Endoscopy 2017; 49(04): 378-397
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-103411
Guideline
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

Authors

  • Michal F. Kaminski

    1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
    2   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology and Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
    3   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Siwan Thomas-Gibson

    4   Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark’s Hospital, Harrow, and Imperial College, London, UK
  • Marek Bugajski

    1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
    2   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology and Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
  • Michael Bretthauer

    3   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
    5   Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • Colin J. Rees

    6   South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Tyneside, United Kingdom
  • Evelien Dekker

    7   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Geir Hoff

    3   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
    8   Department of Research and Development, Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway
    9   Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  • Rodrigo Jover

    10   Unidad de Gastroenterologia, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
  • Stepan Suchanek

    11   Department of Internal Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Military University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Monika Ferlitsch

    12   Department of Medicine III, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • John Anderson

    13   Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham General Hospital, Gloucestershire, UK
  • Thomas Roesch

    14   Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
  • Rolf Hultcranz

    15   Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Istvan Racz

    16   Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Petz Aladar County and Teaching Hospital, Györ, Hungary
  • Ernst J. Kuipers

    17   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Kjetil Garborg

    3   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, and Department of Transplantation Medicine, KG Jebsen Center for Colorectal Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  • James E. East

    18   Translational Gastroenterology Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Maciej Rupinski

    1   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
    2   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology and Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
  • Birgitte Seip

    19   Department of Gastroenterology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Tønsberg, Norway
  • Cathy Bennett

    20   Centre for Technology Enabled Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
  • Carlo Senore

    21   CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
  • Silvia Minozzi

    21   CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
  • Raf Bisschops

    22   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  • Dirk Domagk

    23   Department of Internal Medicine, Joseph’s Hospital, Warendorf, Germany
  • Roland Valori

    24   Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, UK
  • Cristiano Spada

    25   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Agostino Gemelli University Hospital, Rome, Italy
  • Cesare Hassan

    26   Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
  • Mario Dinis-Ribeiro

    27   Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal
    28   Servicio de Gastroenterologia, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Porto, Portugal
  • Matthew D. Rutter

    29   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, UK
    30   School of Medicine, Durham University, UK
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 March 2017 (online)

Preview

Abstract

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level:

1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set).

Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.