Download PDF
Endoscopy 2016; 48(01): 81-89
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1569580
Guideline
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures

Matthew D. Rutter
1   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, UK
2   School of Medicine, Durham University, UK
,
Carlo Senore
3   CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy
,
Raf Bisschops
4   Gastroenterology Department, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Dirk Domagk
5   Department of Medicine I, Josephs-Hospital Warendorf, Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Münster, Warendorf, Germany
,
Roland Valori
6   Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK
,
Michal F. Kaminski
7   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, and Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
8   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
,
Cristiano Spada
9   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
,
Michael Bretthauer
8   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
10   Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
11   K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
,
Cathy Bennett
12   Centre for Technology Enabled Research, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
,
Cristina Bellisario
3   CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy
,
Silvia Minozzi
3   CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy
,
Cesare Hassan
13   Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
Colin Rees
1   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, UK
,
Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
14   Servicio de Gastroenterologia, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Porto, Portugal
,
Tomas Hucl
15   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
,
Thierry Ponchon
16   Department. of Digestive Diseases, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
,
Lars Aabakken
10   Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Paul Fockens
17   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
11 December 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have a vision to create a thriving community of endoscopy services across Europe, collaborating with each other to provide high quality, safe, accurate, patient-centered and accessible endoscopic care. Whilst the boundaries of what can be achieved by advanced endoscopy are continually expanding, we believe that one of the most fundamental steps to achieving our goal is to raise the quality of everyday endoscopy. The development of robust, consensus- and evidence-based key performance measures is the first step in this vision.

ESGE and UEG have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority. This paper explains the rationale behind the ESGE Quality Improvement Initiative and describes the processes that were followed. We recommend that all units develop mechanisms for audit and feedback of endoscopist and service performance using the ESGE performance measures that will be published in future issues of this journal over the next year. We urge all endoscopists and endoscopy services to prioritize quality and to ensure that these performance measures are implemented and monitored at a local level, so that we can provide the highest possible care for our patients.

 

  • References

  • 1 Rutter MD, Rees CJ. Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 526-528
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rajasekhar P, Rutter M, Bramble M et al. Achieving high quality colonoscopy: Using graphical representation to measure performance and reset standards. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14: 1538-1545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Baillie J, Testoni PA. Are we meeting the standards set for ERCP?. Gut 2007; 56: 744-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cotton PB. Are low-volume ERCPists a problem in the United States? A plea to examine and improve ERCP practice – NOW. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 161-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P et al. Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 793-801
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P et al. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 2007; 56: 821-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pabby A, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL et al. Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary Polyp Prevention Trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 385-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 41-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2191-2200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005; 365: 305-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Miller RE, Lehman G. Polypoid colonic lesions undetected by endoscopy. Radiology 1978; 129: 295-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pickhardt PJ, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA et al. Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 352-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533-2541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chen SC, Rex DK. Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 856-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy – results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA et al. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality after colonoscopy varies by site of the cancer. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1128-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V et al. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 89-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2664-2669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lakoff J, Paszat LF, Saskin R et al. Risk of developing proximal versus distal colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: a population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1117-1121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA et al. Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2588-2596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM et al. Does a negative screening colonoscopy ever need to be repeated?. Gut 2006; 55: 1145-1150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM et al. Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Valori RM, Morris JE, Thomas JD et al. Tu1485 Rates of post colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) are significantly affected by methodology, but are nevertheless declining in the English NHS [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: AB451 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.931.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yalamarthi S, Witherspoon P, McCole D et al. Missed diagnoses in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 874-879
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Raftopoulos SC, Segarajasingam DS, Burke V et al. A cohort study of missed and new cancers after esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1292-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cohen J, Safdi MA, Deal SE et al. Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 886-891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Faigel DO, Pike IM, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 866-872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Park WG, Cohen J. Quality measurement and improvement in upper endoscopy. Techniques Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 14: 13-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 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, 1184.e1 – e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 892-897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J et al. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 80-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Consortium. TANS. Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II. AGREE II Instrument. 2009: 1-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008; 337: a744 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a744.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: i-iv, 1 – 88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ 1997; 315: 243-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 O’Connor D, Green S, Higgins JP. Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123: A12-A13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell DJ et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm Accessed: 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC. Resources for review authors. Oslo.: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors Accessed: 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ 2008; 336: 995-998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 GRADE Working Group. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ Accessed 2015
    PubMed
  • 50 ISFU system; National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC). http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov
    PubMed
  • 51 ISFU criteria; National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC). http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov
    PubMed
  • 52 Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2117-2127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar