Development of a Preliminary Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Adults With Achalasia: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions that enhance patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask questions during consultations. AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary achalasia-specific QPL created by esophageal experts. METHODS: The QPL content was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of achalasia" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Questions considered "essential" or "important" were accepted into the QPL. Feedback regarding the QPL was obtained in a pilot study wherein patients received the QPL before their consultation and completed surveys afterwards. RESULTS: Nineteen esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Of 148 questions from round 1, 124 (83.8%) were accepted into the QPL. These were further reduced to 56 questions to minimize redundancy. Questions were categorized into 6 themes: "What is achalasia," "Risks with achalasia," "Symptom management in achalasia," "Treatment of achalasia," "Risk of reflux after treatment," and "Follow-up after treatment." Nineteen patients participated in the pilot, most of whom agreed that the QPL was helpful (84.2%) and recommended its wider use (84.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first QPL developed specifically for adults with achalasia. Although well-received in a small pilot, follow-up studies will incorporate additional patient feedback to further refine the QPL content and assess its usability, acceptability, and feasibility.

Development of a Preliminary Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Adults With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended for patient use, encouraging patients to ask questions to facilitate their consultation with their physician. AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a QPL specific to adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), created by esophageal experts. METHODS: The QPL content (78 questions) was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, 18 esophageal experts provided 5 answers to the prompt "What you wish your patients would ask" and "What questions do patients often not ask, that I wish they would ask?" In round 2, the experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as "essential" or "important," determined by an a priori threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for the QPL. RESULTS: Twelve esophageal experts participated. Of 143 questions from round 1, 110 (76.9%) were accepted for inclusion in the QPL, meeting a median value of ≥4.0, and, subsequently, it reduced to 78, minimizing redundancy. Median values ranged between 4.0 and 5.0, with the highest agreement median (5.0) for questions asking dosing and timing of proton pump inhibitor therapy, and surveillance in Barrett's. Questions were categorized into the following categories: "What does this illness mean," "lifestyle modifications," "general treatment," "treatment with proton pump inhibitors," "What I should expect for my future," and "Barrett's." The largest number of questions covered lifestyle modifications (21.8%), with the highest agreement median (5.0) for "How helpful are lifestyle modifications in GERD?" CONCLUSIONS: A preliminary GERD-specific QPL, the first of its kind, was developed by esophageal experts. Modification after more patient consultation and feedback is planned in subsequent versions to create a GERD-QPL for eventual use in clinical gastroenterology.

Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Esophageal manometry is the standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. Variations in the performance and interpretation of esophageal manometry result in discrepant diagnoses and unnecessary repeated procedures, and could have negative effects on patient outcomes. We need a method to benchmark the procedural quality of esophageal manometry; as such, our objective was to formally develop quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry. METHODS: We used the RAND University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) to develop validated quality measures for performing and interpreting esophageal manometry. The research team identified potential quality measures through a literature search and interviews with experts. Fourteen experts in esophageal manometry ranked the proposed quality measures for appropriateness via a 2-round process on the basis of RAM. RESULTS: The experts considered a total of 29 measures; 17 were ranked as appropriate and were as follows: related to competency (2), assessment before the esophageal manometry procedure (2), the esophageal manometry procedure itself (3), and interpretation of data (10). The data interpretation measures were integrated into a single composite measure. Eight measures therefore were found to be appropriate quality measures for esophageal manometry . Five other factors also were endorsed by the experts, although these were not ranked as appropriate quality measures. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 8 formally validated quality measures for the performance and interpretation of data from esophageal manometry on the basis of RAM. These measures represent key aspects of a high-quality esophageal manometry study and should be adopted uniformly. These measures should be evaluated in clinical practice to determine how they affect patient outcomes.

Resect and discard approach to colon polyps: real-world applicability among academic and community gastroenterologists.

BACKGROUND: "Resect and discard" (RD) is a new paradigm for management of diminutive polyps. AIM: To compare concordance of surveillance interval recommendations and diagnostic performance between RD and standard of care in a hospital outpatient department with both academic and community gastroenterologists. METHODS: Prospective, observational study conducted at a single outpatient endoscopy center over 12 months. Patients with diminutive polyps on screening or surveillance colonoscopy were included. Histology predictions for all diminutive polyps (≤5 mm) were made based on endoscopic imaging. Concordance of recommended surveillance intervals and diagnostic performance of histology predictions were compared to histopathological review. RESULTS: A total of 606 diminutive polyps were found in 315 patients (mean age 62.4 years, 49 % female). Histological prediction was made in 95.7 % of polyps (97.4 % of patients), with high confidence in 74.3 %. The concordance for surveillance intervals was 82.1 % compared to histopathological review and was similar between community and academic gastroenterologists (80.2 vs. 76.3 %, p = 0.38). Overall, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of histological predictions made with high confidence were 0.81, 0.36, and 77.1 %. Predictions made with narrow-band imaging (NBI) had lower accuracy (73.9 % with NBI vs. 82.5 % with high-definition white light (HWDL) only, p = 0.017) as well as lower prediction confidence (score of 7.6 with NBI vs. 8.6 with HDWL only, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our surveillance interval concordance was below the 90 % threshold deemed acceptable by the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations statement. Diagnostic performance using optical imaging to predict histology was equal between community and academic endoscopists.