PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Year of Publication
1.  Indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy 
The growth in the use of endoscopy to diagnose and treat many gastointestinal disorders, and its central role in cancer screening programs, has led to a significant increase in the number of procedures performed. This growth, however, has also led to many variations in, among others, the provision of services, the choice of sedative medications and the training of providers. The recognition of the significance of quality in endoscopy has prompted several countries, including Canada, to initiate efforts to adopt nationwide quality improvement programs. The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology formed a committee to review endoscopy and quality with the aim of stimulating improvement. This article focuses specifically on patient safety indicators that were developed at a consensus conference aimed at generating a broad range of recommendations for selected endoscopic procedures, which if adopted, could lead to significant changes in how endoscopy services are provided.
INTRODUCTION:
The importance of quality indicators has become increasingly recognized in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patient safety requires the identification and monitoring of occurrences associated with harm or the potential for harm. The identification of relevant indicators of safety compromise is, therefore, a critical element that is key to the effective implementation of endoscopy quality improvement programs.
OBJECTIVE:
To identify key indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS:
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group was formed to address issues of quality in endoscopy. A subcommittee was formed to identify key safety indicators. A systematic literature review was undertaken, and articles pertinent to safety in endoscopy were identified and reviewed. All complications and measures used to document safety were recorded. From this, a preliminary list of 16 indicators was compiled and presented to the 35-person consensus group during a three-day meeting. A revised list of 20 items was subsequently put to the consensus group for vote for inclusion on the final list of safety indicators. Items were retained only if the consensus group highly agreed on their importance.
RESULTS:
A total of 19 indicators of safety compromise were retained and grouped into the three following categories: medication-related – the need for CPR, use of reversal agents, hypoxia, hypotension, hypertension, sedation doses in patients older than 70 years of age, allergic reactions and laryngospasm/bronchospasm; procedure-related early – perforation, immediate postpolypectomy bleeding, need for hospital admission or transfer to emergency department from the gastroenterology unit, instrument impaction, severe persistent abdominal pain requiring evaluation proven to not be perforation; and procedure-related delayed – death within 30 days of procedure, 14-day unplanned hospitalization, 14-day unplanned contact with a health provider, gastrointestinal bleeding within 14 days of procedure, infection or symptomatic metabolic complications.
CONCLUSIONS:
The 19 indicators of safety compromise in endoscopy, identified by a rigorous, evidence-based consensus process, provide clear outcomes to be recorded by all facilities as part of their continuing quality improvement programs.
PMCID: PMC3275408  PMID: 22312605
Digestive system; Endoscopy; Health care; Quality assurance; Surgical complications; Safety
2.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy 
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.
PMCID: PMC3275402  PMID: 22308578
Digestive system; Endoscopy; Guideline; Health care; Quality assurance
3.  A literature review of quality in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy from the patient perspective 
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer, and the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women in Canada. Prompted by nationally accepted CRC guidelines, the use of colonoscopy – widely regarded to be the optimal method of CRC screening – has increased dramatically in recent years. However, when evaluating colonoscopy performance and the delivery of high-quality care, it is important to also consider factors relevant to the patients who require colonoscopy services. Understanding the patient perspective on what comprises quality in colonoscopy/endoscopy is essential to tailoring improvements in the standards of practice and quality of care. Accordingly, this study systematically reviewed the literature pertaining to aspects of colonoscopy and endoscopy that may be considered to be important to patients.
BACKGROUND:
Given the limited state of health care resources, increased demand for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening raises concerns about the quality of endoscopy services. Little is known about quality in colonoscopy and endoscopy from the patient perspective.
OBJECTIVE:
To systematically review the literature on quality that is relevant to patients who require colonoscopy or endoscopy services.
METHODS:
A systematic PubMed search was performed on articles that were published between January 2000 and February 2011. Keywords included “colonoscopy” or “sigmoidoscopy” or “endoscopy” AND “quality”; “colonoscopy” or “sigmoidoscopy” or “endoscopy” AND “patient satisfaction” or “willingness to return”. The included articles were qualitative and quantitative English language studies regarding aspects of colonoscopy and/or endoscopy services that were evaluated by patients in which data were collected within one year of the colonoscopy/endoscopy procedure.
RESULTS:
In total, 28 quantitative studies were identified, of which eight (28.6%) met the inclusion criteria (four cross-sectional, three prospective cohort and one single-blinded controlled study). Aspects of quality included comfort, management of pain and anxiety, endoscopy unit staff manner, skills and specialty, procedure and results discussion with the doctor, physical environment, wait times for the appointment and procedure, and discharge. Qualitative studies eliciting the patient perspective on what constituted quality in colonoscopy/endoscopy were not found.
CONCLUSIONS:
Factors related to comfort, staff, communication and the service environment were evaluated from the patient perspective using closed-ended questions that were designed by clinicians and researchers. Future research using qualitative methodology to elicit the patient perspective on quality in colonoscopy and/or endoscopy services is needed.
PMCID: PMC3266160  PMID: 22175059
Colonoscopy; Endoscopy; Patient perspective; Quality; Review
4.  Practice Audit in Gastroenterology (PAGE) program: A novel approach to continuing professional development 
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.
PMCID: PMC2659923  PMID: 16779458
Colonoscopy; Continuing medical education; Continuing professional development; Endoscopy; Gastroenterology; Maintenance of certification; Personal digital assistant; Practice audit

Results 1-5 (5)