Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S65
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637219
ESGE Days 2018 oral presentations
20.04.2018 – Best care session 2
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

QUALITY INDICATORS OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY: A NATIONWIDE SURVEY

, on behalf of SIED (Italian Society od Digestive Endoscopy)
A Amato
1   Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy
,
M Bianchi
2   San Filippo Neri Hospital, Roma, Italy
,
C Fabbri
3   AUSL Bologna Bellaria-Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy
,
S Carrara
4   Humanitas Research Hospital, Milano, Italy
,
S De Lisi
5   ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milano, Italy
,
I Tarantino
6   IRCCS – ISMETT, Palermo, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims:

Specific quality indicators for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) were published and updated in 2015 by a joint American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force. However, most of the papers in the literature a focus on the technical aspects of the procedure while poor interest has been paid at evaluating the quality provided. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the quality of EUS performances provided in Italy

Methods:

Endoscopists members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED), have been invited to a structured, 30 questions on-line survey. Organizational indicators, practice variations and compliance with guidelines were analyzed.

Results:

Data from 61 EUS centers were analyzed: 67.75% had a EUS-dedicated room, 31.37% had always anesthesiologist assistance and only 33.3% had rapid on site evaluation (ROSE). As far as pre-procedure quality indicators are concerned, Italian centers resulted not far from achieving the performance target in terms of appropriate indication of the procedures (76.60%; target:> 80%) and appropriate use of antibiotics in cystic lesions (failure in only 2.13%), whereas a specific EUS informed consent was available in only 82.98% (target: > 98%). Regarding intra-procedural indicators, diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic malignancies was > 70% (performance target) in 86.49% of the centers. About post-procedural indicators, only 46.81% of the centers conducted a systematic recording of adverse events, whereas in all the cases the post-procedural diagnostic/therapeutic program was established by the endosonographers, a dedicated gastroenterologist or by a multidisciplinary team.

Conclusions:

The present survey shows a promising but still suboptimal level of adherence to quality indicators of EUS centers in Italy. The compliance with quality requirements has been achieved more easily for technical/clinical indicators than for organizational ones. Scientific societies need to organize intervention aimed at improving quality of endoscopic ultrasonography provided in Italy.