Endoscopic scoring system utilization for inflammatory bowel disease activity assessment: A multicenter real-world study from Argentina.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and patterns of use of scores for the assessment of endoscopic activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients are not known. AIM: To describe the prevalence of adequate use of endoscopic scores in IBD patients who underwent colonoscopy in a real-life setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter observational study comprising six community hospitals in Argentina was undertaken. Patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who underwent colonoscopy for endoscopic activity assessment between 2018 and 2022 were included. Colonoscopy reports of included subjects were manually reviewed to determine the proportion of colonoscopies that included an endoscopic score report. We determined the proportion of colonoscopy reports that included all of the IBD colonoscopy report quality elements proposed by BRIDGe group. Endoscopist's specialty, years of experience as well as expertise in IBD were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1556 patients were included for analysis (31.94% patients with Crohn's disease). Mean age was 45.94±15.46. Endoscopic score reporting was found in 58.41% of colonoscopies. Most frequently used scores were Mayo endoscopic score (90.56%) and SES-CD (56.03%) for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, respectively. In addition, 79.11% of endoscopic reports failed to comply with all recommendations on endoscopic reporting for inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of endoscopic reports of inflammatory bowel disease patients do not include the description of an endoscopic score to assess mucosal inflammatory activity in a real-world setting. This is also associated with a lack of compliance in recommended criteria for proper endoscopic reporting.

Impact of an Educational Mobile App on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Colonoscopy Report Quality.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate endoscopic assessment of disease activity might lead to suboptimal treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). AIMS: We aimed to determine if the implementation of an educational mobile app could help improving the quality of colonoscopy reports in patients with IBD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of colonoscopy reports in patients with IBD during the period 2016-2023. The sample was divided into two groups: before and after the implementation of an educational mobile app (JEDII app ™). The main outcome was the inclusion of validated activity assessment scoring systems and previously stablished reporting required elements. RESULTS: A total of 883 IBD colonoscopy reports were included for analysis; 621 (70.3%) procedures were performed before the implementation of the app and 262 (29.7%) after. An IBD scoring system was included in 201 (32.4%) and 148 (56.5%) colonoscopy reports before and after the adoption of the mobile app, respectively (p < 0.001). The mean number of recommended elements for quality IBD colonoscopy reporting was significantly increased after the app implementation (4.3 vs. 1.9, p < 0.001). Diagnosis of ulcerative colitis, gastroenterologist as endoscopist, endoscopist with IBD clinical interest, and the implementation of the educational mobile app were independently associated with the inclusion of an IBD score in the colonoscopy report. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of scoring systems and recommended elements for quality IBD colonoscopy report significantly increased after the implementation of an educational mobile app. E-health technologies should be further explored to improve quality of care in patients with IBD.