The Italian Society for Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) accreditation and quality improving project based on international standards

Abstract

Background and study aims Accreditation of endoscopy services, using valid quality indicators, may address failures to comply with quality standards between endoscopy services. The aim of this work was to present the Italian Society for Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) accreditation model and its effectiveness.

Methods A team of eight endoscopists identified quality indicators derived from international guidelines and assessed them in each center voluntarily requesting accreditation. During a 1-day site visit, two expert endoscopists, the representative of the independent and international administrative certification body and a professional nurse evaluated the endoscopy center, by direct observation of the endoscopy team and examination of the medical records

Results In all centers we noted shortcomings in instrument reprocessing. In 30 of 40 centers (75 %) the information in the nursing charts was incomplete. Sampling for Helicobacter pylori had not been done in 12 of 40 centers (30 %). In six of 40 centers (15 %) the adenoma detection rate for each endoscopist had not been evaluated. Post-polypectomy intervals were inappropriate in 12 of 40 centers (30 %). We noted a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001) between the answers to the SIED checklist of indicators submitted to the inspection team for accreditation before the site visit and the situation found for colonoscopy on site. As of June 30, 2018, 18 endoscopy centers had been accredited and 10 centers had not yet being accredited because they had not completed the measures to correct points raised at the visits.

Conclusions Numerous Italian endoscopy centers fail to meet important quality indicators. Our accreditation program can provide means for detecting these problems and correcting them by implementing SIED standards.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 04. Juli 2019

Angenommen: 03. Dezember 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. Februar 2020

• References

• 1 Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human. Building a safer health system. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press; 1999
• 2 Johnson MR, Grubber J, Grambow SC. et al. Physician non-adherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 938-951
• 3 van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW. et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colo-rectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584-1592
• 4 Suman A, Schaafsma FG, van de Ven PM. et al. Effectiveness of a multifaced implementation strategy compared to usual care on low back pain guidelines adherence among general practioners. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 358
• 5 Cabana MD, Rand CS, Power NR. et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999; 282: 1458-1465
• 6 McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J. et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2635-2645
• 7 Veitch AM, Vedo N, Yao K. et al. Optimizing early upper gastrointestinal cancer detection at endoscopy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 12: 660-667
• 8 Paggi S, Amato A, Anderloni A. et al. Pre and post-procedural quality indicators for colonoscopy. A nationwide survey. Dig Liver Dis 2016; 48: 759-764
• 9 Patel N, Tong L, Ahn C. et al. Post-polypectomy guideline adherence: importance of belief in guidelines, not guideline knowledge or fear of missed cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 2937-2945
• 10 Greenfiled D, Braithwaite J. Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review. Int J Qual Healthcare 2008; 20: 172-183
• 11 Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Moldovan M. et al. Narrative synthesis of health accreditation literature. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21: 979-991
• 12 Flodgren G, Goncalves-Bradley DC, Pomey MP. External inspection of compliance with standards for improved healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; CD008992
• 13 Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients care. Lancet 2003; 362: 1225-1230
• 14 Colbert CY, Diaz-Guzman E, Myers JD. et al. How to interpret surveys in medical research: A practical approach. Cleve Clin J Med 2013; 80: 423-425
• 15 Petersen BT, Koch J, Ginsberg GG. Infection using ERCP endoscopes. Gastroenterology 2016; 151: 46-50
• 16 O’Horo JC, Farrell A, Sohail MR. et al. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and endoscopy: An evolving threat. Am J Infect control 2016; 44: 1032-1036
• 17 Alrabara S. Early identification and control of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, originating from contaminated endoscopic equipment. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 850
• 18 Naas T, Cuzon G, Babics A. et al. Endoscopy-associated transmission of carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae producing KPC-2 beta-lactamase. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65: 1306-1316
• 19 Tavernise S. Deadly CRE germs linked to hard-to-clean medical scopes. The New York Times February 19, 2015, Page A14
• 20 Muller-Staub M, Lunney M, Odenbreit M. et al. Development of an instrument to measure the quality of documented nursing diagnosis, interventions and outcomes: the Q-Dio. J Clin Nurs 2009; 18: 1027-1237
• 21 Bjorkman DJ, Steeblik M. Best practice recommendations for diagnosis and management of Helicobacter pylori: Synthesizing the guidelines. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2017; 15: 648-659
• 22 Malfertheiner P, Megraud F, O’Morain CA. et al. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection: The Maastricht V/Florence consensus report. Gut 2017; 66: 6-30
• 23 Duarte RB, Bernardo WM, Sakai CM. et al. Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2018; 14: 349-360
• 24 Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multisociety Task Force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 307-323
• 25 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
• 26 Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN. et al. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 264-271
• 27 Bisschops R, Arela M, Coron E. et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 843-864
• 28 Valori R, Thomas-Gibson S. Commentary: accrediting colonoscopy services and colonoscopists for screening makes a difference. Colorectal Dis 2018; 20: O283-O285
• 29 Deirdre MN, Wright Ballester A, Valentelyte G. et al. The contribution of endoscopy quality measures to the development of interval colorectal cancers in the screening population: a systematic review. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019; 34
• 30 Valori R. Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal endoscopy (JAG) achieves enduring large-scale change. Frontline Gastroenterol 2019; 10: 91-92