Endoscopy 2025; 57(S 02): S539
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1806399
Abstracts | ESGE Days 2025
ePosters

The issue of appropriateness of upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in clinical practice: an Italian survey

Authors

  • G Gibiino

    1   Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Forlì-Cesena Hospitals, AUSL Romagna, Forlì-Cesena, Italy

  • L Frazzoni

    1   Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Forlì-Cesena Hospitals, AUSL Romagna, Forlì-Cesena, Italy

  • A Anderloni

    2   Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Pavia, Italy

  • L Fuccio

    3   Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

  • C Fabbri

    1   Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Forlì-Cesena Hospitals, AUSL Romagna, Forlì-Cesena, Italy
Further Information
Also available at
 

Aims The implementation and monitoring of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures for upper and lower endoscopy is suboptimal in clinical practice. In addition, surveillance programs constitute a key element of economic and organizational burden in Italian public health systems. We aimed to define the burden of inappropriate indication for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and consequences, as well as, possible solutions in Italy [1] [2] [3] [4].

Methods We conducted a survey during a nationwide event on quality in upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy held in Rome, Italy in October 2024 by a self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive analyses were conducted overall and by workplace setting.

Results 47 out of 60 endoscopists (78%, M/F 27/20) attended the survey, with equal distribution of age groups, regions and public or private practice. Most of participants (74%) perform colonoscopy within a specific program for screening of colorectal cancer. 66% reported a waiting list management problem at their centre: in detail, only 9% and 30% of participants stated that the rate of inappropriate upper and lower GI endoscopies was below 15% as suggested by ESGE performance measures.

Only 43% of endoscopists reported to usually discuss the appropriateness of examinations to be scheduled and only 21% currently have the ability to filter endoscopic examinations when prescribed by other doctors.

Overall, 94% of participants stated that they would agree to discuss cases with general practitioners (GPs) and other prescribers, through various measures, e.g., 36% by checklist-based requests, 34% by scientific meetings, 19% by free-text requests, and 10% by phone discussion. Of note, only 41% of endoscopists reported to provide post-endoscopy structured and traceable recommendations, i.e. follow-up timing or therapy.

Conclusions We found a disattendance of ESGE performance measures concerning appropriateness of indication to GI endoscopies. Interestingly, most endoscopists would agree to discuss the indications to GI endoscopies with GPs and other prescribers. These results may pave the way to initiatives towards a better integration of gastroenterologists in the decisional phase of endoscopy prescription.



Publication History

Article published online:
27 March 2025

© 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany