advice to patients with regard to light work, heavy work and sport. In all, 79 replies were received (85%). Almost all the surgeons had read the guidelines; this changed the practice of 20% of respondents but did not in 32%. A further 48% did not answer the question. In contrast with our 1993 survey results, in Wales there is now a uniform surgical management of adult inguinal hernias: the most common operation is the Liechtenstein, with monofilament non-absorbable suture to secure the mesh, followed by the Shouldice repair. The Bassini and inguinal darn operations are becoming much less common and none now uses braided or absorbable sutures for the repair. Skin closure is still rather variable, with only 58% of respondents adhering to the recommended absorbable subcuticular suture. Postoperative advice is now uniform and in accordance with the guidelines. A trend towards more TE prophylaxis and more day case hernia surgery is also seen.

BACKGROUND:

The appropriateness and safety of open-access endoscopy are very important issues as its use continues to increase.

OBJECTIVE:

To present a review of a nine-year experience with open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with respect to indications, diagnostic efficacy, safety and diseases diagnosed.

METHODS:

A retrospective, observational case series of all patients who underwent open-access endoscopy between January 2000 and December 2008 was conducted. Indications were classified as appropriate or not appropriate according to American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. Endoscopic diagnoses were based on widely accepted criteria. Major complication rates were assessed.

RESULTS:

A total of 20,620 patients with a mean age of 58 years were assessed, of whom 11,589 (56.2%) were women and 9031 (43.8%) were men. Adherence to ASGE indications led to statistically significant, clinically relevant findings. The most common indications in patients older than age 45 years of age were dyspepsia (28.5%) and anemia (19.7%) in the ASGE-appropriate group, and dyspepsia in patients younger than 45 years of age without therapy trial (6.6%) in the nonappropriate group. Of the examinations, 38.57% were normal. Hiatal hernia and nonerosive gastritis were the most common findings. Important diagnoses such as malignancies and duodenal ulcers would have been missed if endoscopies were performed only according to appropriateness. There were only two major complications and no mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS:

Open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is a safe and effective system. More relevant findings were found when adhering to the ASGE guidelines. However, using these guidelines as the sole determining factor in whether to perform an endoscopy is not advisable because many clinically relevant diagnoses may be overlooked.

Summary

Objectives

To study the indications for endoscopy, the endoscopic diagnosis and other lessons learnt.

Methods

A retrospective and prospective audit of all upper gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in the Endoscopy Unit of the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital from January 1995 to December 2002 was performed.

Results

A total of 6977 patients, 3777 males and 3200 females with age range 1 year 8 months to 93 years were endoscoped. The mean age of males was 43.5 ± 0.5 and females 43.7 ± 0.6 years. Epigastric pain (42.5%), dyspepsia (32.8%) and haematemesis and melaena (14.2%) were the commonest reasons for endoscopy. Chronic duodenal ulcer (19.6%), acute gastritis (12.7%), duodenitis (10.2%), oesophagitis (7.5%) were the commonest diagnoses. Normal endoscopy was reported in 41.1% patients, and was higher in the younger age group compared to the older (R = 0.973, P<0.001). Nine hundred and ninety (14.2%) patients were endoscoped for haematemesis and melaena of which chronic duodenal ulcer (32.1%), gastritis/gastric erosions (12.8%), oesophageal varices (9.8%), carcinoma of the stomach (6.4%), and duodenitis (4.2%), were the commonest causes. No lesion was found in 20.6% of these patients. Urease test was positive in 75% of all biopsy specimen and 85% in chronic duodenal ulcer, gastritis and duodenitis.

Conclusion

The normal endoscopy rate is high and needs to be reduced in order to help prolong the lives of the endoscopes. Chronic duodenal ulcer is usually associated with H. pylori infection and is the commonest cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

A subcommitte was appointed by the Joint Tuberculosis Committee of the British Thoracic Society to review and bring up to date guidelines on control measures for tuberculosis. The updated code of practice emphasises that all cases of tuberculosis must be notified. A minority of patients need admission, and those with positive sputum smears should be regarded as infectious until they have received two weeks of chemotherapy. NHS staff at risk should be protected, and evidence of infectious tuberculosis should be sought as routine among certain prospective NHS employees, schoolteachers, and others. Contact tracing should be vigorously pursued, and all entrants to Britain from countries where tuberculosis is common should be screened. BCG vaccination should be offered in selected instances, and local organisation of tuberculosis services should be extended.

1. All patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy must be considered 'at risk' for HIV and appropriate cleaning/disinfection measures taken for endoscopes and accessories. 2. Thorough manual cleaning with detergent, of the instrument and its channels is the most important part of the cleaning/disinfection procedure. Without this, blood, mucus and organic material will prevent adequate penetration of disinfectant for inactivation of bacteria and viruses. 3. Aldehyde preparations (2% activated glutaraldehyde and related products) are the recommended first line antibacterial and antiviral disinfectant. A four minute soak is recommended as sufficient for inactivation of vegetative bacteria and viruses (including HIV and HBV). 4. Quaternary ammonium detergents (8% Dettox for two minutes for bacterial disinfection), followed by exposure of the endoscope shaft and channels to ethyl alcohol (70% for four minutes for viral inactivation), is an acceptable second-line disinfectant routine where staff sensitisation prevents the use of an aldehyde disinfectant. 5. Accessories, including mouthguards and cleaning brushes, require similarly careful cleaning/disinfection, before and after each use. Disposable products (especially injection needles) may be used and appropriate items can be sterilised by autoclaving and kept in sterile packs. 6. Closed circuit endoscope washing machines have advantages in maintaining standards and avoiding staff sensitisation to disinfectants. Improved ventilation including exhaust extraction facilities may be required. 7. Endoscopy staff should receive HBV vaccination, wear gloves and appropriate protective garments, cover wounds or abrasions and avoid needlestick injuries (including spiked forceps, etc). 8. Known HIV-infected or AIDS patients are managed as immunosuppressed, and require protection from atypical mycobacteria/cryptosporidia etc, by one hour aldehyde disinfection of endoscopic equipment before and after the procedure. A dedicated instrument is not required. 9. Increased funding is necessary for capital purchases of GI endoscopic equipment, including extra and immersible endoscopes with additional accessories to allow for safe practice. 10. Greater numbers of trained GI assistants are needed to ensure that cleaning/disinfection recommendations and safety precautions are followed, both during routine lists and emergency endoscopic procedures. 11. These recommendations are based on expert interpretation of current data on infectivity and disinfection; they may require future modification.

This study was a collaboration between The Royal College of Surgeons of England Clinical Effectiveness Unit and the British Association of Head and Neck Oncologists (BAHNO). We created a multidisciplinary database through an enquiry to all 49 UK radiotherapy centres. A questionnaire audit identified teams and individuals in the UK involved with treatment of head and neck cancer. A questionnaire on their organisation, and intentions for change was sent to the 108 teams (90% response) and 11 sole practitioners (45% response) identified. Overall, 335 surgical consultants were involved in the treatment of 7500 cases per annum, with large variations in size of catchment populations served by teams. Mean length of time spent with each out-patient was 11 min. Of respondents, 58% were already using the BAHNO basic dataset and more indicated intention to use it, but only 32% could actually deliver information on their work-load. More computerisation of data collection is essential, and national audit may bridge the data gap.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is the most common gastrointestinal emergency, with peptic ulcer as the most common cause. Appropriate resuscitation followed by early endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment are of major importance in these patients. Endoscopy is recommended within 24 h of presentation. Endoscopic therapy is indicated for patients with high-risk stigmata, in particular those with active bleeding and visible vessels. The role of endoscopic therapy for ulcers with adherent clots remains to be elucidated. Ablative or mechanical therapies are superior to epinephrine injection alone in terms of prevention of rebleeding. The application of an ulcer-covering hemospray is a new promising tool. High dose proton pump inhibitors should be administered intravenously for 72 h after endoscopy in high-risk patients. Helicobacter pylori should be tested for in all patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and eradicated if positive. These recommendations have been captured in a recent international guideline.

Background/Aim:

Dyspepsia is a common gastrointestinal disorder and is the most common indication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE). In recent years, it has been observed in several centers that there is a change in the causes of dyspepsia as revealed by UGIE. Our main objectives were: (1) To study the pattern of upper gastrointestinal pathology in patients with dyspepsia undergoing upper endoscopy; (2) Compare that with the pattern seen 10-15 years earlier in different areas of KSA.

Patients and Methods:

Retrospective study of all UGI endoscopies performed at Aseer Central Hospital, Abha, Southern Saudi Arabia during the years 2005-2007 on patients above 13 years of age. Patients who underwent UGIE for reasons other than dyspepsia were excluded. The analysis was performed using the SPSS 14 statistical package.

Results:

A total of 1,607 patients underwent UGI endoscopy during the three-year study period (age range, 15-100). There were 907 males (56.4%) and 700 female (43.6%). Normal findings were reported on 215 patients (14%) and the majority had gastritis (676 = 42%), of whom 344 had gastritis with ulcer disease. Moreover, 242 patients (15%) had gastro-esophageal reflux (GERD), with or without esophagitis or hiatus hernia. Also, a total of 243 patients had duodenal ulcer (DU) (15%) while only 12 had gastric ulcer (0.7%).

Discussion and Conclusion:

There is clear change in the frequency of UGIE lesions detected recently compared to a decade ago with an increasing prevalence of reflux esophagitis and hiatus hernia. This could be attributed to changes in lifestyle and dietary habits such as more consumption of fat and fast food, increased prevalence of obesity, and smoking. These problems should be addressed in order to minimize the serious complications of esophageal diseases.

This paper summarises a multidisciplinary workshop convened to prepare clinical guidelines and audit standards in cardiac rehabilitation in the United Kingdom. The workshop developed a three element model of the rehabilitation process and identified needs relating to medical and psychosocial care and the potential contributions of exercise, education, secondary prevention, and vocational advice. Draft clinical standards are proposed as a basis for locally developed guidelines and further research.

Problem

Rising demand and increasing waiting times for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (gastroscopy).

Design

Quality improvement study with pre‐ and post‐intervention data collection.

Setting

Three endoscopy units in two hospital trusts (Singleton, Morriston and Baglan Hospitals endoscopy units), UK.

Key measures for improvement

Number of gastroscopy requests from general practitioners (GPs) and hospital doctors; their adherence to dyspepsia referral guidelines and the referral‐to‐procedure interval for upper gastroscopy. Data collected for six months before and for five months after the intervention.

Strategy for change

Referrals were assessed against the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the management of dyspepsia by two part‐time GPs and feedback sent to clinicians where requests did not adhere to the referrals criteria

Effects of change

Adherence to guideline criteria increased significantly among GPs after the intervention (from 55% to 75%). There was no similar effect for hospital doctors, although their adherence rate (70%) was at a higher level than that of GPs before the intervention. The number of gastroscopy referrals for dyspepsia declined after the intervention, particularly from hospital doctors where a drop of 31% was observed, from 26.6 to 18.4 referrals per week. With the inclusion of seasonal effects, an estimated drop of 3.2 referrals per week from general practice was not significant (p = 0.065) while an estimated drop of 10.0 referrals per week for hospital doctors was very significant (p<0.001).

Lessons learnt

Referral assessment can be successfully introduced and shows promise as a way of improving the quality of referrals and reducing demand. Hospital clinicians are more resistant than GPs to referral assessment but nevertheless responded to the feedback by reducing their endoscopy gastroscopy requests. Most such referrals are generated in hospitals rather than in primary care: this finding has important implications for demand management.

Aims: To investigate the effect on the workload of a gastrointestinal pathology service of implementing the recommendations of the Royal College of Pathologists’ (RCPath) working party on specimens of limited or no clinical value (LONCV).

Methods: All endoscopic gastrointestinal pathology reports for the first three months of 2001 at a large teaching hospital were reviewed against the RCPath recommendations. Specimens in the category of LONCV were recorded and the final histopathology diagnosis noted.

Results: The biopsies in the LONCV category were 30% of oesophageal, 61% of gastric, 0.5% of duodenal, and 7% of colorectal origin.

Conclusions: Implementing the RCPath recommendations would reduce the number of requests for the examination of gastrointestinal endoscopic specimens by 3500 specimens each year in this department. None of the specimens in the LONCV category showed an abnormality that could not have been detected by a more efficient and less invasive method. In the UK, where there is a severe shortage of trained histopathologists, the implementation of these recommendations would ensure that these scarce resources are not misused.

Introduction

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is currently performed by different specialties. Information on GI endoscopy resources in Nigeria is limited. Training, cost, availability and maintenance of equipment are some unique challenges. Despite these challenges, the quality and completion rates are important.

Methods

Prospective audit of endoscopic procedures by an endoscopist in a Nigerian hospital over a 24 month period.

Results

One hundred and ninety endoscopic procedures were performed in 187 patients (109 male, 78 female) by a surgeon during this period. Mean age was 47.6 years (range 17 - 90 years). All patients were symptomatic. One hundred and twenty-two procedures (64.2%) were upper GI endoscopy, 52 (27.4%) colonoscopy and 16 (8.4%) sigmoidoscopy. Majority of endoscopies 182 (95.8%) were performed electively and only 7 (3.7%) were therapeutic. Upper GI endoscopy findings included 14 (11.5%) cases of peptic ulcer disease, 5 complicated by gastric outlet obstruction, and 21 (17.3%) cases of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy findings included 7 cases of polyps, 3 cases of colorectal cancer and 2 cases of diverticulosis. Commonest lesion on lower GI endoscopy was haemorrhoids (41.7%). Adjusted caecal intubation was 81.4% for colonoscopies performed. Overall adenoma detection rate for male and female patients were 18.2% and 5.3% respectively; in patients over 50 years these were 6.3% and 14.3%. Two complications, rupture of oesophageal varices, and respiratory arrest in bulbar palsy patient occurred.

Conclusion

An endoscopist can perform GI endoscopy effectively in developing countries like Nigeria but attention to equipment need and training is important.

To determine the significance of the endoscopic classification of gastritis proposed by a working party at the World Congress of Gastroenterology in Sydney 1990, 167 patients undergoing upper alimentary endoscopy were prospectively assessed by comprehensive endoscopic and histological methods. Ninety eight patients had endoscopic mucosal changes of gastritis according to the Sydney classification. Twenty six (27%) of these had histologically normal biopsy specimens. This was not statistically significantly different to the 26 (38%) of 69 with normal endoscopies whose biopsy specimens were histologically normal (chi 2 = 1.857, p > 0.1). Forty three (62.5%) patients with normal endoscopies had histological gastritis. No histological counterpart was found for the macroscopic appearances of the gastric mucosa said to show inflammation proposed by the Sydney classification of gastritis. These findings confirm the inappropriateness of an endoscopic diagnosis of gastritis and it is suggested such a term should be reserved for the histological findings.

To test the value of an outpatient visit in patients with dyspepsia, 79 patients considered suitable for open access endoscopy by their general practitioners were instead seen in the medical outpatient clinic first. In 35 patients immediate endoscopy was seen as an inappropriate investigation and 23 of these were spared endoscopy. In 11 patients important extra diagnoses were made in the clinic which would have been delayed or missed had the patients been sent straight for open access endoscopy. Sixty-eight per cent of patients, when asked by questionnaire, said they preferred to be seen in the clinic first rather than come for open access endoscopy. These results lend support to the traditional medical clinic appointment followed by endoscopy if and when appropriate rather than the open access endoscopy system.