Quality performance measures for small capsule endoscopy: Are the ESGE quality standards met?
- PMID: 33532548
- PMCID: PMC7834698
- DOI: 10.1055/a-1319-0742
Quality performance measures for small capsule endoscopy: Are the ESGE quality standards met?
Abstract
Background and study aims The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recently issued a quality performance measures document for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). The aim of this nationwide survey was to explore SBCE practice with ESGE quality measures as a benchmark. Patients and methods A dedicated per-center semi-quantitative questionnaire based on ESGE performance measures for SBCE was created by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-eighty-one centers were invited to participate and were asked to calculate performance measures for SBCE performed in 2018. Data were compared with 10 ESGE quality standards for both key and minor performance measures. Results Ninety-one centers (50.3 %) participated in the data collection. Overall in the last 5 years (2014-2018), 26,615 SBCEs were performed, 5917 of which were done in 2018. Eighty percent or more of the participating centers reached the minimum standard established by the ESGE Small Bowel Working Group (ESBWG) for four performance measures (indications for SBCE, complete small bowel evaluation, diagnostic yield and retention rate). Conversely, compliance with six minimum standards established by ESBWG concerning adequate bowel preparation, patient selection, timing of SBCE in overt bleeding, appropriate reporting, reading protocols and referral to device-assisted enteroscopy was met by only 15.5 %, 10.9 %, 31.1 %, 67.7 %, 53.4 %, and 32.2 % of centers, respectively. Conclusions The present survey shows significant variability across SBCE centers; only four (4/10: 40 %) SBCE procedural minimum standards were met by a relevant proportion of the centers ( ≥ 80 %). Our data should help in identifying target areas for quality improvement programs in SBCE.
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 commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests Dr. Spada is consultant for Medtronic and Norgine and received grant from AlfaSigma, Pentax, Olympus. Dr.Pennazio received speaker’s honoraria from Medtronic and Olympus. Dr. Rondonotti received speaker’s honoraria from Fujifilm.
Figures
References
-
- Sapienza P E, Levine G M, Pomerantz S et al.Impact of a quality assurance program on gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 1992;102:387–393. - PubMed
-
- Yalamarthi S, Witherspoon P, McCole D et al.Missed diagnoses in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers. Endoscopy. 2004;36:874–879. - PubMed
-
- Raftopoulos S C, Segarajasingam D S, Burke V et al.A cohort study of missed and new cancers after esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1292–1297. - PubMed
-
- Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U et al.Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:1175–1184. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Miscellaneous