Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 43(10): 589-597, 2020 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés, Español | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32674879

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In a previous study we demonstrated that a simple training programme improved quality indicators of Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) achieving the recommended benchmarks. However, the long-term effect of this intervention is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of OGDs performed 3 years after of having completed a training programme. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative study of 2 cohorts was designed as follows: Group A included OGDs performed in 2016 promptly after a training programme and Group B with OGDs performed from January to March 2019, this group was also divided into 2 subgroups: subgroup B1 of Endoscopists who had participated in the previous training programme and subgroup B2 of Endoscopists who had not. The intra-procedure quality indicators proposed by ASGE-ACG were used. RESULTS: A total of 1236 OGDs were analysed, 600 from Group A and 636 from Group B (439 subgroup B1 and 197 subgroup B2). The number of complete examinations was lower in Group B (566 [94.3%] vs. 551 [86.6%]; p<0.001). A significant decrease was observed in nearly all quality indicators and they did not reach the recommended benchmarks: retroflexion in the stomach (96% vs. 81%; p<0.001); Seattle biopsy protocol (86% vs. 50%; p=0.03), description of the upper GI bleeding lesion (100% vs. 62%; p<0.01), sufficient intestinal biopsy specimens (at least 4) in suspected coeliac disease (92.5% vs. 18%; p<0.001), photo documentation of the lesion (94% vs. 90%; p<0.05). Regarding the overall assessment of the procedure (including correct performance and adequate photo documentation), a significant decrease was also observed (90.5% vs. 62%; p<0.001). There were no differences between subgroups B1 and B2. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement observed in 2016 after a training programme did not prevail after 3 years. In order to keep the quality of OGDs above the recommended benchmarks, it is necessary to implement continuous training programmes.


Asunto(s)
Benchmarking , Duodenoscopía/normas , Esofagoscopía/normas , Gastroscopía/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Biopsia/normas , Enfermedad Celíaca/patología , Estudios de Cohortes , Duodenoscopía/educación , Duodenoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Esofagoscopía/educación , Esofagoscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/diagnóstico por imagen , Gastroscopía/educación , Gastroscopía/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Intestinos/patología , Fotograbar , Desarrollo de Programa , Estándares de Referencia , Sociedades Médicas , Factores de Tiempo
2.
Gastroenterol. hepatol. (Ed. impr.) ; 43(10): 589-597, dic. 2020. tab, graf
Artículo en Español | IBECS (España) | ID: ibc-197973

RESUMEN

INTRODUCCIÓN: En un estudio previo demostramos que un pequeño programa de formación mejoraba los indicadores de calidad de la esofagogastroduodenoscopia (EGD) que llegaban a los estándares recomendados. Sin embargo, desconocemos el efecto de esta formación a largo plazo. El objetivo de este estudio fue valorar la calidad de las EGD después de 3años de haber realizado un programa de mejora. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio comparativo de 2 cohortes: EGD posteriores a un programa de formación realizado en 2016 (grupo A) y EGD en enero-marzo de 2019 (grupo B). El grupo B se dividió en 2 subgrupos: endoscopistas que habían participado en el programa de formación previo (B1) y los que no (B2). Se utilizaron los indicadores de calidad intraprocedimiento recomendados por la ASGE-ACG. RESULTADOS: Se analizaron un total de 1.236 EGD, 600 en el grupo A y 636 en el B (439 subgrupo B1 y 197 subgrupo B2). El número de exploraciones completas fue inferior en el grupo B (566 [94,3%] vs. 551 [86,6%]; p < 0,001). Se observó una disminución significativa en prácticamente todos los indicadores de calidad que, además, no alcanzaron los estándares recomendados: retroversión gástrica (96% vs. 81%; p < 0,001); protocolo de biopsias de Seattle (86% vs. 50%; p = 0,03), descripción de la lesión en la hemorragia (100% vs. 62%; p < 0,01), toma de ≥4 biopsias en sospecha de celiaquía (92,5% vs. 18%; p < 0,001), fotodocumentación de lesión (94% vs. 90%; p < 0,05). Cuando consideramos el global de la prueba (incluyendo la actuación correcta y la fotodocumentación adecuada), también se observó una disminución significativa (90,5% vs. 62%; p < 0,001). No hubo diferencias entre los subgrupos B1 y B2. CONCLUSIONES: La mejora observada en 2016 tras un programa de formación no perdura a los 3años. Es necesario hacer programas de formación continuados para mantener la calidad de la EGD por encima de los estándares recomendados


INTRODUCTION: In a previous study we demonstrated that a simple training programme improved quality indicators of Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) achieving the recommended benchmarks. However, the long-term effect of this intervention is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of OGDs performed 3 years after of having completed a training programme. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative study of 2 cohorts was designed as follows: Group A included OGDs performed in 2016 promptly after a training programme and Group B with OGDs performed from January to March 2019, this group was also divided into 2 subgroups: subgroup B1 of Endoscopists who had participated in the previous training programme and subgroup B2 of Endoscopists who had not. The intra-procedure quality indicators proposed by ASGE-ACG were used. RESULTS: A total of 1236 OGDs were analysed, 600 from Group A and 636 from Group B (439 subgroup B1 and 197 subgroup B2). The number of complete examinations was lower in Group B (566 [94.3%] vs. 551 [86.6%]; p < 0.001). A significant decrease was observed in nearly all quality indicators and they did not reach the recommended benchmarks: retroflexion in the stomach (96% vs. 81%; p < 0.001); Seattle biopsy protocol (86% vs. 50%; p = 0.03), description of the upper GI bleeding lesion (100% vs. 62%; p < 0.01), sufficient intestinal biopsy specimens (at least 4) in suspected coeliac disease (92.5% vs. 18%; p < 0.001), photo documentation of the lesion (94% vs. 90%; p < 0.05). Regarding the overall assessment of the procedure (including correct performance and adequate photo documentation), a significant decrease was also observed (90.5% vs. 62%; p < 0.001). There were no differences between subgroups B1 and B2. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement observed in 2016 after a training programme did not prevail after 3 years. In order to keep the quality of OGDs above the recommended benchmarks, it is necessary to implement continuous training programmes


Asunto(s)
Humanos , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Endoscopía del Sistema Digestivo/métodos , Endoscopía del Sistema Digestivo/normas , Estudios de Cohortes , Atención al Paciente/normas , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Atención al Paciente/métodos , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Endoscopía/normas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA