Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2226-3689
Adherence to quality indicators and best practices in surveillance endoscopy of Barrett’s esophagus: A video-based assessment
Abstract
Background and study aims Adherence to quality indicators (QIs) and best practices (BPs) for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is low based on clinical documentation which is an inaccurate representation of events occurring during procedures. This study aimed to assess adherence to measurable QI and BP using video evaluation.
Methods We performed a single center video-based retrospective review of surveillance endoscopies performed for BE ≥1 cm between March 1, 2018 and October 1, 2020. Adherence to QIs and BPs was assessed through video review and documentation. Videos were evaluated by five gastroenterologists. Interrater variability was determined using 10 videos before reviewing the remaining 128 videos. A generalized linear regression model was used to determine predictors of adherence to QIs and BPs.
Results There were 138 endoscopies reviewed. Inspection with virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) occurred in 75 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 50 of these cases (67%). Adherence to the Seattle protocol (SP) occurred in 74 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 28 of these cases (38%). Use of VC or the SP was documented but not observed on video review in 16 (12%) and 30 (22%) cases, respectively. Length of BE was associated with increased use of the Prague classification (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07–1.37) while years in practice was associated with a decreased likelihood of VC use (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88–0.99).
Conclusions This study validates prior data demonstrating poor adherence to QIs and BPs and highlights discrepancies between clinical documentation and events occurring during procedures.
Publication History
Received: 04 September 2023
Accepted after revision: 30 November 2023
Article published online:
19 January 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Cook MB, Thrift AP. Epidemiology of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: Implications for screening and surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2021; 31: 1-26 DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2020.08.001. (PMID: 33213789)
- 2 Vajravelu RK, Kolb JM, Thanawala SU. et al. Characterization of prevalent, post-endoscopy, and incident esophageal cancer in the United States: a large retrospective cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 1739-1747 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.02.005. (PMID: 33549872)
- 3 Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG. et al. Diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus: An updated ACG guideline. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117: 559-587 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001680. (PMID: 35354777)
- 4 Qumseya B, Sultan S, Bain P. et al. ASGE guideline on screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 335-359 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.05.012. (PMID: 31439127)
- 5 Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF. et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1084-1091 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.01.030. (PMID: 21376940)
- 6 Weusten B, Bisschops R, Coron E. et al. Endoscopic management of Barrett's esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 191-198 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-122140. (PMID: 28122386)
- 7 Codipilly DC, Chandar AK, Singh S. et al. The effect of endoscopic surveillance in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 2068-2086
- 8 Sharma P, Katzka DA, Gupta N. et al. Quality indicators for the management of Barrett's esophagus, dysplasia, and esophageal adenocarcinoma: international consensus recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association Symposium. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 1599-1606
- 9 Everson MA, Lovat LB, Graham DG. et al. Virtual chromoendoscopy by using optical enhancement improves the detection of Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 247-256 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.032. (PMID: 30291849)
- 10 Gupta N, Gaddam S, Wani SB. et al. Longer inspection time is associated with increased detection of high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 531-538
- 11 Bisschops R, Areia 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 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-113128. (PMID: 27548885)
- 12 Westerveld D, Khullar V, Mramba L. et al. Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in the management of Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective analysis. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E300-E307 DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-101351. (PMID: 29507870)
- 13 Abrams JA, Kapel RC, Lindberg GM. et al. Adherence to biopsy guidelines for Barrett's esophagus surveillance in the community setting in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 736-742 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.12.027. (PMID: 19268726)
- 14 Menezes A, Tierney A, Yang YX. et al. Adherence to the 2011 American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement for the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2015; 28: 538-546 DOI: 10.1111/dote.12228. (PMID: 24849246)
- 15 Harris N, Telford J, Yonge J. et al. Improvement of endoscopic reports with implementation of a dictation template. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2021; 4: 21-26
- 16 Yen T, Jones B, Espinoza JM. et al. Optimizing endoscopy procedure documentation improves guideline-adherent care in upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Dig Dis Sci 2023; 68: 2264-2274 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-023-07823-6. (PMID: 36645637)
- 17 Ladabaum U, Shepard J, Mannalithara A. Developing and deploying an automated quality reporting system in your practice: learning from the Stanford Colonoscopy Quality Assurance Program. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 1365-1370 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001265. (PMID: 34183571)
- 18 van de Graaf FW, Lange MM, Spakman JI. et al. Comparison of systematic video documentation with narrative operative report in colorectal cancer surgery. JAMA Surg 2019; 154: 381-389
- 19 Ali S, Bailey A, Ash S. et al. A pilot study on automatic three-dimensional quantification of Barrett's esophagus for risk stratification and therapy monitoring. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 865-878 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.059. (PMID: 34116029)
- 20 Ooi J, Wilson P, Walker G. et al. Dedicated Barrett's surveillance sessions managed by trained endoscopists improve dysplasia detection rate. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 524-528 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-103410. (PMID: 28399610)
- 21 Parasa S, Wallace MB, Srinivasan S. et al. Educational intervention to improve quality of care in Barrett's esophagus: the AQUIRE randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 239-245 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.08.026. (PMID: 34499903)