Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
Background and Aim: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the qu...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Karger Publishers
2018-04-01
|
| Series: | GE: Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/487145 |
| _version_ | 1818546294372696064 |
|---|---|
| author | Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves Diogo Libânio Joana Marques-Antunes Mário Dinis-Ribeiro Pedro Pimentel-Nunes |
| author_facet | Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves Diogo Libânio Joana Marques-Antunes Mário Dinis-Ribeiro Pedro Pimentel-Nunes |
| author_sort | Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background and Aim: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. Methods: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. Results: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The high-quality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). Conclusions: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T07:51:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-580fb3760012420c99f95f41e8446213 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2341-4545 2387-1954 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T07:51:16Z |
| publishDate | 2018-04-01 |
| publisher | Karger Publishers |
| record_format | Article |
| series | GE: Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology |
| spelling | doaj.art-580fb3760012420c99f95f41e84462132022-12-22T00:32:26ZengKarger PublishersGE: Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology2341-45452387-19542018-04-0110.1159/000487145487145Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit InterventionPedro Lisboa-GonçalvesDiogo LibânioJoana Marques-AntunesMário Dinis-RibeiroPedro Pimentel-NunesBackground and Aim: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. Methods: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. Results: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The high-quality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). Conclusions: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/487145EsophagogastroduodenoscopyQuality auditSoftware registrationPerformance measure |
| spellingShingle | Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves Diogo Libânio Joana Marques-Antunes Mário Dinis-Ribeiro Pedro Pimentel-Nunes Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention GE: Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Quality audit Software registration Performance measure |
| title | Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention |
| title_full | Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention |
| title_fullStr | Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention |
| title_full_unstemmed | Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention |
| title_short | Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention |
| title_sort | quality of reporting in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy effect of a simple audit intervention |
| topic | Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Quality audit Software registration Performance measure |
| url | https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/487145 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pedrolisboagoncalves qualityofreportinginuppergastrointestinalendoscopyeffectofasimpleauditintervention AT diogolibanio qualityofreportinginuppergastrointestinalendoscopyeffectofasimpleauditintervention AT joanamarquesantunes qualityofreportinginuppergastrointestinalendoscopyeffectofasimpleauditintervention AT mariodinisribeiro qualityofreportinginuppergastrointestinalendoscopyeffectofasimpleauditintervention AT pedropimentelnunes qualityofreportinginuppergastrointestinalendoscopyeffectofasimpleauditintervention |