Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Aug;79(934):467-70.
doi: 10.1136/pmj.79.934.467.

Objective evaluation of ERCP procedures: a simple grading scale for evaluating technical difficulty

K Ragunath  1 , L A Thomas, W Y Cheung, P D Duane, D G Richards
Affiliations

Objective evaluation of ERCP procedures: a simple grading scale for evaluating technical difficulty

K Ragunath et al. Postgrad Med J. 2003 Aug.

Abstract

Background: and objective: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technically demanding endoscopic procedure that varies from a simple diagnostic to a highly complex therapeutic procedure. Simple outcome measures such as success and complication rates do not reflect the competence of the operator or endoscopy unit, as case mix is not taken into account. A grading scale to assess the technical difficulty of ERCP can improve the objectivity of outcome data.

Methods: A I to IV technical difficulty grading scale was constructed and applied prospectively to all ERCPs over a 12 month period at a single centre. The procedures were performed by two senior trainees and two experienced consultants (trainers). The grading scale was validated for construct validity and inter-rater reliability at the end of the study using the chi(2) test and kappa statistics.

Results: There were 305 ERCPs in 259 patients over the 12 months study period (males: 112, females: 147, age range 17-97, mean 70.3 years). There was overall success in 244 (80%) procedures with complications in 13 (4%): bleeding in five (1.6%), cholangitis in one (0.3%), pancreatitis in five (1.6%), and perforation in two (0.7%). Success rate was highest for grade I, 49/55 (89%), compared with grade IV procedures, 8/11 (73%). There was a significant linear trend towards a lower success rate from grade I to IV (p=0.021) for trainees, but not for trainers. Complications were low in grade I, II, and III procedures, 12/295(4%), compared with grade IV procedures, 1/11(9%). The inter-rater reliability for the grading scale was good with a substantial agreement between the raters (kappa=0.68, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Success and complications of ERCP by trainees are influenced by the technical difficulty of the procedure. Outcome data incorporating a grading scale can give accurate information when auditing the qualitative outcomes. This can provide a platform for structured objective evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996 Feb;8(2):145-8 - PubMed
    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 May;51(5):535-9 - PubMed
    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999 Nov;50(5):628-36 - PubMed
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1998 Sep;80(5):326-31 - PubMed
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Dec 15;125(12):983-9 - PubMed

Publication types