Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified. DISCUSSION: The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of quality indicators has become increasingly recognized in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patient safety requires the identification and monitoring of occurrences associated with harm or the potential for harm. The identification of relevant indicators of safety compromise is, therefore, a critical element that is key to the effective implementation of endoscopy quality improvement programs. OBJECTIVE: To identify key indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group was formed to address issues of quality in endoscopy. A subcommittee was formed to identify key safety indicators. A systematic literature review was undertaken, and articles pertinent to safety in endoscopy were identified and reviewed. All complications and measures used to document safety were recorded. From this, a preliminary list of 16 indicators was compiled and presented to the 35-person consensus group during a three-day meeting. A revised list of 20 items was subsequently put to the consensus group for vote for inclusion on the final list of safety indicators. Items were retained only if the consensus group highly agreed on their importance. RESULTS: A total of 19 indicators of safety compromise were retained and grouped into the three following categories: medication-related - the need for CPR, use of reversal agents, hypoxia, hypotension, hypertension, sedation doses in patients older than 70 years of age, allergic reactions and laryngospasm/bronchospasm; procedure-related early - perforation, immediate postpolypectomy bleeding, need for hospital admission or transfer to emergency department from the gastroenterology unit, instrument impaction, severe persistent abdominal pain requiring evaluation proven to not be perforation; and procedure-related delayed - death within 30 days of procedure, 14-day unplanned hospitalization, 14-day unplanned contact with a health provider, gastrointestinal bleeding within 14 days of procedure, infection or symptomatic metabolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The 19 indicators of safety compromise in endoscopy, identified by a rigorous, evidence-based consensus process, provide clear outcomes to be recorded by all facilities as part of their continuing quality improvement programs.

Point-of-care, peer-comparator colonoscopy practice audit: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Quality Program--Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care practice audits allow documentation of procedural outcomes to support quality improvement in endoscopic practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a colonoscopists' practice audit tool that provides point-of-care data collection and peer-comparator feedback. METHODS: A prospective, observational colonoscopy practice audit was conducted in academic and community endoscopy units for unselected patients undergoing colonoscopy. Anonymized colonoscopist, patient and practice data were collected using touchscreen smartphones with automated data upload for data analysis and review by participants. The main outcome measures were the following colonoscopy quality indicators: colonoscope insertion and withdrawal times, bowel preparation quality, sedation, immediate complications and polypectomy, and biopsy rates. RESULTS: Over a span of 16 months, 62 endoscopists reported on 1279 colonoscopy procedures. The mean cecal intubation rate was 94.9% (10th centile 84.2%). The mean withdrawal time was 8.8 min and, for nonpolypectomy colonoscopies, 41.9% of colonoscopists reported a mean withdrawal time of less than 6 min. Polypectomy was performed in 37% of colonoscopies. Independent predictors of polypectomy included the following: endoscopy unit type, patient age, interval since previous colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, stable inflammatory bowel disease, previous colon polyps and withdrawal time. Withdrawal times of less than 6 min were associated with lower polyp removal rates (mean difference -11.3% [95% CI -2.8% to -19.9%]; P=0.01). DISCUSSION: Cecal intubation rates exceeded 90% and polypectomy rates exceeded 30%, but withdrawal times were frequently shorter than recommended. There are marked practice variations consistent with previous observations. CONCLUSION: Real-time, point-of-care practice audits with prompt, confidential access to outcome data provide a basis for targeted educational programs to improve quality in colonoscopy practice.

Practice Audit in Gastroenterology (PAGE) program: a novel approach to continuing professional development.

BACKGROUND: Practice audit is an important component of continuing professional development that may more readily be undertaken if it were less complex. This qualitative study assessed the use of personal digital assistants to facilitate data collection and review. METHODS: Personal digital assistants programmed with standard questionnaires related to upper gastrointestinal endoscopies (Practice Audit in Gastroenterology-Endoscopy ['PAGE-Endo']) and colonoscopies (PAGE-Colonoscopy ['PAGE-Colo']) were provided to Canadian gastroenterologists, surgeons and internists. Over a three-week audit period, participants recorded indications, and the expected (E) and reported (R) findings for each procedure. Thereafter, participants recorded compliance with reporting, the ease of use and value of the PAGE program, and their willingness to perform another audit. RESULTS: Over 15 to 18 months, 173 participants completed PAGE-Endo (6168 procedures) and 111 completed PAGE-Colo (4776 procedures). Most respondents noted that PAGE was easy to use (99%), beneficial (88% to 95%), and that they were willing undertake another audit (92% to 95%). In PAGE-Endo, alarm features were prevalent (55%), but major reported findings were less common than expected: esophagitis (E 29.9%, R 14.8%), esophageal stricture (E 8.3%, R 3.6%), gastric ulcer (E 17.0%, R 4.7%), gastric cancer (E 4.3%, R 1.0%) and duodenal ulcer (E 11.5%, R 5.7%). In PAGE-Colo, more colonoscopies were performed for symptom investigation (55%) than for screening (25%) or surveillance (20%). There were marked interprovincial variations with respect to sedation, biopsies and technical aspects of colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Secure, real-time data entry with review of aggregate and individual data in the PAGE program provided an acceptable, straightforward methodology for accredited practice audit activities. PAGE has considerable potential for continuing professional development in gastroenterology and other specialties.

Canadian Consensus Conference on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in adults - update 2004.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most prevalent acid-related disorder in Canada and is associated with significant impairment of health-related quality of life. Since the last Canadian Consensus Conference in 1996, GERD management has evolved substantially. OBJECTIVE: To develop up-to-date evidence-based recommendations relevant to the needs of Canadian health care providers for the management of the esophageal manifestations of GERD. CONSENSUS PROCESS: A multidisciplinary group of 23 voting participants developed recommendation statements using a Delphi approach; after presentation of relevant data at the meeting, the quality of the evidence, strength of recommendation and level of consensus were graded by participants according to accepted principles. OUTCOMES: GERD applies to individuals who reflux gastric contents into the esophagus causing symptoms sufficient to reduce quality of life, injury or both; endoscopy-negative reflux disease applies to individuals who have GERD and a normal endoscopy. Uninvestigated heartburn-dominant dyspepsia - characterised by heartburn or acid regurgitation - includes erosive esophagitis or endoscopy-negative reflux disease, and may be treated empirically as GERD without further investigation provided there are no alarm features. Lifestyle modifications are ineffective for frequent or severe GERD symptoms; over-the-counter antacids or histamine H2-receptor antagonists are effective for some patients with mild or infrequent GERD symptoms. Proton pump inhibitors are more effective for healing and symptom relief than histamine H2-receptor antagonists; their efficacy is proportional to their ability to reduce intragastric acidity. Response to initial therapy - a once-daily proton pump inhibitor unless symptoms are mild and infrequent (fewer than three times per week) - should be assessed at four to eight weeks. Maintenance medical therapy should be at the lowest dose and frequency necessary to maintain symptom relief; antireflux surgery is an alternative for a small proportion of selected patients. Routine testing for Helicobacter pylori infection is unnecessary before starting GERD therapy. GERD is associated with Barrett's epithelium and esophageal adenocarcinoma but the risk of malignancy is very low. Endoscopic screening for Barrett's epithelium may be considered in adults with GERD symptoms for more than 10 years; Barrett's epithelium and low-grade dysplasia generally warrant surveillance; endoscopic or surgical management should be considered for confirmed high-grade dysplasia or malignancy. CONCLUSION: Prospective studies are needed to investigate clinically relevant risk factors for the development of GERD and its complications; GERD progression, on and off therapy; optimal management strategies for typical GERD symptoms in primary care patients; and optimal management strategies for atypical GERD symptoms, Barrett's epithelium and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The endoscopy Global Rating Scale-Canada: development and implementation of a quality improvement tool.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality highlight the need for endoscopy facilities to review the quality of the service they offer. OBJECTIVE: To adapt the United Kingdom Global Rating Scale (UK-GRS) to develop a web-based and patient-centred tool to assess and improve the quality of endoscopy services provided. METHODS: Based on feedback from 22 sites across Canada that completed the UK endoscopy GRS, and integrating results of the Canadian consensus on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy and other Canadian consensus reports, a working group of endoscopists experienced with the GRS developed the GRS-Canada (GRS-C). RESULTS: The GRS-C mirrors the two dimensions (clinical quality and quality of the patient experience) and 12 patient-centred items of the UK-GRS, but was modified to apply to Canadian health care infrastructure, language and current practice. Each item is assessed by a yes/no response to eight to 12 statements that are divided into levels graded D (basic) through A (advanced). A core team consisting of a booking clerk, charge nurse and the physician responsible for the unit is recommended to complete the GRS-C twice yearly. CONCLUSION: The GRS-C is intended to improve endoscopic services in Canada by providing endoscopy units with a straightforward process to review the quality of the service they provide.