PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance 
Frontline Gastroenterology  2013;5(1):10-16.
Background
The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Committee on Outcomes Research has recommended monitoring nine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-specific quality indicators for quality assurance in ERCP. With the development of a self-assessment tool for ERCP (Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP—RAF-E), key indicators can easily be assessed.
Objective
The aim of this study was to test in daily practice an easy-to-use form for assessment of procedural quality in ERCP and to determine ERCP quality outcomes in a tertiary referral hospital.
Design
This was a prospective study carried out in a tertiary referral hospital. In January 2008, a quality self-assessment programme was started. Five qualified endoscopists participated in this study. All ERCPs were appraised using RAF-E. Primary parameters were common bile duct (CBD) cannulation rate and procedural success. The indication was classified and procedural difficulty was graded; success rates of therapeutic interventions were measured for all different difficulty degrees.
Results
A total number of 1691 ERCPs were performed. 1515 (89.6%) of these were appraised using RAF-E. Median CBD cannulation success rate was 94.1%. Successful sphincterotomy was accomplished in almost all patients (median 100%; range 98.2–100%). Stent placement was successful in 97.8% and complete stone extraction, if indicated, was achieved in 86.8%.
Conclusions
Quality indicators for ERCP can be measured using the Rotterdam self-assessment programme for ERCP. Outcome data in ERCPs obtained with this RAF-E provide insight into the quality of individual as well as group performance and can be used to assess and set standards for quality control in ERCP.
doi:10.1136/flgastro-2013-100334
PMCID: PMC3880906  PMID: 24416502
ENDOSCOPY; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE PANCREATOGRAPHY; GASTROINTESINAL ENDOSCOPY
2.  Endoscopist-related factors contributing to high-quality colonoscopy: results of a Delphi survey 
Education and competency assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy is important. Concerning colonoscopy, it is not completely clear what the best way is to learn this procedure, what defines competency in colonoscopy, and which factors define a high-quality colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine the endoscopist-related factors that define a high-quality colonoscopy. A three-round Delphi survey among expert endoscopists was carried out. In round 1, the panel was invited to identify factors essential for a good colonoscopy. The listed factors were to be ranked during the second round. In the third round, a 5-point Likert scale was added. A reference panel was invited to assess the items as well. 14 expert endoscopists from the Netherlands were invited, of whom eight participated (57 %). A list of 30 items important for colonoscopy was formulated. After the following rounds, consensus was reached on 16 items. Validation was conducted among eight trainees and eight experienced endoscopists (response 100 %). The groups agreed on the importance of all but one factor (p = 0.001). This Delphi survey has made explicit the endoscopist-related factors that are important for optimal colonoscopy. This might provide trainers more support regarding concrete competency assessment of trainees in endoscopy.
doi:10.1007/s40037-013-0099-3
PMCID: PMC3890001  PMID: 24307400
Assessment; Gastrointestinal endoscopist; Delphi; Training
4.  Narrow Band Imaging for the Detection of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia and Dysplasia During Surveillance Endoscopy 
Digestive Diseases and Sciences  2010;55(12):3442-3448.
Background
Surveillance of premalignant gastric lesions relies mainly on random biopsy sampling. Narrow band imaging (NBI) may enhance the accuracy of endoscopic surveillance of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and dysplasia. We aimed to compare the yield of NBI to white light endoscopy (WLE) in the surveillance of patients with IM and dysplasia.
Methods
Patients with previously identified gastric IM or dysplasia underwent a surveillance endoscopy. Both WLE and NBI were performed in all patients during a single procedure. The sensitivity of WLE and NBI for the detection of premalignant lesions was calculated by correlating endoscopic findings to histological diagnosis.
Results
Forty-three patients (28 males and 15 females, mean age 59 years) were included. IM was diagnosed in 27 patients; 20 were detected by NBI and WLE, four solely by NBI and three by random biopsies only. Dysplasia was detected in seven patients by WLE and NBI and in two patients by random biopsies only. Sixty-eight endoscopically detected lesions contained IM: 47 were detected by WLE and NBI, 21 by NBI only. Nine endoscopically detected lesions demonstrated dysplasia: eight were detected by WLE and NBI, one was detected by NBI only. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for detection of premalignant lesions were 71, 58, 65 and 65% for NBI and 51, 67, 62 and 55% for WLE, respectively.
Conclusions
NBI increases the diagnostic yield for detection of advanced premalignant gastric lesions compared to routine WLE.
doi:10.1007/s10620-010-1189-2
PMCID: PMC2975908  PMID: 20393882
Intestinal metaplasia; Dysplasia; Narrow band imaging; White light endoscopy; Surveillance
5.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study) 
BMC Surgery  2009;9:4.
Background
Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications.
The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas.
Methods/design
Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma ≥ 3 cm, located between 1–15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment.
Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures.
Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group.
Discussion
The TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas.
Trial registration number
(trialregister.nl) NTR1422
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-9-4
PMCID: PMC2664790  PMID: 19284647

Results 1-5 (5)