Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lisboa-Gonçalves,Pedro
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Libânio,Diogo, Marques-Antunes,Joana, Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário, Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452019000100005
Resumo: Background and Aim: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. Methods: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. Results: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The highquality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). Conclusions: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.
id RCAP_019a9717b698b9e74b86b23eb0285e74
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2341-45452019000100005
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit InterventionEsophagogastroduodenoscopyQuality auditSoftware registrationPerformance measureBackground and Aim: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. Methods: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. Results: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The highquality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). Conclusions: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia2019-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452019000100005GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.26 n.1 2019reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452019000100005Lisboa-Gonçalves,PedroLibânio,DiogoMarques-Antunes,JoanaDinis-Ribeiro,MárioPimentel-Nunes,Pedroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:33:55Zoai:scielo:S2341-45452019000100005Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:36:06.021566Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
title Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
spellingShingle Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
Lisboa-Gonçalves,Pedro
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Quality audit
Software registration
Performance measure
title_short Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
title_full Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
title_fullStr Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
title_full_unstemmed Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
title_sort Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention
author Lisboa-Gonçalves,Pedro
author_facet Lisboa-Gonçalves,Pedro
Libânio,Diogo
Marques-Antunes,Joana
Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário
Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro
author_role author
author2 Libânio,Diogo
Marques-Antunes,Joana
Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário
Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Lisboa-Gonçalves,Pedro
Libânio,Diogo
Marques-Antunes,Joana
Dinis-Ribeiro,Mário
Pimentel-Nunes,Pedro
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Quality audit
Software registration
Performance measure
topic Esophagogastroduodenoscopy
Quality audit
Software registration
Performance measure
description Background and Aim: In contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality. Methods: This was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists. Results: Before the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%, p = 0.001), correct lesion description (88.1 vs. 95.8%, p = 0.001), and correct segment description (92.2 vs. 96.4%, p = 0.020) improved significantly. The rate of unjustified incomplete endoscopies decreased significantly (51.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.010). The highquality endoscopy rate improved 13.9% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Both specialists and residents improved with the audit intervention with a similar percentage of improvement in the high-quality endoscopy rate (13.9 vs. 13.4%). Conclusions: A simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-02-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452019000100005
url http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452019000100005
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452019000100005
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.26 n.1 2019
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799137413558173696